“A” for “Abuse”

In this post I referenced a man whose employment Wilson terminated after his wife challenged Wilson’s character. During that period of the Kirk’s history, Wilson was searching for a “mole” whom he believed was leaking Kirk information to the general public. So when he got wind of the wife’s remarks (which were really benign), he thought he found his mole. He immediately terminated the husband’s employment at Canon Press and then sent this email to the Christ Church membership. Wilson timed it so that everyone could identify Judas. About a week later the family resigned its membership.

After you read it, please set aside Wilson’s demented Messiah complex and file this under “A” for “Abuse.”

Controversy, Part 12
In our last installment, we considered the fact that the mere presence of controversy does not mean that something has “gone wrong.” Controversy is part of God’s pattern for the church; He tests us with such things to see if we will remain faithful to Him and to His Word. But at the same time, one of the reasons why controversy can be so gut-wrenching for us is that while “things” have not necessarily gone wrong, individual people certainly do go wrong. All things work together for good for those who love God and who are called according to His purpose (Rom. 8:28). But all things did not work together for good for Judas Iscariot, for Demas, for Alexander the coppersmith, for Ananias and Sapphira, for Hymenaeus and Philetus, or for Diotrephes. In the midst of controversy, people do shipwreck their faith, and their families are shattered through their disobedience.

Paul taught us that everyone who names the name of the Lord should depart from wickedness (2 Tim. 2:19), but as he did this, he was talking about controversy in his churches, led by men who were opposing his legitimate pastoral authority. And in this context, he also quoted Numbers 16:5 — “The Lord will show who are his.” So while those controversies were good for Israel, the Church, Moses, and Paul, they were not at all good for Korah and his many descendents [sic].

Douglas Wilson

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chris LaMoreaux, Administrative Secretary
Christ Church - Anselm House
205 East 5th Street P.O. Box 8741
Moscow, ID 83843
christkirk@moscow.com
Voice: (208) 882-2034 Fax: (208) 892-8724
Credenda/Agenda: (208) 882-7963
www.christkirk.com

Thank you.

Kutting My Losses on the Kirk Kult

Patrick Poole has given me permission to republish this post (and others), which originally appeared on Existential Space.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2006
Kutting My Losses on the Kirk Kult
The time has come for me to cry uncle. I must say “no mas” to the Wilsonistas. They have won. At this point in time, I cannot continue to endure the Wilsonistas harassment jihad that has now spread to my friends, my clients, and my church in the wake of my posts over the past week. Some are also trolling for dirt on me for what I can only assume would be the basis for ad hominem attacks to avoid answering the very direct questions I’ve put to the Great Leader. In the final analysis, there are just simply too many Wilsonistas starting fires for me to possibly contemplate putting them all out. I must call it quits and admit defeat before they try to burn down everything around me. I must confess that I greatly underestimated how quickly they have acted. I guess what I wrote hit too close to home.

Could it be that this harassment jihad launched by Doug Wilson’s apologists and lackeys against me is entirely unorganized and is in no way connected to the Sultan of Subjectivity? That very well might be the case. I certainly don’t have any iron-clad evidence that it is an orchestrated effort. But if that’s the case, there is certainly a culture of venom and malice that has been allowed to flourish around the Kirk Kult, with the use of destructive and unchristian methods nourished and justified by the writings and sermons of the Bhagwan himself under the guise of “Trinitarian skylarking” and “the serrated edge.” Honestly, the harassment would be more tolerable if the Wilsonistas were in reality as funny or as witty as they believe themselves to be (but aren’t).

In retrospect, the fault is entirely my own. I knew what I was getting into. I thrust my hand into the viper’s nest and got bit. Shame on me. As Blind Willy Johnson used to sing, “Nobody’s Fault But Mine.”

But what the Wilsonistas won’t admit is that IT IS a viper’s nest that they are a part of. The politics of personal destruction I’ve encountered (and my friends and associates have experienced for the crime of being associated with me) at the hands of the Kirk Kult in recent days is standard practice for the Wilsonistas and their Great Leader. Just ask Terry Morin, who dared speak out and had his company suffer at the hands of the Wilsonistas because of it. But even more important than any financial repercussions was the deliberate damage done to Terry’s reputation by the false witness and trumped-up charges filed against him by Doug Wilson and the elders of Kirk Kult, charges that were only withdrawn only because the Great Leader’s documents were shown to be forgeries on the unanimous testimony of everyone else involved. Thankfully, Terry had his church to examine Wilson’s lies and clear his name. Others that have tried to escape the Kirk orbit have not been so lucky.

