Wednesday, January 30, 2008

“The Art of the Abusive”

Sean Gerety has written an excellent essay titled “The Art of the Abusive” to respond to Douglas Wilson’s abusive ad homs against Dr. Nick Gier, his former professor of philosophy at the University of Idaho. I have noted before that Dr. Gier is a kind man who has suffered horrible ridicule and abuse at the hands of Doug’s Thugs, which I am sure makes the Fearless Leader proud of his profession.

Read Sean’s essay; it’s a well-written piece that dissects Wilson’s favorite argument — the informal fallacy of the abusive ad hominem.

Thank you.

Dougzilla Changed His Tune

For over a year now, the Fearless Leader has been huffing and puffing about how the PCA is a corrupt court and they’re afraid to put Steve Wilkins on trial because such a trial would prove their corruption and his innocence. And yesterday Pastor Andy Webb quoted Beelzeblog to this effect (here and here) and the day before David Gadbois made the same point. Last night, however, after seeing his words used to contradict his decision to grant political asylum to the renegade Steve Wilkins, the Great Protector changed his tune, writing:

Secondly, from where I sit an indictment that sets forth the alternatives upon a presumed conviction, one of them being expulsion of the entire presbytery from the PCA, is an indictment that is leaning on people to get them to do something. In this case, the intimidation worked, and the presbytery did it. As Dylan said, you don’t have to be a weatherman to tell which way the wind is blowing. What I was calling for in the piece you quoted was a trial — not a field trip to Australia to watch some of those bouncy animals.

There’s nothing new about this comment except what Wilson didn’t say. This time he declared the PCA a kangaroo court and didn’t defy the roos to try his buddy so that he could disrupt the proceedings with his peculiar talents. Notice also the absence of blogstomping. We don’t see Dougzilla breathing out threatenings and slaughter. The PCA is corrupt and that’s it. Doug said it; that settles it; I believe it.

But I want to add to the research of Andy Webb and David Gadbois to show just how determined Wilson was to have a trial — fixed or not. In the quotes below you’ll see Beelzeblog declare that Wilkins was not afraid to go on trial; rather, the PCA was afraid to put him on trial because it would reveal the PCA’s corruption.

Honestly, the deceit animating this man is extraordinary. Follow the arguments. First he declared that the PCA wouldn’t try Wilkins because it’s dirty; then he declared that the PCA would try Wilkins because it’s dirty:

In this situation, the more public accountability the better. If the tangle is now resolved, then thank the Lord. But if it continues (through parliamentary chicanery, old-boy-network-pressure, or other means), then at some point there will be a stopping point, a trial. At that point, the accusers will have to make a case that depends on more than just bare assertions. If and when that happens, it would be good to have all eyes focused on the accusers, and for said accusers to have the mike turned on, and the tape running. Perhaps they have not thought this far out, but I don’t see why they are pressing for this. Those hostile to the FV have also been equally hostile to any setting where verbal exchange or cross-examination would be possible — debates, etc. . . . 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. (January 25, 2007, “More On Louisiana Presbytery”)

Now the accusation that Steve Wilkins is making trouble in the PCA is a little bit like Ahab calling Elijah the one who troubled Israel (1 Kings 18:17). Steve has brought charges against no one, he is attacking no one, he is blocking the ordinations of no one, and so on. But that does not keep him from being the bad guy in the story that some are industriously trying to tell. He is simply the one that some TRs in the PCA have dubbed the designated villain. He is to be blamed for all kinds of things, and these pressing problems would all be solved if he would just agree with their negative assessments, and put himself into exile. Not only must he be at fault for all the current troubles, but he is being intransigent by refusing to do their dirty sentencing work for them. If he really had the peace and purity of the PCA in mind, he would just slip away quietly and allow his opponents time for a little touchdown dance. But he isn’t going anywhere, and by remaining it is beginning to appear that his opponents may soon have to start proving what they are saying, and that is an outrage upon their dignity. The ones attacking always feel victimized by the one they attack. . . . So this is the drill. The last thing in the world that the anti-FV people want is any kind of open forum where questions get to be asked in both directions. They don’t want this in a voluntary set-up, as in a debate. They don’t want it in a judicial setting, as in an open trial. They don’t want it in a box; they don’t want it on the floor. Not in the closet either. We piped but ye would not mourn; we played the bass line from “Play That Funky Music, White Boy,” and ye would not dance.

