Neoslavery

A friend sent me these links regarding a very disturbing story about neoslavery in America. Douglas A. Blackmon wrote a book titled Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black People in America from the Civil War to World War II that documents an era of horrible injustice in the South, here in the land of the free:

Under laws enacted specifically to intimidate blacks, tens of thousands of African Americans were arbitrarily arrested, hit with outrageous fines, and charged for the costs of their own arrests. With no means to pay these ostensible “debts,” prisoners were sold as forced laborers to coal mines, lumber camps, brickyards, railroads, quarries and farm plantations. Thousands of other African Americans were simply seized by southern landowners and compelled into years of involuntary servitude. Government officials leased falsely imprisoned blacks to small-town entrepreneurs, provincial farmers, and dozens of corporations — including U.S. Steel Corp. — looking for cheap and abundant labor. Armies of “free” black men labored without compensation, were repeatedly bought and sold, and were forced through beatings and physical torture to do the bidding of white masters for decades after the official abolition of American slavery.

You can hear the author interviewed on NPR and the book’s website has a blog as well. Spurgeon once wrote, “Every time I see a man kick a horse, I want to kick him.” How much more when you see men abuse power to oppress an entire race of men, stripping them of their freedom and their dignity, for no other reasons than greed and hate. Indeed, every time I see a man oppress another man, I want to go Billy Jack on him.

Don’t miss the Photo Gallery; it’ll make you sick. And I’ll bet that Wilson and Wilkins are just twisted enough to gloat that maybe the slaves had it better on the plantation.



Thank you.

“LaP Opposes FV”

HaigLaw dropped us a note about this important post titled “LaP Opposes FV”; Dave’s a great guy.

Thank you.

DUMB & Tan: Excursus

Yesterday I quoted from the comments thread to Dr. Clark’s excellent post “(Reformed) Christianity and (Quasi-Reformed) Revisionism”; today I want to republish another subthread from the thread that got lost in cyberspace, where a woman named Robin took on the Fearless Leader’s doubtful moral qualifications to hold the office of pastor after his little Southern Slavery scandal during the years 2003–2004.

You will recall that in October 2003 the Palouse discovered via a front-page headline that Douglas Wilson co-wrote (plagiarized) a booklet that defended the antebellum South’s peculiar institution as a biblical practice. This ridiculous proposition led to even more ridiculous propositions that completely turned history on its head and created a fantasyland fiction where the poor Southern masters were noble men who treated their property (i.e. “slaves,” or human beings) well and who history has slandered because of the vast Unitarian conspiracy of abolitionists who hated the Word of God and beat the drums of war to persecute the God-fearing South. (Please note: this is not a distortion, a misrepresentation, or a fabrication; you have to read the book to believe it. My favorite part is where Wilson and Wilkins allege that the Southern masters treated their slaves so well that they actually devised a profit-sharing plan.)

Needless to say that in an academic environment where two state universities are situated less than seven miles apart the Fearless Leader’s thesis did not go unnoticed. Let’s just say that after living unchallenged and unaccountable in the land of DUMB (Doug’s Universe of Make Believe) for roughly a decade, he came face to face with some pretty bright lights who had issues with his preposterous worldview (more on that below).

Here is the subthread in entirety (there’s a reference in here about “Dad Rod” that I cannot decipher; [UPDATE: “Dad Rod” refers to Rod Rosenblatt, co-host of the White Horse Inn radio program]):

Don’t both FV and “traditional” views believe that faithfulness is required in “some sense” for final justification (maybe works is the evidences of the Holy Spirit). And a like wise, doesn’t FV believe that baptism unit us to Christ in “some sense,” but not in the sense that guarantees salvation (baptismal regeneration). The impression I get is that FV wants to be pastoral (maybe biblical like Paul??) in the way they talk, that is, they want to say someone, who is baptized is a Christian, without qualifying it and saying you have to persevere in faith . . . etc., or your not a Christian. — Dan

Predictably, FV creates their own meanings of words. The clear, Biblical distinctions have been put in the “Grace-o-matic” blender along with man’s ideas: whirrrrrrr and viola! a tasty, synergistic-smoothie!

Dad Rod’s confrontation is useful here “If you died in the arms of a prostitute, would you go to heaven?”

I would love to hear Mr. Wilson’s answer to that one.

January 3, 2007 | Robin

Dan and anyone transversing FV waters,

Prudence dictates that we also consider Mr. Wilson’s character (as far as is known firsthand.) Please review carefully the comments and reasons for them from Letters to the Editor, and decide for yourselves. Red flags flailed all over the place when I saw this.

“. . . must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.” (1 Tim. 3:7)

January 3, 2007 | Robin

Robin, two things. First, that slavery business up here involved the importation of so much slander that they had to bring it on six eighteen wheelers from out of state. A good reputation with outsiders is a qualification for office that has to be consistent with being a “glutton and a wine bibber.”

And second, with regard to your question about the prostitute, it would depend on who it was having the heart attack at that inopportune moment — Samson? Judah? Lecherous Larry? In short, if the person was elect and therefore regenerate, they would go straight to Glory, with (I trust) a suitably abashed countenance [sic]. If they were not regenerate, they would go to their judgment.

January 3, 2007 | Douglas Wilson

I’m not taking sides on Wilson’s race scandal thing . . . yet. It just begs questions of WHY/HOW a Christian pastor would ever be in such a predicament, in the first place? If Christ’s ministers were called to educate pagan culture about the “niceties” of slavery, Paul would have given precedent.

I saw the video of Moscow’s townhall meeting. Locals expressed fears of being taken over by Christ Church. The conflict appeared to be about power — having nothing to do with Christ. What is THAT about? What is ANY Christian pastor doing in such a place? The apostles suffered for preaching the cross while living quiet lives in culture. (Dave, give us a break, OK?)

FV guys, please, with due respect, don’t pull a Rick Warren and misapply your “persecutions” with Christ or his apostles. Some of us do know our Bibles. Where is Walter Martin when you need him? I’m certain he’d be updating his magnum opus.