I realize that any pain and suffering I might have endured at the hands of the Wilsonistas during this very brief affair is minimal compared to what others have experienced. I know; I’ve heard from many of the Wilson-wounded over the past week. I suspect why so many of the “fellowship of the grievance” have gravitated to me is because I expressed in my two posts from two thousand miles away what they have had to live through in real life day to day. They maybe believed that I identified with them because I was willing to say publicly that the drug dens at New St. Andrews, the illegal Kirk elder-approved casinos and the documented payoffs involved, which are just a normal part of the landscape of WilsonWorld, is a demonstration of a thoroughly corrupt culture — all of which is lost on the Wilsonistas and the Wilson apologists. It’s clear that they don’t care. Having been in the PCA for almost 15 years, I can’t remember a single instance of a troubled church having these kinds of problems, which seem to be so commonplace in the Kirk.

In closing, I appreciate that I’ve been warmly welcomed in as a member of the “fellowship of the grievance.” It is a badge of honor. These are kind and sincere Christian people, and I feel like I’m abandoning them to the furies of the Wilsonistas by my rapid retreat, perhaps even encouraging further abuse. They will be the one’s left to clean up the shattered lives when the Kirk Kult reaches its inevitable end. When that day comes, I suspect that they will exhibit extraordinary grace and charity, never once thinking to say, “I told you so.” May God bless them for continuing to bear up.

With that said, this will be my last post on the matter.
POSTED BY PATRICK POOLE AT 6:49 PM 1 COMMENTS

Thank you.

The Destroyer

Mr. Hoover,

You make excellent points that every one of Wilson’s targets would probably affirm, because from a distance it is impossible to reconcile the charming persona that comes across in his books with the cunning and abusive beast who engineered the attack on Bob Mattes. And let there be no illusion: no one does anything in the Kirk without Wilson’s express permission. And since Mike Lawyer is Douglas Wilson’s “personal assistant,” you may rest assured this was coordinated. You may be equally assured that this was only a first strike.

Back to point: Wilson recruits devotees through his popular writings, and many of them move to Moscow, where they find themselves trapped when they discover his wickedness. I know firsthand because I have counseled many of them face to face, which is no small task. For example, how do you comfort a man after Wilson counseled his wife to abandon him because he left Christ Church calling it a cult? How do you console a grandfather after his grandchildren no longer visit him because he called Christ Church a cult? (Wilson instructed the parents to take this action as retribution.) Or how do you comfort three families to whom Wilson threatened, “There will be firestorms in your households!” and then he delivered? I mean, really, what words suffice? What do you say to a couple after Wilson terminates the husband’s employment because his wife wrote an email questioning Wilson’s character? Or what do you say to a husband and wife whose employment Wilson terminated because they refused to sign the “Christ Church Commitment to Loyalty”?

I could cite countless episodes of Douglas Wilson’s pastoral abuse and none of them will make sense to you because they don’t square with the jovial man behind the popular writings. But this does not remove his malevolence; it simply makes it more evil because he takes advantage of it. He knows he’s charming. In fact, his brother Evan says that Doug has mastered the ability to consciously work his pheromones. I don’t doubt it. People fall for it every day. Look at Dave Glasebrook. The poor fool lives his life for the glory of Doug, which he has confused with the glory of God. Read the fawning comments on Wilson’s blog; they adore the man. But he would cut their throats in a heartbeat, if it serves his purpose. And he would cut yours too. As a friend of mine says, “Everybody has to go through it themselves to learn.” I trust that Bob is learning.

These are simple facts, Mr. Hoover, and if you do not believe them, then please do yourself and your family a huge favor — don’t believe them but don’t move to Moscow either. It would break my heart to have to meet you after you suffered a similar circumstance as described above, because it will take you years to pick up the pieces of your life that Douglas Wilson deliberately shattered.

Thank you.

The Short List

I tried posting this on Green Bagginses, but I think it has too many links. The funny thing is that this is the short list.

“The Late Unpleasantness in Idaho: Southern Slavery and the Culture Wars”
Dr William Ramsey comments on the Southern Slavery scandal that hit the Palouse in 2003–2004. Please note this line: “In an angry letter to the university provost, Wilson claimed that the book review was “slanderous” and “defamatory” and demanded disciplinary action and a public apology, while Atwood wrote a similar letter to the president.” It’s the same game plan.

“Horowitz, Genovese, and the Varieties of Culture War: Comments on the Continuing Unpleasantness in Idaho”
A follow-up article to “The Late Unpleasantness in Idaho: Southern Slavery and the Culture Wars.”