They want to chase Steve Wilkins from the PCA into the CREC, and they then will return to their home churches, still breathing hard, and will wonder aloud where he went. And however sheepish they will be over a move so transparent, that sheepishness would be nothing compared to what they would have to deal with if they are ever required to prove these assertions with all the Reformed folk in the English-speaking world looking on. (January 29, 2007, “Opening Play of the End Game”)

You guys want to be honest to goodness Presbyterians? Then why doesn’t someone in Louisiana Presbytery file charges, and have a regular, orderly trial, with true accountability? If the trial comes out wrong, then it can be justly appealed. It is not enough for the Standing Judicial Commission to fire up their search engines. (November 18, 2007, “Standing Google Commission”)

So the Commission already has a strong presumption of guilt concerning Louisiana. This is quite different than saying there are reasonable grounds for holding a trial. You can indict someone and still hold to the presumption of innocence. . . . And the Commission holds to this strong presumption of guilt because the Commission had seen that Louisiana came up with the wrong answer on Wilkins. The Commission, you see, already had the right answer on Wilkins without trying him, or talking to him, or any of that old-fashioned stuff. So the strong presumption of Wilkins’ guilt (with no trial!) is the basis of the strong presumption of guilt for Louisiana (with no trial!), which presumption will be draped around Louisiana’s neck in preparation for her sacri. . . er, trial. . . . You all are conducting a trial with the accused going into it with a “strong presumption of guilt,” and this in its turn is based on a “strong presumption” of Wilkins’ guilt, and all without any trials! Explain that. And if you insist of proceeding with this plate of jurisprudential corned beef hash, then the damage done to the PCA will not be the result of my “acerbic pen.” The real problem you have with my writing is not the tartness that comes from it — it is a simple matter of justice. (November 19, 2007, “In A Clinch With the Tarbaby”)

The trial should have come from within the presbytery. Steve has opponents there. They should have brought charges. So if the SJC finds against Louisiana, the penalty should actually fall on those members of the presbytery who “knew” that there was a problem and refused to bring charges. The majority of the presbytery did not bring charges because they honestly did not believe they were warranted. But what of those men who “knew” they were warranted, and who refused to do anything, thus dragging the PCA through this interminable swamp? The one who knows what to do, and does not do it, for him it is sin. (November 21, 2007, “A Whole Lot Creepier Than I Remember It”)

When we come down the point, and if we are successful in getting all eyes on the trial when it happens, if the confusions that have been evident up to this point are not straightened out, their collective reaction will probably be in the line of yikes!

To recap:
  1. If Louisiana comes to trial, a charge not inherently unjust would be “failure to indict Wilkins.” An unjust charge would be “failure to convict Wilkins.” The SJC could not charge Louisiana with the latter without trying Wilkins themselves, which has not been done.

  2. Lousiana should go into such a trial with the full presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof needs to rest entirely with the prosecution.

  3. If Louisiana is found guilty of a failure to indict Wilkins, then that means that Wilkins should be indicted and brought to trial — with a full presumption of innocence, and with the burden of proof resting entirely on the prosecution. (November 25, 2007, “Questions for Louisiana”)
The bottom line is that Louisiana is judicially innocent right now, and will remain that way unless the prosecution proves that they were culpable in their examination of Steve. Provided the SJC applies this same standard to this case, which seems reasonable, my presumption of innocence question has been answered.

But here is the corner Steve’s adversaries have painted themselves into. Steve Wilkins is a minister in good standing; he is judicially innocent of all accusations made against him. He is judicially in conformity to the Westminster Confession because it has not yet been proven and shown in ecclesiastical court that he is not. . . . That leaves us with failure to indict. The SJC can find that in their judgment there was probable cause, and that charges should have been brought. So if that is what they find, what is the appropriate redress in a situation like that? Someone would have to bring charges. When those charges are brought, Wilkins would then be tried in some venue, and he would have the full presumption of innocence in that trial. The prosecution would have to prove that he was not in conformity with the Confession, instead of doing it the Internet way, which is to baldly assert that someone is out of conformity with the Confession, leaving him to try to prove his way back into conformity.

So this would be a real debate, a real confrontation, requiring real arguments. The accused would have the advantage, instead the current slander system, where the prosecution has the advantage. At the same time, genuine theological experts from both sides would be called to testify. It would be the trial of the century. Finally we would have a setting in which we all could define our terms and settle the matter. It would be fantastic. Throw us into that briar patch. (November 28, 2007, “A Good Answer”)

So here’s where we are. The SJC was involved in this unnecessarily. The trial, if there needed to be one, should have happened in Louisiana Presbytery. If there wasn’t one at presbytery, then this was the failing of those men who believed a trial to be necessary and did nothing, and not the fault of those who did not believe it to be necessary and did nothing. Because of how irregular this whole thing is, and how obviously it is politically driven, observers are right to be nervous. Any process that could conceivably result in Steve Wilkins being forced out of the PCA for “heterodox views,” as this process certainly could, without Steve ever having a full, complete, open and honorable trial, with a presumption of innocence, is a process that deserves to have honest men everywhere ladle piping hot contumely over the top of its pointy little head. If this kind of vigorous response makes folks feel uncomfortable, then they should stop defending the indefensible. . . Folks who want me to shut up about the PCA sure aren’t acting like they want me to shut up about the PCA. (November 30, 2007, “Dead Rat Behind the Fridge”)

And the point here is that Douglas Wilson is the only corrupt factor in this equation. He doesn’t care from one day to the next what he says, because he’ll just deceive his way out of any given statement if someone calls him on it. He is a dirty filthy liar whose malignancy poses a clear and present danger to the Christian church.