January 3, 2007 | Robin

And Robin, when unbelievers come after you for the sake of the cross, do you think that they will SAY that this is why? Christ was attacked for being a carouser, not for being the Messiah. He was attacked for teaching His disciples that they could dispense with the hand washing, not for the gospel proper. Paul was attacked for being wishy washy about travel plans, for not having an imposing presence in his personal appearances, for teaching that we ought to sin a lot to get more grace, and so on. On another occasion, the believers were attacked for saying that there was another king besides Caesar. In other words, when the cross starts getting to the kingdom of the father of lies, his counter-attack is unlikely to be composed of the whole truth about the “real issue.”

The church here in Moscow has a long way to go, and we have a lot to learn. But we have received the grace of being disgraced; we have obtained the honor of being dishonored; we have received the great compliment of being significant enough to lie about.

January 3, 2007 | Douglas Wilson

Wilson,

And you have the humility to behave like a martyr. . .

January 3, 2007 | KBennett

Mr. Wilson — you may not understand this, but I have no need to compete with you. The summary of your communications on this blog continue to reveal the true nature of your arrogance against Holy Scripture and Jesus Christ. It is surprising to view the lack of Scriptural skill especially when you assert such easy to refute (blasphemous) ideas like our Lord’s condemnation was due to being a “carouser.”

“Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death.” (Mark 14:6–64)

I love the part where Jesus not only affirms their question but ups the ante by leaving no doubt whatsoever with the reference to Daniel. I took the trouble to post if only to reassure those like Dan (& lurkers) who are still trying to make sense of it all. My heart is with them as I trust the Bishop of Souls for their welfare.

How dare you, Sir, even hint at sharing the same persecution of Jesus Christ? Real pastors are servants. You have no humility. I am horrified to imagine your destiny and gripped with the fear of God. The sweetness of Jesus is not detached from his valour in defending his name and honor.

“Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 5)

You might counter with you DO believe. Yet the “Jesus” you embrace seems to be wholly other. You need to be afraid, Doug Wilson. (Not because I say so.) There is no fear of God in you. Meanwhile, recall the purpose of this blog is NOT to fuss with you. You’re not important. The time for honoring yourself will soon be over. The bones are rattling even today. (Ez. 36) Resources like this blog are a sign the Kingdom is marching forth via the proclamation of the Gospel.

I pray God will grant you grace unto repentance before it’s too late.

January 4, 2007 | Robin

And Robin,

I shouldn’t need to say this, really, but I was not accusing Jesus of being a carouser. I was saying that His enemies threw whatever rocks they could, and one of them was the accusation that our Lord was a glutton and a drunkard, to be distinguished from John the Baptist, who was accused of having a demon. I was saying this to refute your notion that enemies of the gospel should be trusted by any of us in determining whether a minister is suffering “for the gospel” or not.

January 4, 2007 | Douglas Wilson

This thread requires some brief analysis: Notice how Robin offered documented evidence to support her charge that Wilson did not have a good reputation with the community. She cited one of thousands of letters to the editor that citizens wrote expressing their horror that anyone could hold Wilson’s position, let alone a minister of the gospel.

The Fearless Leader countered, however, stating, “that slavery business up here involved the importation of so much slander that they had to bring it on six eighteen wheelers from out of state.” Notice that, unlike Robin, he offered no evidence to prove his falsehood. He offered no evidence because there is no evidence. No one trucked anything anywhere. Wilson wrote a book that defended the capital offense of manstealing, which incidentally required slave traders to export their cargo (i.e. human beings) via slave vessels that were a tad bit more uncomfortable than a Mack Truck — eighteen wheels or six — and Wilson slandered the Holy God of the Bible in the process.

Robin retorted by citing yet more proof: she saw the video of Wilson’s “This Is ‘My Town’ Hall Meeting” and she made the distinction between a true Christian suffering for the cross and a land-grabbing minister getting exposed for his geo-political ambitions. Wilson immediately blurred the distinction between his empire building and the kingdom of Satan and referred to the “real issue,” scare quotes and all. And notice the “real issue”:

The church here in Moscow has a long way to go, and we have a lot to learn. But we have received the grace of being disgraced; we have obtained the honor of being dishonored; we have received the great compliment of being significant enough to lie about.

This statement constitutes an even greater fantasy than the original fantasy — Southern Slavery As It Was — which triggered the scandal. Wilson disgraced himself when he revised history to fit his perverted vision of nobility. Wilson dishonored the Scriptures when he defended slavery as biblical. And Wilson repeatedly lied about God when he kept this issue on the front page of the paper for over four months, insisting that he was doing the work of the gospel.

As I’ve already noted, the fallout from the story continues to this day. Wilson utterly and completely scandalized the community with his reprehensible revision of history and his equally reprehensible behavior. Here is a documented bullet list that shows just some of the damage that Wilson did to the gospel during those four months:

• Douglas Wilson and Christ Church refused to acknowledge the book’s thesis, insisting that he wrote a book condemning the Civil War as a means of abolition.


• Christ Church ran a PR blitz in all of the local papers (including the college papers) to deny that Southern Slavery, As It Was, defended slavery. The same ads contended that the book condemned the Civil War as a means of abolition.


• The presidents of the University of Idaho and Washington State University published open letters repudiating Christ Church’s revision of history.


• Over 1000 people signed a public rebuke to Douglas Wilson for his revision of history and published the rebuke in two full-page ads in two local papers.


• The Southern Poverty Law Center identified Steve Wilkins’ League of the South as a “hate group.”


• Christ Church sponsored a website called “Hatesplotch,” which Wilson used to insult, offend, and harass his detractors in the community.


• The website “dougsplotch” went up, in response to Hatesplotch, to tell the story of Wilson’s casino woes.


• Two historians from the University of Idaho published an angry response to the booklet, which they titled Southern Slavery As It Wasn’t: Professional Historians Respond to Neo-Confederate Misinformation. The University of Idaho freely distributed hard copies of the response and made the pdf available on their website.


• Wilson wrote a letter to the interim presidents of the University of Idaho threatening the university with a defamation suit.


• Wilson wrote a letter to the governor of the State of Idaho, asking the governor to make the University of Idaho stop harassing him.


• Wilson went ballistic on the Moscow–Pullman Daily News, demanding that they apologize for misrepresenting his “history conference.”


• Douglas Wilson was a regular contributor to the local electronic bulletin board, but after this scandal broke he contradicted himself so much that he could no longer post without getting blistered from any number of people. So he ceased posting using his own name.