P&R News, “The Moscow Story”

P&R News, “Presbytery of the Dakotas Takes on Doug Wilson and Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho”

American Slavery: A Symposium
Cascade Presbyterian Church (PCA) hosts a symposium to respond to Wilson’s and Wilkins’ Southern Slavery As It Was.

THE WILSON CONTROVERSY: A PERSONAL HISTORY
Dr. Nick Gier taught Douglas Wilson at the UI. His story is the same as everyone else’s.

Cleaning House
A Moscow blogger who has excellent first-hand knowledge of Wilson and the Kirk. Check out the threads “Whited Sepulchres,” “Uncle Doug’s Cabin,” and “Nuisance Andrews.”

“Southern Slavery As It Wasn’t”
University of Idaho professors Drs. William Ramsey and Sean M. Quinlan respond to Southern Slavery As It Was.

“Plagiarizing Slavery . . .”
Ironic, when you remember that “plagiarizer” originally meant “kidnapper.”

“A Labor of Love”
Written anonymously by an evangelical pastor and sent to the Palouse via the local listserv.

NYT “Onward Christian Scholars”

dougsplotch
The casino story in all its glory.

Southern Slavery In Northern Idaho

“A Call To Repentance”
Where it all began. And the first shall be last.

Thank you.

The Beginning of Sorrows

The good news is that Wilson has taken his show national. The bad news is that for Bob Mattes, Jeff Hutchison — indeed, the whole PCA — these are the beginning of sorrows.

“And So It Begins”

“Attack From Moscow”

After you read the two posts above, please read this. Wilson has a well-oiled harassment machine that will seek out weaknesses to exploit in order to manipulate his target. And he will stop at nothing — family, friends, employment, blackmail, extortion, background checks — he will stop at nothing.

False Impression: like pastor, like sheep

Dave Glasebrook left a false impression in a comment at Green Bagginses, writing,

I do not think that Bob’s answer in the previous Post 50 concerning Mark T’s blog was sufficient. Mark T’s blog is not accurate and is so full of gossip and disinformation that a normal reader would not be able to discern truth from that which is not truth.

If anyone so desires I am at:
DaveGlasebrook@netscape.net

I do not work for Wilson. I am only concerned about gossip being touted as truth.

I called this a “false impression” because while he does “not work for Wilson,” Dave Glasebrook is a member of Christ Church and he is rabid Wilson loyalist whom Wilson has used to accomplish some of his dirty deeds. For example, Mr. Glasebrook is the man pictured in this photograph, standing on a street corner with a sign calling three members of City Council “bigots.”

Mr. Glasebrook has written letters and made phone calls to various employers seeking the termination of their employees because they wrote the plain truth about Wilson. For example, Mr. Glasebrook demanded the termination of a reporter for the Spokesman Review after she wrote an article that was not flattering to the Kirk. Mr. Glasebrook wrote letters to the employer of another friend of mine seeking discipline against him because of comments he made in public about Wilson.

And Mr. Glasebrook has also been used by Wilson to file numerous public-records requests on employees of the University of Idaho and Washington State University who have commented in public about Bhagwan Wilson. Most of these requests were frivolous, however, in two instances Mr. Glasebrook successfully stopped university professors from using their university accounts on the local listserve to criticize Wilson. The other request sent the signal to the employee, “I’m watching you.”

Finally, Mr. Glasebrook has called my site “full of gossip.” I have welcomed him here to help me disseminate truth, which offer still stands. Therefore, if I missed anything here, Mr. Glasebrook, feel free to correct it. But apart from than that, I’m sure you won’t blame me for not giving my name.

Thank you.

Self-awareness Level: Minus Zero and Falling

“This sort of thing must be handled by just, calm, deliberate, and honorable men. In short, not the kind of men who specialize in internet vituperation.” — Douglas Wilson (emphasis original)

The CREC Moderator Has Spoken

Except not to those who need to hear it. Randy Booth posted this on the CREC website when they began taking heat for their interference in the RC Jr. scandal. Too bad these men refuse to live by their own principles.

. . . . Some of these matters have been treated in an anti-ecclesiastical way via web sites on the worldwide web. There is definitely false and misleading information that is being advanced at some of these sites, including false information pertaining to the nature and make-up of the CREC Commission. Self-appointed arbiters of justice do not contribute to a godly resolution of anything and we hereby call upon them to recuse themselves from such public discourse, to immediately remove any material related to these matters from the web, and to pray for all those affected by these matters.

Thank you.