And he’s only going to get worse.

Thank you.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

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.


A couple of SOS Grammar Nazis pounded me for daring to criticize the incomplete sentences and childish arguments on the save our seminary website. But I press on. Why should I care what they think of my unorthodox style? At least it’s grammatically correct.

In the spirit of pressing on, however, an anonymous commenter on my fully documented anonymous attack blog just left this fully documented comment in response to a blog post written by one of my SOS Grammar Nazi critics. You can find the post in question in the comments; I will not link to it for obvious reasons:

PLAYING WITH A LOADED GUN (Children shouldn’t)

You’ve obviously been breeding these pet quotes for some time, but you’ve groomed them too close. For the sake of my time and Mark’s bandwidth, let’s deal with just one:

“[The Scriptures] are written in human languages, whose words, inflections, constructions and idioms bear everywhere indelible traces of error. The record itself furnishes evidence that the writers were in large measure dependent for their knowledge upon sources and methods in themselves fallible, and that their personal knowledge and judgments were in many matters hesitating and defective, or even wrong.” (B.B. Warfield & A.A. Hodge, Inspiration, pp. 73–82)

If the Warfield quote, which originally appeared in Truth, 9 (1883) 124–29, was served to you in such incomplete fashion in course syllabi, then that is quite damning. However, if you edited it to leave a false impression, that is evil. We’ll ignore the fact that you cited the full pagination of Appendixes 1 and 2, rather than the specific page where the quote appears in Baker’s reprint (p. 78), though that does seem to suggest you were spoon fed and haven’t done this research yourself (please don’t say you were just trying to provide context).

Following the quote above that you provided, Warfield continues:

“Nevertheless, the historical faith of the Church has always been that all the affirmations of Scripture of all kinds, whether of spiritual doctrine or duty, or of physical or historical fact, or of psychological or philosophical principle, are without any error, when the ipsissima verba of the original autographs are ascertained and interpreted in their natural and intended sense.”

It goes on, but the point is that you omitted a critical portion of Warfield’s statement. Take heart, for you’re not alone; Warfield notes:

“The italicized portion of this section [the very portion you cited], the Truth [a periodical of that era] singles out for attack as being rash, untrue and hopelessly inconsistent with the infallibility and divine inspiration of the Scriptures.”

Now Snubs, please note Warfield’s next statement:

“The careful reader who will glance at it in its context may be trusted to take another view of it. It is to be observed that it is a portion of a rejoinder to the rather common objection to verbal inspiration, that it makes the human authors of the Bible omniscient. No, it says, verbal inspiration only supposes errorlessness in what is actually said. However much they did not know, however wrong they may have been in their notions on many points — whatever they set down in their books, and thus actually teach, is found to be absolute fact. In fine, however human they may have been in other respects, so far forth as they affirm anything, every statement accurately corresponds to truth. This is what verbal inspiration means; it does not hold that what the sacred writers do not affirm is infallibly true, but only that what they do affirm is infallibly true.”

You, Snub, like most of the other SOS supporters, are obviously quite young. Your arrogance shows. You’ve learned a lot, but you are still incompetent in handling the mysteries of God. You are like a child playing with a loaded gun. You’re going to hurt someone. You are going to mislead God’s people if you teach on these matters while holding these views. Please bridle your tongue until you have learned some humility and a good deal more of what Warfield and Old Princeton actually taught.

Before I say thank you, you have to check out Dude, where’s my seminary? Methinks I see the handiwork if not the syntax of DaFedSez.

Thank you.

Sunday, January 27, 2008


There’s a new website named Dude, where’s my seminary? which some pretty bright folks apparently uploaded in response to save our seminary, a pathetic website appealing to Westminster Theological Seminary’s graduates to sign a petition that urges WTS’s administration to reconsider its philosophical direction. I called it pathetic because the author of the petition exhibits the literary talent of a teenage girl lamenting the existence of smog in the atmosphere. The third paragraph alone strings five incomplete sentences back to back. Like, wow, go back to school.

So take a look at Dude, where’s my seminary? especially the comments.

Thank you.

Saturday, January 26, 2008


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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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)

Friday, January 25, 2008

It Happened Again

Last week, after going postal on the worldwide web and hurling invectives at everyone in his path, James Jordan promised, “So, please forgive me for having troubled your waters, and be assured that it will not happen again.” Unfortunately, it happened again.

Just two days ago James Jordan posted this in the combox of the Biblical Horizons blog:

They had the right doctrine, but they were mean as snakes, with the Snake as their Daddy. They way Steve Wilkins and others have been treated in the micro-presbyterian world shows us that the same kind of people are around today.