• Douglas Wilson returned to the listserv under the guise of multiple pseudonyms, mostly to defend his reputation. He presently uses the pseudonym “Glenn Schwaller” (someone needs to do a website telling this story; they should call it “The Edna Files”).


• Hundreds of citizens protested Christ Church’s three-day “history conference,” which was the original pretext for the story.


• About a year later, the community discovered that Wilson and Wilkins plagiarized most of the booklet from a book titled Time on the Cross, and that they completely misrepresented the authors’ conclusions from that book.


• About 75 academics from the Palouse signed a petition publicly rebuking Wilson for committing plagiarism.


• WORLD Magazine ran the plagiarism story, which sent Wilson over the edge.


• Douglas Wilson alienated himself from the community so badly that two attempted land deals for Christ Church collapsed because the sellers wanted nothing to do with the man, which forced Christ Church to retain a proxy to purchase land on their behalf in a recent real-estate transaction.

In short, Douglas Wilson — the Great Protector of all that is unholy — ruined completely his reputation; endeavored with all his might to ruin the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; and he managed to do this without the help of a single eighteen wheeler.

Thank you.

LAP Hardens

Our friend HaigLaw has posted a few observations about LAP’s meeting today; he calls it “LaP hardens” and as a member of the presbytery, he’s as close a witness to the source as you’ll find. Check it out, it’s a good post.

The Scarlet Letter

I want to take a moment from my busy anonymous-attack-blogging schedule to arbitrate a dispute between Dr. Gary Johnson, pastor of Church of the Redeemer, and Mr. Douglas Wilson, pastor of the Christ Church Cult.

The dispute began two nights ago in the combox at Green Bagginses after the Fearless Leader described the scholarship of Drs. Clark & Waters as “slipshod,” at least as it applied to their criticisms of his work. Of course, challenging the competence of those who disagree with him is the automatic default tactic for Beelzeblog. It’s instinctual for him because as God’s appointed authority on pretty much everything in the universe, he can recognize “slipshod” work from afar. It’s one of his gifts and one of the reasons he doesn’t need formal training. Or ordination. He is THE authority.

Dr. Johnson, however, has no such gifts from on high and God has not appointed him THE authority on all things. After all, the definite article “THE” precludes anyone else from holding the title, especially since it’s capitalized. Consequently, Dr. Johnson had to earn his credentials the hard way by doing under- and post-graduate studies in various schools, where he obtained the titles Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) and Doctor of Theology (D. Theo.).

And for the record, I am not sucking up to Dr. Johnson by heralding his credentials. Some men with letters couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag. But Dr. Johnson established his ability to think critically when he endorsed my blog. Clearly he recognizes the difference between a fully documented anonymous attack blog, such as mine, and self-willed autonomous attack blog, such as Wilson’s. Speaking of whom, for all I know he thinks that the letters STD stand for sexually transmitted disease. This probably explains why he, as a so-called minister of the gospel, filed a frivolous police complaint against people in the community who publicly criticized him and accused them of leaving used condoms in his mailbox. Icky. I am sure that in his mind it makes sense. When people commit the unpardonable sin of calling him to repent in public, they have crossed the invisible line that separates decent, law-abiding citizens from lawless felons who commit grotesque crimes. Indeed, the temptation to discard soiled prophylactics in the property of the US Postal Service overwhelms them. Yes, I’m sure it makes sense to the Great Protector.

Back to my point: Yesterday, Dr. Johnson reminded the Fearless Leader that the stigma of plagiarism stains his credentials and it undermines his standing to comment on anyone else’s scholarship. The Fearless Leader, however, denies Dr. Johnson’s premise. Here’s the thread:

Douglas Wilson said,

Lane, Andy, everyone . . . .

So what is the issue? The issue lies with two categories of critic — first, those who are constitutionally or dispositionally incapable of getting it right. Those who cannot understand the professor’s lectures need to show up for office hours. I am speaking here of those critics that have been shown to be guilty of misunderstandings, misrepresentations and distortions. Lest there be any mistake, there has been no response to my demonstrations of the slipshod work by Guy Waters, Scott Clark and others. And if you doubt that I have or could demonstrate this, why don’t you try to set up that debate I keep talking about between me and any of these gentlemen? I don’t keep saying that I am misunderstood, I keep proving that I am misunderstood. In response (with the exception of men like Lane), all I hear are the crickets. . . .

GLW Johnson said,

DW:

Accusing Waters and Clark of slipshod scholarship is rich indeed coming from someone who is permanently tainted with the scarlet letter P hanging around his neck.

Douglas Wilson said,

Gary, the fact that you actually believe that the scarlet letter P has been placed around my neck is yet another example of what I am talking about. I have no more plagiarized than I have denied any of the five solas. Keep trying.

GLW Johnson said,

DW:

The embarrassing fact, and one that you can not escape from, is that you co-authored a book that was chocked full of plagiarism. You bear your share of responsibility by virtue of having your name on the cover. It would be refreshing if you could stop spinning around long enough to acknowledge your capability. But it seems that ever admitting that you are in the wrong is something that constitutionally you are unable to do.

GLW Johnson said,

TP

DW accused Waters and Clark of faulty scholarship but evades his own responsibility for co-authoring a perfectly dreadful book (that in and of itself doesn’t pass the smell test when it comes to what the question of responsible historical scholarship) that commits the cardinal sin of blatant plagiarism. Just to refresh your memory, but DW went to great lengths to “Clintonize” what constitutes plagiarism. It was pathetic. So pardon me, but when DW starts talking about scholarship, I have a hard time believing he knows what he is talking about — so does a hundred or so faculty members at the Univ. of Idaho.

Douglas Wilson said,

First, on Wesley. After my article on Wesley appeared in Antithesis, I received a letter from Arnold Dallimore commending the article, and basically affirming that what I had written about him wasn’t really the half of it. But I do agree in principle — if Wesley had been collaborating with others, had electronic transfer problems, if his editor had been an electronic nincompoop, if he plausibly claimed that the problem in the citations was entirely an accident, and corrected them in the next edition while owning full responsibility for the mistakes and sloppiness, then I would agree that my condemnation of him was far too harsh.