“Honest Process”

Douglas Wilson has raised quite a stink about judicial process and the presumption of innocence. And when you read the man, he really pours it on, leaving the impression that these matters constitute first priorities for him. But it’s important for folks to know that it’s all an act. Douglas Wilson loves justice no more than he loves the truth.

Consider, for example, the case of Michael Metzler, who was a member in good standing at Christ Church for almost a decade. Mr. Metzler wrote columns for Credenda Agenda, he was a Greyfriars’ student, and by his own admission he was a Wilson loyalist. But one day Mr. Metzler rose from his stupor and realized that he had been living in the land of DUMB. And you have to hand it to the young man, because he immediately started blogging his day-to-day experience in the Christ Church cult, matching Wilson tit for tat. Put another way, he followed his pastor’s example and he kept his membership in good standing at Christ Church.

Mr. Metzler posted all of his correspondence with the Kirk elders on his blog, as he received it, which really threw Wilson for a loop because he had no way of controlling the young man. The archives at Pooh’s Think (from January 2006 to June 2006) are an absolute riot and I encourage everyone to read them. But the point here is how Wilson dealt with Mr. Metzler.

Did he visit Mr. Metzler and his family, seeking reconciliation? Of course not; Douglas Wilson doesn’t pay visits, he requires his sheep to come to him. Did he apply discipline? Of course not; Mr. Metzler would have had a field day with it. Did the Kirk elders charge Mr. Metzler with sin and put him on trial? Of course not; charges would remove any presumption of innocence. In a nutshell, Mr. Metzler had Wilson in a real pickle. Accordingly, Douglas Wilson and the Christ Church elders sent a letter (scroll down) to Mr. Metzler informing him that they released him from the membership role “not in good standing.” Just like that.

So much for Wilson’s “honest questions” about “honest process”; he threw a sheep overboard, “not in good standing,” rather than conduct an “honest trial” that granted the presumption of innocence to the accused.

Thank you.

When Presbyteries Rebel

Mr. Wilson,

The problem here is that the BCO does not use the phrase “presumption of innocence,” which bothers you to no end. But the Bible does not use the phrase either, and neither does the CREC Constitution.

Regardless, your question is irrelevant because it ignores the testimony of LAP, which I believe meets the Bible’s two-witness standard. Furthermore, if you had read the record, you would have spared yourself this vexation and you probably wouldn’t ask any more disingenuous questions. It states:

In each of these instances, presbytery’s own description of TE Wilkins’ statements established that TE Wilkins did state differences with The Confession. Presbytery was required to investigate these differences and classify them under RAO 16-3(e)(5). Rather than complying with this affirmative responsibility, LAP asserted that TE Wilkins does not deny or contradict teachings of the Constitutional standards and concluded that the standards have not been violated. (Complaint of TE James Jones, Et. Al. vs. Louisiana Presbytery, emphasis original)

In effect, LAP stands self-accused.

Even worse, LAP appears to be in contempt of court. But as with “presumption of innocence,” the BCO does not use the phrase “contempt of court.” Either way, courts tend to waive the presumption of innocence when they cite persons for contempt (perhaps you can crusade on this one). The record states:

I. The Standing Judicial Commission cites the following as examples of the lack of diligence on the part of Louisiana Presbytery.

1. The committee charged with investigating the views of TE Wilkins kept no minutes and has no transcript, or even a detailed summary of its examination of TE Wilkins.


2. The Committee, by its own admission, did not consider a number of TE Wilkins’ writings and published presentations. During his presentation to the SJC, Presbytery’s representative candidly expressed grave concerns over several writings he has reviewed subsequent to the Committee’s final report to the Presbytery.


3. Neither the Committee nor Presbytery held a face-to-face meeting with TE Wilkins to examine his views.


4. The Presbytery, as a court, did not examine TE Wilkins.


5. The Committee’s report dealt with the “Federal Vision” generally rather than the specific views of TE Wilkins.


6. The Committee’s report (which was adopted by Presbytery) contains no explicit rationale for the conclusion that TE Wilkins “appears to be within the Confession and the System of doctrine contained therein” and that “Rev. Steve TE Wilkins be publicly exonerated by Louisiana Presbytery and declared to be faithful to the Confessional standards of the PCA.”


7. Presbytery did not respond to the specific concerns about TE Wilkins’ views that were raised in the original communication from Central Carolina Presbytery (dated January 22, 2005).


8. Even in areas where Presbytery expressed concern about TE Wilkins’ views the Presbytery did not mandate that correction and clarification be issued so as to insure there was no harm to the peace and purity of the churches within the Presbytery or the Church at large.