Even more unfortunately, one of the Federal Visionists (most likely Braveheart) edited these two sentences out of existence so that no one can see them (you can find it here), presumably to contain the damage. Can’t have another episode like last week — not good for the FV PR. More importantly, they had to keep Jordan from looking like a dishonest hypocrite. After all, he promised it wouldn’t happen again.

Once again this demonstrates how the Federal Vision family sticks together, tailors its message to their audience, and has one standard for public statements and another for in-house private statements. In other words, they’re hypocrites.

Thank you. (HT: Machaira)

Thursday, January 24, 2008

The Federal Vision Family

“Never tell anybody outside the family what you’re thinking again!” — Don Corleone to Sonny

“Fredo, you’re my older brother, and I love you. But don’t ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever.” — Michael Corleone to Fredo

“Remember that loyalty to good friends is important even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do.”Douglas Wilson to the Federal Vision Family

A week has passed since James Jordan suffered his complete mental breakdown on the worldwide web and as of today none of the Federal Visionists has said boo about his vitriolic tirades, let alone repudiated him for his reprehensible behavior. And if you don’t understand the reason why none of the Federal Visionists have denounced Jordan for his cataclysmic meltdown, then you don’t understand the Federal Vision. I know, I know, the Federal Visionists coined the mantra “No one understands us” as excuse to maintain their hard hearts; but in this case it’s actually true, though you can be sure none will admit it in public.

The reason that no FVist broke ranks with James Jordan for his sweeping judgments and disgusting railings against the Christian church is because the leading FVists are not Christian ministers; they are a family of ecclesiastical gangsters in the middle of a turf war with the Christian church and years ago, Douglas Wilson — the FV mob boss — established the first rule of the FV family: “Remember that loyalty to good friends is important even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do.” In this respect the FVists are no different from any other crime syndicate. Loyalty to the family is paramount — it is the greatest virtue. Indeed, they place a higher premium on allegiance to one another than fidelity to anything biblical — whether the Scriptures, the gospel, sound doctrine, or even the Savior. Loyalty to the family at all costs — “even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do.”

Wilson understands the importance of a united front. He belongs to the school of thought that says, “Appearance is more important than substance,” which is another way of saying he is well schooled in hypocrisy. This explains why he requires unanimity among his elder board even in absurd circumstances and it accounts for the silence from the FVists whenever one of their own crashes and burns, as Mark Horne has done at least once a month for the past three years. “Loyalty to good friends is important even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do.”

But the point here is neither the loyalty nor the silence. The point is the FV family — the FV racket — that the loyalty and silence represent. These men are not Christians endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; they are a very well-disciplined crew of thugs who recognize that they cannot achieve their objective unless they maintain family discipline. And we can’t forget the FV objective either, which is to raid as many healthy churches as possible and bring them under CREC dominion.

The FV is Wilson’s turf war and it’s no different than the zoning controversy in downtown Moscow. Grab as much land as possible — legally or illegally — and call yourself king. Hence his prediction that the CREC will “be bigger than the OPC in a decade”:

Wilson also has a big-picture view of the future. He sees the CREC being a player in the Reformed world in the next few years, and I have to agree with him. His prediction was that it would be bigger than the OPC in a decade. With this in mind, he urged that we cultivate a vision of peace. He urged that we try to work with as many people as possible and that we not try to simply fill our niche. (“Doug Wilson”)

This remarkable statement from the blog of a second-year seminary student. But Wilson can’t realize that kind of growth without pirating a few churches along the way and pirates capture vessels by utilizing the principles of war.

The Federal Visionists intend to pad the CREC by infiltrating healthy churches and splitting them, if they cannot seize them altogether, just as they did to COTK and Living Word Church. And this cannot happen unless they deploy a well-disciplined team of ecclesiastical terrorists who understand the importance of loyalty. Therefore, none of them discusses family business in public and none of them takes sides against a family member.

So when James Jordan unraveled on a global platform, spewing venom and spite right and left, the FV family stuck together. Business as usual. Just another day in the FV mob because “loyalty to good friends is important even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do.”

Thank you.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

“My head! My head!”

Here is an excellent book review of Peter Leithart’s commentary on 1 & 2 Kings; it appears in Interpretation, a theological journal published by Union Theological Seminary. Without even opening the commentary, it’s clear from this review that James Jordan shaped Leithart’s hermeneutic. Indeed, reading this makes me cry, “My head! My head!” (2 Kings 4:19).

Review of Peter Leithart’s commentary on 1 & 2 Kings
Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology, 62.1 (January 2008) 98–99

1 & 2 Kings
By Peter Leithart
Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible, Brazos, Grand Rapids, 2006.
304pp. $29.99. ISBN 978-1-58743-125-8.

This commentary on the books of Kings by Peter Leithart is part of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. The aim of this series is to produce commentaries that interpret the Bible using the Nicene tradition as the “proper basis for the interpretation of the Bible as Christian Scripture” (p. 10). Commentators are chosen for “their expertise in using the Christian doctrinal tradition,” not for “historical or philological expertise” (p. 10). Commentators use whatever translation of the Bible and method of interpretation suits them. The only unifying element of this series is the premise that “doctrine provides structure and cogency to scriptural interpretation.” (p. 12).