Gary, what you call “Clintonizing” was Steve Wilkins taking full responsibility for the citation problems, which occurred in his sections, and with me refusing to let him do that. I was the editor, and had not read Time on the Cross at that time, and with a topic that inflammatory I certainly should have. My name was on the cover, and the editorial error that I was part of was egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious. Is there a magic word I can put in here that keeps it from being Clintonesque? For my part, one thing I will not call it is plagiarism (intellectual theft) because it simply wasn’t. Those who want to read a full account of this can do so in the back of Black & Tan.

Gary, your partisanship is blinding you to issues of basic fairness here. In the past, before all this nastiness erupted, I have contributed to a book that you edited. Suppose — don’t worry! — citation problems are dnow iscovered [sic] in what I wrote and submitted to you, and they somehow got by you. It would be appropriate for you to take responsibility for any number of things editorially, but to demand that you take personal responsibility as though you were a plagiarist (because somebody else made a mistake that you missed) would be a bit thick. And, if someone were out there demanding that you take that kind of responsibility anyway, it would perhaps be a fair conclusion to think that such a one had an axe to grind. Wouldn’t it?

This is really clever rhetoric. Notice that Wilson acknowledges and diminishes his responsibility as editor while he completely ignores his responsibilities as co-author and publisher. Additionally, he gladly points to Steven “Machen” Wilkins laying prostrate on his sword — “It’s his fault!” Furthermore, he muddies the water with the whole “electronic transfer” thingy, leaving it to our imaginations to create a scenario where the electronics magically deleted certain footnote citations at the beginning of each of Wilkins’ paragraphs — but what about the missing citations in Wilkins’ other books? Moreover, he equivocates between plagiarism, which he redefined as “intellectual theft,” and an “editorial error,” which he defined as “egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious.” Hmmmm, I wonder what made the editorial error so “egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious”? What would the administration of NSA do to a student if he committed an editorial error of this “egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious” magnitude? Perhaps we’ll never know. Finally, after sufficiently revising the historical facts to help him elude accountability for his role in the plagiarism, Beelzeblog concluded that Dr. Johnson has an ax to grind. It all makes perfect sense.

Obviously we have a standoff between the Ph.D. and the wannabe. One affirms what the other denies. Dr. Johnson cast his lot with the 76(?) academics on the Palouse who affirm that Douglas Wilson and Steven “Machen” Wilkins committed plagiarism when they co-wrote the monograph Southern Slavery As It Was; and Mr. Wilson cast his lot with himself, asserting that he “was part of” an “editorial error that . . . was egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious,” whatever that means; but it was “not . . . plagiarism.”

This is our dispute and in arbitrating it I shall not be arbitrary or capricious. To be sure, I intend to apply my fully documented anonymous attack skills to this quarrel and hopefully we can put this controversy to rest once and for all.

The book Southern Slavery As It Was was published by Canon Press, which is a publishing ministry of the Christ Church Cult, subject to the authority of the elders and which uses the same standard contract for all its books, at least during the ’90s. We know this because one of Canon Press’ contracts is a matter of public record and was used as evidence by two local citizens in a property-tax dispute that resulted in the Latah County Commissioners revoking Christ Church’s 501(c)(3) property-tax exemption. (To see the contract, please click here.)

According to the terms of this contract, Douglas Wilson wears two hats — “Author” and “Publisher.” Moreover, according to the book in question he wears a third hat — “Editor,” which combined with the other two makes for the handy acronym APE. This brings us to the question “What covenantal obligations, if any, does the Canon Press contract place on the APE?” And this is a fair question to ask because, in the end, disputes such as this one are one reason men enter into contracts, or covenants, if you will. Accordingly, on page 2 of the contract, beneath the subsection titled “Delivery of Manuscript and Related Material,” it states:

The author shall bear the responsibility for securing all permissions and consents for use, which shall be delivered to the Publisher with the manuscript.

This clause places the responsibility for securing permissions on the Author, while it obligates the Publisher to receive such from the Author. In other words, the APE was responsible to secure, deliver, and receive all permissions.

Further down on page 2, beneath the subsection titled “Editorial Control,” the contract states:

The Publisher shall exercise sufficient editorial control of the Work to assure that the content of the Work is consistent with the doctrinal standards of Canon Press. . . . The Publisher and the Author shall check the proofs meticulously. . . .

This is the only section of the contract that identifies all three hats of the APE — Author, Publisher, and editor, or “editorial control” — and a fair reading of it leaves no wiggle-room for the APE to shrug his responsibility. He had the double responsibility of exercising editorial control and “meticulously” proofreading the manuscript.

Finally, on page 3 of the contract in the subsection titled “Warranties and Indemnities” (which is directly beneath the section “Moral Fitness of Author”), it states:

The Author warrants and represents that he is the sole author of the Work and owns all the rights granted to the Publisher under this agreement; that he has the full power to execute the agreement; that the Work has not been published in any form; that the Work will not infringe any copyright or other proprietary right . . . that he has obtained all permissions necessary for publication of the Work . . . .

This clause closes the deal. There is no safety net or escape hatch for the APE. He entered into a three-way covenant between himself as the Author and himself as the Publisher and himself as the Editor, and as the three-headed APE he bears the brunt of the responsibility. He is the principal party charged with the editorial control of the book as well as proofreading the manuscript, and he vouched for the book’s contents through and through. The APE painted himself into a corner that not even he can spin out of and in the end he made covenantal promises that he could not deliver.

Therefore, as the self-appointed fully documented anonymous attack arbitrator of this dispute, I affirm the opinion of Dr. Johnson and hold the APE accountable and culpable for the egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious plagiarism in Southern Slavery As It Was. Furthermore, I find the APE in breach of contract, i.e. he is a covenant breaker, and therefore all the convenantal sanctions due to covenant breakers shall fall upon his head.

Thank you.

Sister Booth

Sister Randy Booth, moderator of the CREC, has also issued a press release (here) regarding the CREC’s reception of renegade pastor Steven Wilkins, who fled his covenantal accountability to the PCA and found asylum with the covenant breakers of the CREC. Sister Booth’s statement is similar to Wilkins’ in that its author dwells in a fantasyland that licenses him to shift the blame for this controversy to pretty much everyone else while he ignores his responsibility for not bridling Beelzeblog. Oh, and he really desires peace for the Church.

This line is particularly hilarious:

In any controversy there are those who delight in exacerbating the situation and in fanning the flames with the fuel of vitriol. In such an inferno justice is not well served. Because the internet has provided both anonymity and amplification to any who want them, this tempest in our little teapot has been intense at points. Undoubtedly, both parties in this controversy have been ashamed by the conduct of some ostensible supporters.