9. The Respondent for Presbytery conceded that TE Wilkins in his writings and published presentations uses terms differently from the way they are generally understood in the Westminster Confession and Larger and Shorter Catechisms and therefore is required to explain and define his terms and the usage of terms in this manner is harmful to the peace and purity of the Church. (Standing Judicial Commission Report on Memorial From Central Carolina Presbytery)

Please note that LAP put all of these facts on the record, for the record. Quite honestly, you would think they would have taken this matter a little more seriously after the SJC ordered them to conduct a second exam. The record demonstrates, however, that LAP showed complete disdain for the very process that now has you weeping and gnashing your teeth.

Making matters even more complex, it appears that the PCA never contemplated the possibility of an entire presbytery blowing off its responsibility — i.e. acting like renegades from the CREC (which I suspect is due to your influence, but that’s just a hunch.) Nevertheless, because LAP put the PCA in a position it has never seen, the SJC declared,

We conclude that the best way to address this presumption, to preserve the peace and purity of the Church, to bring closure to this issue within a reasonable time frame, and to give Presbytery the fairest opportunity to vindicate itself by explaining and defending its actions is to follow the procedure of BCO 40-5 and BCO 40-6. (Standing Judicial Commission Report on Memorial From Central Carolina Presbytery)

Therefore, the judgment of charity says that the SJC presumed sufficient innocence to grant LAP the “fairest opportunity to vindicate itself by explaining and defending its actions.” In other words, the SJC has not rammed the accused through a Star Chamber and they have not marshaled a lynch mob, contrary to your reckless accusations. In fact, given the extremely damaging record against LAP, the SJC has given them better than they deserve. And both you and LAP’s presbyters would do well to remember this.

Thank you.

Motives

CREC confederate Al Sends has accused me of “bitterness” here and here. But I want to remind confederate Sands of a decree that came forth from one of the leaders of the mother ship and published in the official papal newsletter. Doug Jones wrote,

Reading someone’s heart motives in the worst possible light is the height of arrogance. In drawing a distinction between Himself and man, God regularly describes Himself alone as the One able to “look on the heart,” while man can only look on appearances (I Sam. 16:7). When we attribute evil motives to others, we are sinfully grabbing at a divine jurisdiction. Instead we are to turn away from “evil suspicion” (I Tim 6:4) and act with a love that “thinks no evil” (I Cor. 13:5). As always, would we want this other person to attribute evil motives to us in similar circumstances? Is there a better, more loving, motive we can attribute to that person? There always is if we truly want to persevere in love. (Douglas Jones, Credenda Agenda, volume 7, issue 2)

So I urge confederate Sends to obey this papal bull by turning away from the “height of arrogance,” even if this contradicts Pope Doug’s example. Indeed, I implore him to cease from “sinfully grabbing at a divine jurisdiction,” even though it may cost him monkey-boy points. Moreover, I want to encourage confederate Sends to walk in all lowliness of mind, esteeming others better than themselves, for if he obeys Scripture, perhaps God will use him as a catalyst for reformation in that utterly corrupt denomination called the CREC.

Thank you.

Dougzilla vs. the PCA

The more I think about it, the more I am amazed that Douglas Wilson has arrogated the authority (despite admitting his ignorance of the PCA’s BCO) to criticize the PCA for its constitutional process in the matter involving Louisiana Presbytery. I am amazed because of all people, he is the last man who should ever complain about constitutional issues given his lawless conduct in the matter of Church of the King–Santa Cruz. If you read the record, you’ll see that constitutional process meant nothing to him. Even worse, his CREC monkey boys sanctioned his lawlessness.

Wilson’s defiance of the PCA becomes even more hypocritical when you consider the following resolution, which the fourteen churches of the OPC’s Presbytery of the Dakotas unanimously adopted on Wednesday, April 3, 2002. Read it carefully because Wilson has pulled this number before:

A motion, presbytery directed its clerks to send copies of the correspondence read by Mr. Wallace to all OPC presbyteries with the warning that the attached correspondence illustrates some grave dangers with the practices of Douglas Wilson and Christ Church, Moscow, ID. They undermine the discipline of Reformed churches and refuse to support it, assuming that it is unbiblical without even hearing the case. On motion, presbytery will also send the material to the 69th general assembly and overture the assembly to forward it to their denominations and ecclesiastical fellowship.

Moreover, I am gob smacked that any CREC confederate has the nerve to comment on PCA disciplinary and constitutional matters while they allow Dougzilla to blogstomp all over the universe, completely unchecked, deliberately endeavoring to create chaos where decency and order prevail. As Robert K says, “Self-awareness level: minus zero.”