Leithart’s method is rather eclectic. He draws here and there from historical and literary criticism, but typological analysis is clearly his preferred method of interpretation. Typology may have served the early church well, but we are not the early church. Is it really possible to do typology today without the philosophical and hermeneutical underpinnings that dominated the early centuries of Christianity? For Leithart, every use of the number “three” becomes an allusion to resurrection, every body of water a reference to baptism, and every anointing is messianic. The most tenuous of similarities lead to typological comparisons: David/Jacob; Adonijah/Adam; Solomon/Joshua, Solomon/New Adam, Solomon/Christ; Jehu/Christ; sacrificial animals/Israel, ritually clean wild animals/Gentile “God-fearers”; Saul/Ahab; Jesus/Judah; Elijah/Jesus; Elisha/Jesus; Elisha/Joseph; and judgment against Ahab’s house/eschatological judgment of the world/judgment passed against all nations in the cross of Jesus. No quotation better sums up his approach than “Moses is Elijah is John; Joshua is Elisha is Jesus. Yet also, Moses is Elijah is Jesus, and Joshua is Elisha is the church” (p. 172). I was amused to discover that Elisha’s floating ax is a sign of Christ’s resurrection (pp. 200, 203) and that “the inclusion of Gentiles into the new Covenant is signaled symbolically by many of the apostles being [Jewish!] fishermen” (p. 73).

In addition to spurious typologies, Leithart often uses the biblical text to leap into contemporary discussions that defy any logical connection to the book of Kings, e.g., a discussion of church/state/secularity/Locke with the notice that Solomon built other buildings (1 Kgs 7:1–12); modern and Christian views of the self and the condemnation of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:1–43); public/state/church relations and the Queen of Sheba’s visit (1 Kgs 10:1–29); Pope John Paul II’s speech on the culture of death and the Elisha stories (2 Kgs 4:1–44); and rationalists’ views of Jesus and Jehu’s rebellion (2 Kgs 9:1—10:36).

Other problems with this book include: misrepresenting his sources (e.g., Walsh, p. 43; Nelson, p. 69; Blenkinsopp, p. 227); the anachronistic use of the term “Gentile(s)” throughout the book; a superficial discussion of violence and God; an odd discussion of idolatry, chiasms with no point, a frightening view of God as an “equal opportunity trapper” (p. 180), the nature of God and evil; God as trickster, and vengeance against the wicked as “dear to Yahweh’s heart” (p. 223). Space prevents me from elaborating further. I have gained a much greater appreciation of the historical-critical method and of the literal sense of the text from reading this commentary. The literal sense is, after all, what God inspired the author to actually say and it contains enough theological depth that I do not have to imaginatively reconstruct the “hidden meaning” or make artificial connection where none exist. I am also now more firmly convinced that commentaries on the Bible should be left to biblical scholars.

Pauline A. Viviano
Loyola University
Chicago, Illinois

On a personal note, I have several friends who have Peter Leithart’s knife ware stuck firmly in their backs. And they don’t wear it well. Liethart operates as one of Wilson’s silent assassins, befriending members of the Kult who are suspects in Wilson’s paranoid mind. Leithart counsels them. Prays with them. Shows kindness to them. And then reports their every word back to Wilson, who sees to a bullet in the back of their heads, shot in the darkness of Anselm’s basement. Leithart was a primary instrument in this family’s demise. What a friend.

At one time you could say that Leithart brought detergent to Moscow to help sanitize Wilson’s PR, but you can’t disinfect raw sewage without spillage contaminating your person; you can’t bring sanity to the insane; and in the end St. Paul’s axiom holds true: “Evil company corrupts good habits.” If Peter ever had any good, it’s all gone now. So on that note, here’s a king whose end Peter Leithart should contemplate: “And the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes: he slew also all the princes of Judah in Riblah. Then he put out the eyes of Zedekiah; and the king of Babylon bound him in chains, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his death.” (Jer. 52:10–11.)

Thank you. (HT: Anon)

NECM and the Number of the Elect

Bob Mattes of Reformed Musings has posted another justification of Christian orthodoxy on Green Bagginses, which he titled “Reprobate in the Visible Church . . . Again.” And as is his custom, he states his proposition, presents biblical and confessional proofs for his proposition, and concludes his essay. In this instance, Bob addresses the Federal Visonists’ use of the phrase “non-elect covenant member” to substitute for the word “reprobate” and he establishes the FVists’ inconsistency with Reformed theology for over half a millennium, concluding:

Unless, of course, a handful of clever men in the later 20th and early 21st century have discovered what our learned forefathers have missed for 2000 years, including orthodox Reformed theologians for almost 500 years. But I don’t think so.