Sister, you’re a real treat.

Thank you.

Wilkins’ Excuse

U P D A T E #2:
Former PCA Assistant Prosecutor Lane Keister has written some excellent thoughts regarding Wilkins’ excuses in a post titled “Wilkins’s Rationale”; here’s a keeper: “In any case, he can no longer bear the name of ‘Machen,’ since Machen faced his trial.” Off point, but somehow I just can’t see Machen in a rubber nose.

U P D A T E:
Sean Gerety has written a good critique of Wilkins’ excuse; he titled it “One More Bronx Cheer for the PCA.” His last line says it all: “it would have been nice if he had the dignity to leave without feeling the need to turn around and thumb his nose one last time.”

Steve Wilkins has published his reasons for leaving the PCA (here). It is full of blame-shifting and misrepresentations. If ever a man lived in a fantasyland and refused to take responsibility for his sins, Steven “Machen” Wilkins is that man.

The Day After

By now the whole world knows that after Louisiana Presbytery voted to hand Steve Wilkins to the SJC to face trial, Steve Wilkins fled his covenantal accountability to the PCA by resigning his membership while indictment was in process. Of course, the spinmeisters are quick to add that he resigned as a member in good standing, but that’s like saying RC Sproul Jr. resigned from the RPCGA as a member in good standing. Tax fraud notwithstanding. There’s nothing quite like a hypocrite who stands on the letter of the law in order to kill the spirit.

And no one was surprised that Wilkins found safe haven in the shark-infested waters of the CREC, a federation Congregationalists governed by all manner of thieves, thugs, felons, and outlaws. Wilkins should feel right at home. The big surprise, however, is that LAP voted to throw Wilkins overboard: “We will cover for you no longer, Bubba.” No one saw that one coming, but all the signs were there.

Kevin Johnson wrote a good piece called “Well, At Least They Didn’t Wait Until he had Been Defrocked”; I don’t agree with all of it but Kevin nails the blatant hypocrisy of these high-church buffoons:

The most astounding hypocrisy of this sort of sessional approach to church government is that while these men will endorse the flaunting of judicial action in the denominations of others such as the PCA, they will have no such flagrant violation of their own order in their own circles. Try disagreeing with an elder or session that’s made up its mind in a CREC church and see how far it gets you. Search their by-laws for the sort of protections that ought to afford a layman at the mercy of wicked elders. See if you can catch a CREC elder talking about how their own actions or opinions ought to be put under the scrutiny of the wider Church when a member dares to question their authority.

Yes, indeed. No one dare defy the holy decrees of the Fearless Leader or he shall visit you with fierce wrath and indignation.

I’m still analyzing this historic event; it should be ready soon enough. Until then, here are some excellent comments written by various brethren and posted on sundry websites. Please pay particular attention to the comments by David Gadbois and Andrew Sandlin.

GLW Johnson said,

The sin of sowing schism and division is going to haunt Doug Wilson and his fellow FVers in the CREC til their dying day.

David Gadbois said . . .

If the news (which no one can seem to confirm) is true, and AAPC is leaving the PCA, please do remember this little gem from some time back:

“Perhaps the goal has just been to “make things hot” for Steve, so that he voluntarily leaves the PCA. Then they could explain the heresy in detail to various bought-and-paid-for crowds, with no theological debate necessary, and no robust interchanges in the Q&A. The problem is that Steve is a churchman, and has no plans to make it easy for them by acting the part of a radical individualist. He is going to make them prove what they are saying, and this will prove awkward for them because they can’t. If they could, they would be the ones eager for debate, right?” (“More On Louisiana Presbytery”)

CIB said . . .

Oh my, well, that is just too rich. Tsar Wilson make this comment. One year later, Ol’ “Machen” Wilkins acts the part of a radical individualist & brings his church along with him, with full blessings from the Tsar himself. Not that is hasn’t been seen before. This is the M.O. the Federal Vision. They play the part of the high churchman condemning the baptistic masses, then retreat to the “me and my Bible” mentality when their claims about the Reformed tradition don’t bear out.

Anonymous8 said . . .

I guess then my first post above is a misreading of the Federal Vision character.

Their battle call seems to be: “Run away! Run away!!!”

Mark T. said . . .

Check this out:

“American Christians only know one method of fighting, which is to divide and run off to yet another splinter denomination, the presbytery of the True Flame. This, to use the military parlance, is called retreating. Moderates fraternize with evil covenant members and call it unity. A better term would be betrayal. Conservatives run from evil covenant members and call it purity. A better term would be rout.” (Douglas Wilson, “Judas Was A Bishop,” Credenda Agenda, Volume 13, Issue 2)

P. Andrew Sandlin said . . .

Kevin, kudos to you for a courageous, accurate post. The CREC will continue to become a theological leper colony to the extent that it becomes identified with the Federal Division, which has, rightly or wrongly, been anathematized by a large segment of the American Reformed world. There will be no disciplinary action for those who march in lockstep to the CREC’s theological eccentricities, only for those who wish to assert confessionally and constitutionally legitimate diversity but who object to certain quirky distinctives that increasingly make the denomination the butt of Reformed jokes.

Vern Crisler said,

Hmm, the FV types are always lecturing everyone about submission to the authority of the local visible church, and failure to do so results in damnation. This follows from their raging externalism.

But how do they reconcile this with their actions? Why are they always trumpeting church authority, and submission to the elders, and staying on the vine, etc., but do so from small, obscure denominations? And when they are subject to church discipline in large denominations, the first thing they do is bolt, and take up residence in the same small obscure denominations.

That’s pretty much what happened with the Tyler church back in the early ’80s. It bolted from its denomination when under discipline, then became more high-church and authoritarian under an early version of the Fascist-Vision.

Jordan accuses Presbyterian denominations of being sects, but who has ever heard of Jordan’s new denomination? If the PCA is micro-presbyterian, what are the FV denominations?

It’s sad to see history repeating itself, but when people start denigrating the Reformed faith — as the FV people do — pretty soon they’re on their way to prelacy and beyond.

GLW Johnson said,

Christopher #28

You think the pendulum is swinging and that momentum is on your side?