This got me to thinking. The first time and place the words “non-elect covenant member” appear is in the book Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons, in a chapter titled “Covenant and Election” by John Barach, who wrote, “Using our traditional theological language, we would say that these were non-elect members of the covenant.” Of course, Barach pulls a fast one here because, as Bob demonstrates, this is not “traditional theological language.” Far from it.

But the most striking thing about this is that Barach’s statement appears on page 154 of Auburn Avenue Theology. This is arresting because some church fathers held that the 153 fishes caught by St. Peter in the Gospel of John signify the fixed number of the elect: “Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, and hundred and fifty and three” (John 21:11). Obviously St. Peter used a covenantal net that represented the covenant, which means that the fish represent the elect — hence “fishers of men” (Matt. 4:19). So if you take the number representing the foreordained number of the elect (153) and add one (1), which signifies Barach, the Federal Vision, and all the other “non-elect covenant members,” we get 154, which is the page number where the Federal Visionists first floated the words NECM. The equation looks like this:

153 + 1 = 154.

But that’s not all. This principle of factoring the number one (1) to the elect works by subtraction as well. If you take the number of the twelve (12) disciples and subtract one (1) for Judas, who was never elect, you get eleven (11); and if you take the number of the twelve (12) and add one (1) for St. Paul and one (1) for St. James Jordan the Magnificent, you get fourteen (14), which is really the sum total of all the tribes of Israel. And if you multiply eleven (11) times fourteen (14) you get 154:

11 × 14 = 154

So it all adds up. The number of the elect is fixed and Scripture reveals that we can add the NECM to that number, as long as we subtract them in the end.

Thank you.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

News Flash for Barlow

I was working this into another post, but Jimmy Jordan’s recent worldwide meltdown took precedence and that post will probably go the way of all flesh. Therefore:

The Federal Vision Nimrods have opened up another blog, this one called Biblical Horizons. It appears that this blog will be an ecumenical effort within the schismatic camp, where they all get to blow and pontificate on whatever enters their minds at any given time. Jeffrey “Braveheart” Meyers wrote their first post on January 17 and today they gave the helm to the one and only James Jordan. You have to read his “analysis” of Psalms 23–29; it looks like a cross between the DaVinci Code and an LSD flashback, which may account for his recent hallucinations. This is too rich. And it only costs $25.

Attention DaFedSez: If you are out there, your pupil needs you. This is beyond me.

Thank you.

A Question for Braveheart

I have a question for Dr. Jeffery “Braveheart” Meyers:

According to this brother, you affirm that your rubber-nose photos were just an attempt to not take yourselves too seriously. Given this premise, I have a hard time understanding why you (or your “spy”) named the photo of Steven “Machen” Wilkins “NotTheArchHeretic” and it’s difficult for me to understand why the caption above the photo says, “But this does look suspiciously like Steve Wilkins, the arch-heretic himself”; because the words “arch-heretic” sure sound like someone’s thumbing their nose at the PCA. Therefore, could you please explain to me how this is not an attempt to not take the PCA’s indictment too seriously?

By the way, you have to love my graphic artist; if you ask me he’s honoring your wish that no one take you too seriously!

Thank you.

Friday, January 18, 2008


“Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.” — Psalm 51:4

Last October I posted a ditty on the confession of Marion Jones, the Olympic medalist who pled guilty to lying to federal investigators. Last Friday a federal judge sentenced her to six months in prison, two years of supervised release, and 400 hours of community service. Marion Jones wept when she heard the sentence, but she did not complain. Once again she took full responsibility for her sins — without excuse.

In light of James Jordan’s complete mental breakdown yesterday and today’s aggravation thereof, I repost Marion Jones’ confession as an example for all Christians to contemplate — which may even include some of the leaders of the Federal Vision.

As before, grab a tissue and hit play:

Thank you.

Pastor Braveheart: “not very fun to be around”

Pastor Jeffery “Braveheart” Meyers has visited my fully documented anonymous attack blog to leave me a love note, writing:

Please remove the photo of Jordan that appears in this post. That image is MY PROPERTY and I did not give you permission to use it here. You have stolen what belongs to me. You are clearly in violation of copyright laws.

Thank you.

Jeff Meyers

Dr. Braveheart,

You may not know this, but Jimmy Jordan put me through this same exercise two weeks ago after he saw my widely acclaimed fully documented anonymous attack post “Bag o’ Snakes” and while I did not post my attorney’s counsel at that time, he concluded that James Jordan violated the Ninth Commandment when he accused me of violating copyright law. So rather than wait until Monday for me to contact my lawyer again, can you please point me to the exact US Copyright code that I violated and demonstrate how my use of the photograph (which you have not established belongs to you) does not conform to the Fair Use clause thereof? (I suggest you remove your Bozo mask before you read the code; methinks the funny glasses may have impaired your vision, if not your judgment.)

And when you discover that you, like Jimmy, are blowing smoke, I urge you to reflect on the words that you penned three days ago, which I cite pursuant to the Fair Use clause of US Copyright code:

People who take themselves too seriously should not be trusted. Besides, they’re not very fun to be around.