Actually, what you will discover is just the opposite. The CREC will pay a high price for it’s rogue behaviour. Wilkins’ actions in leading AAPC out of the PCA and into the CREC are not the first of its kind, and mark my words, this ‘raid’ has not gone unnoticed by other Reformed denominations. So smile while you have the opportunity, but you won’t be smiling for long — schismatics always end up out in the cold at the end of the day.

Andy Webb said . . .

What we are in fact seeing is the growth of the CREC as a specifically FV denomination via the division of existing Reformed denominations. Via conferences, books, blogs, and unfortunately in at least two of our seminaries, they mold future CREC pastors who then enter existing non-FV denominations and end up “crash-landing” the particular congregations they go on to Pastor in the CREC. Few, if any, denominations in history have had such a high percentage of pastors who have been deposed from such a wide variety of other orthodox denominations, or who left their original denomination under threat of trial. At this point, their church growth model seems to be almost entirely based on splitting or engulfing existing congregations via FV theology.

And it’s only going to get worse.

Thank you.

LAP

LAP has answered the PCA’s indictment by pleading “not guilty” to count 1 and “guilty” to count 2. Details at Green Bagginses.

Charges and Specifications

1. Louisiana Presbytery has failed to understand properly (and appropriately act upon) what it means to have a “difference” with the Constitution (BCO 21-4 and 21-5 and RAO 16-3(e)(5)), and in the application of the meaning of “difference” in the examination of a presbytery member’s views. For instance, Louisiana Presbytery’s own record of TE Wilkins’s statements establish that TE Wilkins did, at the very least, have numerous and potentially significant semantic differences with the Constitution. (Record of the Case [hereafter “RoC”] 2007-8, pg. 205–206) Further, Louisiana Presbytery demonstrates its failure to exercise these duties by stating, “Thus far, no one has brought forth evidence demonstrating that TE Wilkins has actively denied the system of doctrine” (RoC 2007-8, pg. 187, emphasis added). As the Standing Judicial Commission has ruled, inconsistency with the Confessional Standards is not limited to explicit denial, but may also include formulations that subvert by less explicit means.




Louisiana Presbytery was required to investigate these differences and classify them under RAO 16-3(e)(5). Louisiana Presbytery failed to comply with this requirement.

Louisiana Presbytery should have gone beyond TE Wilkins’s assertions that he did not take exceptions to the Confessional Standards (other than those delineated), that he did not consider his views as being out of accord with the Confessional Standards, that he affirmed the Confessional Standards, and that he did not deny or contradict the Confessional Standards. A fair and impartial court should have recorded and classified all of TE Wilkins’s differences. It was the duty of Louisiana Presbytery to determine what the differences with the Confessional Standards were; and whether the differences were merely semantic, more than semantic (but not out of accord with the fundamentals of our system of doctrine), out of accord and hostile to our system of doctrine or striking at the vitals of religion (BCO 21-4, 21-5, RAO 16-3(e)(5)), all of which determinations Louisiana Presbytery has failed to make.



2. Louisiana Presbytery failed to find a strong presumption of guilt that some of the views of TE Wilkins were out of conformity with the Constitution, and thus was derelict in its duty under BCO 13-9, 40-4, and 40-5, and has thereby caused much unresolved pastoral confusion and harm.
   
   

   TE Wilkins’s views, as articulated in the Record of the Case in 2007-8 and in the following examples, clearly constitute a strong presumption of guilt that his views are out of accord with the Constitution and require a fair and impartial court to proceed to trial. (PCA Indictment of LAP)

The Unjust Knows No Shame

The LORD is righteous in her midst,
He will do no unrighteousness.
Every morning He brings His justice to light;
He never fails,
But the unjust knows no shame. — Zephaniah 3:5

You know, if seven Reformed denominations of the Christian church thoroughly repudiated my theology, I hope I would have the humility to take a few moments for self-examination. I know, I know, morbid introspection is so gooey and pietistic, and pietism is a byproduct of the Gnosticism that infected the modern church during the post-Enlightenment period, making it Baptistic, revivalistic, and lots of other bad istics, I am sure.

But I’m also sure that the apostle Paul wrote, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” (2 Cor. 13:5.) And if there’s ever a good time to examine yourself, it’s after your denomination indicted your presbytery because you allowed them to run interference for you instead of urging them to try your theology and prove it in the broad daylight of a court trial. Seriously, if you really believe you know (ginosko) the Westminster divines’ original intent, then prove it. Otherwise we must conclude that you’re just another twenty-first century Gnostic who claims his own peculiar higher knowledge.

I note these things because last week the Cajonroos turned their Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference into another occasion to demonstrate exactly how seriously they take their faith, which is to say, not at all. If you look at Pastor Jeffery “Braveheart” Meyers’ blog, you’ll see that the high-church Bozos baptized their conference gumbo with a little duck soup. According to the photographs on Braveheart’s site, the Federal Visionists donned cheap Groucho Marx look-alike masks to complement their dog collars during the Federal Visionist pastors’ conference. Braveheart called the post “Masters of Disguise”; pretty funny, eh?

But the most obvious thing about this so-called prank is that it assumes, and therefore concedes, the pranksters’ guilt because of its reference to a “spy,” which alludes to my fully documented anonymous-attack post “Bag o’ Snakes” where I republished an email thread from their yahoo group Biblical Horizons — a public group that posts top-secret emails on the worldwide web. Yahoos, indeed.

Either way, the FVists once again showed their profound inability to blush for their sins and at the same time they exemplified their contempt for decency. Even worse, they demonstrated their resolve to corrupt everyone within their reach by distributing masks to all of the so-called pastors who attended the conference, so they could join hands with the wicked in thumbing their noses at the world they claim to be “reforming.” Great message: scoff at those who expose your hypocrisy. But as always, even hypocrites prove the Scripture true, for the prophet said, “the unjust knows no shame.”

Thank you.

Cajonroos

I get a lot of comments that I ignore — both from monkey boys and alleged friends. This comment, however, written by one Wesley Simms, is difficult to ignore for three reasons: First, the syntax and style betray an educated writer. Second, the content indicates inside knowledge. And third, I have spoken with several survivors of Steve Wilkins’ ministry who have borne witness to the authoritarianism that dominates his church and all of them, at one time or another, used this line: “The Elders hold the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.”

If anyone can confirm the accuracy of this comment, I am interested to know if it’s true. As always, I will protect your anonymity on my fully documented anonymous attack blog.

Wesley Sims said . . .

It is only fitting that the Louisiana Presbytery should be charged; they have served as Wilkins’ henchmen and have worked his will in Louisiana for years. They have served as both his personal shield and club long before the Federal Vision controversy erupted. Wilkins and the La. Presbytery took over a church in the Shreveport/Bossier area years ago. They came in and started excommunicating the leaders first, then the members. Older people were running out of the proceedings wailing and crying. When Wilkins and his bunch were through, they controlled the property. One elderly woman came up to one of the genteel La. Presbyters who was present and cried, “Help me! Help me, please!” He said, “I can’t.” They took these peoples’ church and threw them all out. The PCA’s indictment is far too late, in my opinion. I asked one of the La. Presbyters, who sympathized with the many who were excommunicated in La., what would happen to those people. He said, “They can go join a Baptist church somewhere. They’ll never find out.” I told him, “But they’ve been excommunicated. God knows, even if the Baptists don’t. The Elders hold the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. What will happen to their souls?” He said, “I don’t know.” TE James Jones and others went along with all this through these many years. They have now deemed it “safe” (or expedient) to switch sides. They are no better than the rest. There were many excommunications. Someone said there were more excommunications in Louisiana during a five year period than there had been in the PCA since it was founded. That is how they established rule, with the threat of blitzkrieg church takeovers and excommunications. When asked why they excommunicated people so often, they said they did this to reclaim lost souls. When asked how many they had reclaimed, they could not name one.

Wilkins and his de-evangelists have used the kangaroo courts of the Louisiana Presbytery to run roughshod over anyone who dared question them. They are madmen, drunk on power. Jesus told His disciples that they would know a tree by its fruit. You don’t have to come sit under this tree to see what it bears; the landscape is littered with wrecked souls and wrecked lives: theirs is the opposite of The Great Commission.

The PCA has known about the wreckage of damaged lives and souls that Wilkins has left in his wake for over a decade. What is now known as the “Federal Vision” has been the standard fare in many Louisiana churches since the early ’90s. Wilkins preached in the early ’90s that the authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith were wrong and he was going to get the WCF changed. He even suggested many times, in the pulpit, that he might be charged by the PCA! Now he claims he is orthodox and his “nuanced” teachings are “misunderstood,” but deep down he’s got to be wondering, “Where have you been? What’s taken you so long?” This, he believes, is his destiny. He’s been waiting for this a long time. If the PCA prevails (and it’s not over yet by a long shot), theirs will be a Pyrrhic victory. Wilkins and the long line of de-evangelists who have spread out like cancer from the Louisiana Presbytery have made sure of that. The Art of War is right at home beside the works of R.L. Dabney on their bookshelves. They have not studied it in vain.

Thank you.

Theonomic Plagiarist

From P&R News, Volume 6 Number 2, March—April 2000, page 7:

Steve Wilkins: “Is theonomy Reformed? Of course it is, or why would I embrace it? That’s the pro hominen argument.” * * * * Speaking of contemporary civil magistrates: “They are very good at regulating the price of milk, and what should go on a pizza, but they can’t catch a thief and they don’t know what to do with him if they do.”

Two questions:

1. If theonomy is Reformed and “Reformed” is not enough, then is “theonomy” enough? Okay, bad question. Let’s try another:


2. If the civil magistrate can’t catch a thief and wouldn’t know what to do with him if they did catch him, then what should a theonomic presbytery do with a plagiarist in their ranks?
   

Of course, I ask my second question with the assumption that plagiarism is theft.

Thank you.

Chapter Two

I don’t want anyone to think that success has gone to my head after WORLD Magazine reported the stunning revelations disclosed on my anonymous attack blog Fœdero Plagiary. Far from it. Therefore, today we shall resume our series on the literary theft of the first Federal Vision martyr, Steven “Machen” Wilkins, as we consider chapter 2 of his book Call of Duty: the Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee.

The keen observer will notice that this chapter does not have as much yellow highlight smothering its pages, but this is for two reasons. First, I’m too lazy to go to WSU and check out a book and, second, I had a mini-graphic-artist rebellion. So you will see two full pages without highlighted text — the first, page 40, I’m sure Wilkins plagiarized from the book Presbyterians in the South by Ernest Trice Thompson, because he devoted the whole page to the religious history of Lee’s hometown and he stuck a footnote at the bottom of the page, which is a sure sign that he plagiarized most of the text. The second is page 43, which has lots of little phrases pinched from Freeman’s R.E. Lee, but my graphic artist refuses to nickel and dime his time and my bandwidth. Consequently, you’ll have to make do with these few morsels of cherry-picked words, straight from that noble martyr of Federal Visionism — Steven “Machen” Wilkins. Check out Fœdero Plagiary.

Post Script: I just love the words “toddling about” on the last page of the chapter.

Thank you.

“the central importance of church discipline”

In 1998 the CREC held its “first annual” convention of confederates. And true to form, this band of independent churches bound by a constitution that has no mechanism to hold its members accountable called themselves a “presbytery.” Anyway, according to the minutes Steven “Machen” Wilkins attended this meeting as a visiting delegate:

Exhortation by Steve Wilkins
Patch introduced Steve Wilkins, pastor of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church. Steve exhorted the presbytery to be a church which is faithful to her calling, acknowledges her sin, preaches with authority, is openly Reformed, seeks biblical, tangible unity, holds to orthodoxy with thankfulness, understands the central importance of church discipline, and is traditional without being traditionalistic. (Minutes, Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals, First Annual Presbytery, January 30, 1998, page 2)

Maybe it’s just me, but this exhortation strikes me as ironic.

Thank you.

Move Over DaFedSez

From the WorldMagBlog:

BY CAPTAIN OBVIOUS 12.08.07 AT 9:43 PM

There is of course an elegant solution to the problem. Cumberland House could simply reissue the book as:

LEE
by Douglas S. Freeman
Edited and Abridged by J. Steven Wilkins

Voila! Problem solved.

Thank you.