Far from being evidence of hubris, mocking one’s self and whatever “movement” one might be associated with is quite healthy. (“Humility & Humor”)

You see, Pastor Braveheart, your comment about “MY PROPERTY” leaves me with the distinct impression that you take yourself too seriously and that I should not trust you. Even worse, it persuades me that you’re not very fun to be around. So I encourage you to join me in mocking James Jordan, the Godfather of the Federal Vision “movement” you’re associated with, because it (mocking) really is quite healthy.

Thank you.

Worse Than None

The official Federal Vision Damage Control Unit swung into action this morning, trying to rehabilitate James Jordan’s complete meltdown on the worldwide web. Accordingly, the Federal Visionists successfully compelled their Godfather to post a comment on two blogs to seek forgiveness for “several overheated posts” and for “having troubled your waters.” Here is his comment in full:


I hereby ask your forgiveness for my several overheated posts over the last few days. I have deleted all but the first, which is the only thing I had any right to post to you; to wit: that there is nothing wrong with anyone’s commenting on the public actions and behavior of certain parties in the PCA, behavior that is public and that some regard as shocking and scandalous.

I was out of line in my comments here, partly because the rhetoric I employed is not appropriate in a public blog, and partly because, being neither in the PCA nor a presbyterian, anything beyond a general expression of concern or horror at how these affairs are being conducted is inappropriate.

I allowed my friendship with persons I believe are being wrongfully persecuted to inflame my language, and I wrote in anger, and I should not have done so.

So, please forgive me for having troubled your waters, and be assured that it will not happen again.


James B. Jordan

As confessions go, this is about as offensive as Jordan’s original sin, which he happily affirms. So let’s take it point for point:

I hereby ask your forgiveness for my several overheated posts over the last few days.

Jordan seeks forgiveness for the sin of “several overheated posts,” though he leaves the word “overheated” undefined. What does he mean by “overheated”? Does he refer to a grown man throwing a sinful temper tantrum, or does he think he got a little too hot under the collar, so to speak? I once had an “overheated” engine, but I didn’t attribute sin to it, and my wife has “overheated” my coffee on occasion, but neither she nor the coffee committed sin. So we’ll have to see what Jordan means.

I have deleted all but the first, which is the only thing I had any right to post to you; to wit: that there is nothing wrong with anyone’s commenting on the public actions and behavior of certain parties in the PCA, behavior that is public and that some regard as shocking and scandalous.

Okay, he deleted all his comments from “John Armstrong’s Meddling Again” except the original comment, which is another way of saying exactly how much forgiveness he seeks because the original comment is no less offensive than all the reviling that followed it. In fact, it laid the foundation for everything else he wrote. Of course, this explains why he still believes the actions of the PCA are “shocking and scandalous.”

I was out of line . . .

This strikes me as an understatement. In 1 Corinthians 5:11 Paul does not instruct the Church to excommunicate “railers” because he believes reviling is merely “out of line.”

I was out of line in my comments here, partly because the rhetoric I employed is not appropriate in a public blog. . .

Jordan believes that his language was “not appropriate in a public blog” and he clearly implies that his language is absolutely appropriate for non-public-blog discourse, such as we see on the Biblical Horizons yahoo Group. In other words, this stipulation — this one single condition — protects the soul of Jordan’s conviction, which makes room for the abundance of his heart. His entire so-called confession hangs on this one line.

. . . and partly because, being neither in the PCA nor a presbyterian. . .

Off point, but this is a clear admission that the CREC, where he holds his membership, is not presbyterian, and to my knowledge he is the first confederate to make this admission.

. . . and partly because, being neither in the PCA nor a presbyterian, anything beyond a general expression of concern or horror at how these affairs are being conducted is inappropriate.

This admission is similar to Prince Blog’s admission that while he knows nothing about the PCA’s BCO, he still reserves the right to comment on the PCA’s proceedings. Of course, neither Beelzeblog nor James Jordan acknowledge that their Federal Visionist peers in the PCA affirmed the PCA’s form of government by covenant and all the boohooing in the world after the fact doesn’t remove their covenantal obligations. More importantly, however, when men admit their ignorance relative to a certain subject, it behooves them to refrain from editorializing on that subject. If a man does not understand presbyterian polity, then why would he pass judgment on the very polity he freely admits he doesn’t understand? In other words, Jordan shouldn’t even offer “general expression of concern or horror at how these affairs are being conducted” when he does not know how these affairs are being conducted. One follows the other in logical sequence. But the working assumption with all the Federal Visionists is that THEY are the authorities on all things ecclesia.

I allowed my friendship with persons I believe are being wrongfully persecuted to inflame my language. . .

And if he was any kind of friend to Wilkins, he would urge him to honor his vows. Further, if Jordan had any brains, he would take a moment to learn presbyterian polity. It might keep him from using words such as “wrongfully persecuted.”