Ethically and Morally

From the Biblical Horizons “members only” email list:

May 29, 2003
The Bunny wrote:

Men,

I’m reading through William H. Willimon’s new book Pastor: The Theology and Practice of Ordained Ministry (Abingdon, 2002). So for it’s okay. But I’m repeatedly irked by positive references to all sorts of quasi-orthodox “pastors.” Martin Luther King, Jr., for example. What to do with the guy? I have a hard time taking him seriously. Isn’t there something to the accusations of womanizing and plagiarism (for his doctorate)? Are there any good sources for learning more about him?

PB

check out Ralph Abernathy’s The Walls Came Tumbling Down for confirmation of King’s promiscuity (Abernathy is an honorable man and a Christian, he admired King very much but acknowledged what everyone around him knew. His womanizing was well known among his entourage)

Theodore Pappas is the one who did the work exposing the details on King’s doctorate, his articles first appeared in Chronicles magazine (they may be in the archives on the Chronicles web site). Pappas’ findings have not been refuted though Boston University did try to justify its action in granting the doctorate in light of the revelations.

Whatever you may think of his politics, M.L. King was a mess ethically and morally.

sw [Steve Wilkins]

Steve Wilkins, call your office.

Thank you.

George Orwell, call your office.

“If you want to read an indictment of American academia, as if you needed one, then I recommend Plagiarism and the Culture War. In it, Theodore Pappas documents the wholesale plagiarism committed by Martin Luther King, Jr. in his doctoral work, not to mention the varied and wondrous contortions of the academic establishment as they sought to studiously ignore this indisputable fact. Of course, this particular instance is not the sum and substance of modern academic corruption, but it does provide a wonderful example of how it all works. If you are in any doubt about how advanced our public corruption is, just write a letter to your local paper on how MLK was a plagiarist, and see what happens. Suddenly, mirabile dictu, people like you who believe that a man should be judged by the content of his character and not by the color of his skin will be branded . . . racists. George Orwell, call your office.” (Douglas Wilson, Credenda Agenda, 11-1)

To the Editor

After WORLD Magazine covered the original story of Wilson’s and Wilkins’ co-plagiarism in Southern Slavery As It Was, Steve Wilkins wrote this letter to the editor:

WORLD’s brief notice regarding “Slavery as It Was” inaccurately stated that sections of the booklet were “stolen.” The portions that were labeled “plagiarism” came straight from my lecture notes which were not referenced and I neglected to go through them carefully and reference them properly before submitting them for inclusion in the booklet. There was never any intent to “steal” anything or deceive anyone, however. I always made plain in lectures that this material was drawn from Time on the Cross and was not my own. Though it may be acceptable to note this orally, it is inappropriate and inexcusable not to make plain your sources when you publish material. Since I did not do this, I deserve all the blame for this sloppy, inexcusable, and unjustifiable action. My negligence is culpable but it was not thievery — and none of this was Doug Wilson’s fault. As far as this story is concerned, the blame is all mine.

— Steve Wilkins; Monroe, La.

Thank you.

Plagiarism Defined

I find it interesting that no one from the Federal Vision camp has stepped forward to defend Steven “Machen” Wilkins. Nevertheless, some might find it helpful to consider the definition of “plagiarism” as defined by his alma maters. According to Auburn Avenue’s website,

Steve Wilkins holds a Bachelor of Science degree (in Pre-Law) from the University of Alabama and a Masters of Divinity from the Reformed Theological Seminary of Jackson, Mississippi. He has been an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in America since 1976.

The “Code of Academic Conduct” for the University of Alabama states:

Plagiarism

The Code of Academic Conduct in the University of Alabama Undergraduate Catalog defines plagiarism and other acts of academic dishonesty as follows:

• Plagiarism: representing the words, data, works, ideas, computer programs or output, or anything not generated in an authorized fashion, as one’s own

• Cheating: using or attempting to use unauthorized materials, information, study aids, or computer-related information

• Fabrication: presenting as genuine any invented or falsified citation or material

• Misrepresentation: falsifying, altering, or misstating the contents of documents or other materials related to academic matters, including schedules, prerequisites, and transcripts.

Although authors occasionally indulge in plagiarism intentionally, most often writers plagiarize unintentionally. Many do not realize that indirect quotations, which result from paraphrasing and summarizing material, also require acknowledgment of the author and the source of the idea.

A direct quotation of an author’s exact words is the only footnoted material that requires the use of quotation marks, but both direct and indirect quotations must be footnoted. Any idea or statement that is not the author’s own must be documented.

Remember — the following require the use of a citation:

• Any material directly quoted from another’s work

• Any information that is summarized or paraphrased

• Any idea derived from a known source

• Any fact or data that is not common knowledge and is borrowed from another’s work

Material that is common or general knowledge does not have to be footnoted, unless the wording is taken directly from a particular source. A general rule is that if a fact can be found in five or more sources, it is considered to be common knowledge and does not have to be documented.

Anthony C. Winkler

And the Student Handbook for Reformed Theological Seminary states,

Plagiarism. Research papers require borrowing other people’s ideas and words. However, the source of such borrowing must be acknowledged properly. If the source is not acknowledged properly, your work is plagiarism. At issue is your academic honesty.

1. The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers says “to plagiarize is to give the impression that you have written or thought something that you have in fact borrowed from someone else.”


2. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines plagiarize as “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own; use (a created production) without crediting the source; to commit literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.”
   

Plagiarism includes word-for-word copying, lifting terms, restatement of someone’s argument or line of thought, copying what the writer of Ten Steps in Writing the Research Paper calls “perfect phrases” — all without acknowledgment of source. Plagiarism also includes giving a source partial credit when more is taken from that source than indicated and quoting or paraphrasing in patchwork fashion. . . .

Plagiarism, whether intentional or unintentional, is considered academic theft. When discovered, it results in loss of reputation or position and other punishments. The academic consequences of plagiarism at RTS are as follows:

1. First offense: The student must rewrite the paper and receive no better than a passing “D” grade for it.
2. Second offense: The student fails the entire course.

I invite Mr. Wilkins to utilize his pre-law degree and defend himself.

Thank you.

Anonymous Attack Blog Makes WORLD!

WORLD on the web, the WORLD Magazine blog, has picked up the Steve Wilkins’ plagiarism story, reporting it in a piece titled “New/old plagiarism scandal.” Hmmm, I wonder what principle of justice WORLD violated. Perhaps Bhagwan Shree Wilsoneesh could inform us.

Thank you.