. . . and I wrote in anger, and I should not have done so.

This apparently defines the word “overheated.” He “wrote in anger.”

So, please forgive me for having troubled your waters, and be assured that it will not happen again.

The whole “troubled waters” metaphor strikes me as one more poke in the eye. First, it casts Jordan in the role of the angel in John 5. Second, it plainly diminishes the magnitude of his sin. What’s the big deal? — he troubled the waters.

Charles Spurgeon, writing under the pseudonym John Ploughman, coined the proverb, “A good excuse is worse than none,” to convey the point that when confessing your sins, it’s always best to come all the way clean, and refusal to admit the whole truth only aggravates your sin. In this instance, Jordan’s confession furnishes us with a good example of peacemaking Federal Vision style: Hold to your sins; humble not yourself; and concede no points of fact. In other words, his confession is worse than none.

Thank you.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

filthy hypocrite

James Jordan hosts the Biblical Horizons website (which is a separate site from the Biblical Horizons Yahoo Group). If you go there, you can download for free Jordan’s newsletters and the books he published through Gary North’s Institute for Christian Economics (ICE). And if you’re really interested, you can purchase an autographed copy of his commentary on Daniel, which reminds me of the words, “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.”

Memo to Jimmy:
With all of your rants about “tyranny,” perhaps you should remove from your sidebar the name of the couple who refused to sign the “Christ Church Commitment to Loyalty,” which states:

Commitment to Loyalty
I pledge to conduct myself in such a way that no one could ever question my loyalty to the peace and purity of Christ Church. This includes refusing to speak to any unauthorized person about grievances I might have, and includes refusing to hear any such criticisms as well. If commitment to this standard in any way compromises my conscience, then I understand that my resignation will be accepted, without notice, and without prejudice.

I am certain they would appreciate it, you abusive, filthy hypocrite.

Thank you.

James Jordan Is Loose!

U P D A T E # 2:
Jimmy took his show on the road, traveling to Green Bagginses territory in order to confirm that he penned the offending comments. And he added a few insults to boot (here).

U P D A T E:
Jimmy returned to pronounce judgment on his readers (here). This guy’s unbelievable!

Well, it looks like the Federal Visionists decided to let James Jordan out of his rubber room again, to see if he could behave himself and not embarrass them too much.

He couldn’t and he did.

The Magister Contradictus Jacobus Jordanius appeared on a blog named Christianity: Doctrine and Ethics to defend the new Reformation called “Federal Vision” and once again the “flumen magnus” demonstrated why the Federal Visionists kept him so well hidden for lo these many years. Here are his unabridged comments in all their glory:

James Jordan said . . .
The actions of the Star Judicial Chamber of the PCA are so openly wicked and evil, and so totally tyrannical, that is makes the Papacy look like small potatoes by comparison. All Christians in all kinds of churches should be appalled by this tyranny, and it is certainly fine for Armstrong, myself, and others to comment on it.

James Jordan said . . .
If you men cannot recognize the actions of this Star Chamber as tyranny and evil, you are really beyond help. The presbytery has twice examined Wilkins and said he is not out of accord with the Confession. Since this was not the “verdict” desired by the antichrists of the Star Chamber, they threaten the presbytery! I stand by my words. These actions are nothing less than demonic, and evidence that the PCA is being given over. The very fact that the PCA would set up such a Star Chamber, which is beyond appeal, is more evidence. Not even the Papacy has such power, nor claims such power. And you men cannot see this? You are blind, and need to pray for salvation from bondage. Also, the fact that the ignorant PCA GA blindly voted to accept the distortions and downright lies of the FV Report is only evidence that these men are easily misled and are too busy to investigate matters for themselves. The PCA is now virtually a tyranny, and I’m overwhelmingly happy not to be part of it.

James Jordan said . . .
This is a joke, right? The PCA committee, stacked from the start, produces a series of easily-provable lies, allows virtually no time for discussion so that not only FV person even gets to the mike, and you want to defend this? My language is not over the top. It is very mild. And if you are offended, good. Those of you who lie repeatedly about the beliefs of ordained ministers of Christ, and who rape and divide His church, are going to hear far worse in time to come.

James Jordan said . . .
Whenever someone points out liars, he’s obnoxious. Goes with the territory. The PCA committee was a pack of liars. The discussion at GA was a joke. I’m not PCA. I wasn’t there. I saw it online. I saw that clown Sproul lie about the FV, and I saw the cowardly committee try and explain why they did not interview anyone, and I saw them lie and say they had actually read and studied the supposed FV material. All out there for the world to see. No fear of God before their eyes. What I gather bothers you is that people outside the PCA can see this abomination and the tyranny of your evil Star Chamber and can comment on it. Yes, we can. It’s appalling. Luther was treated far better. But I assure you, lying about God’s ministers and tearing up the bride of Christ is far more serious than being seen as obnoxious on some blog.

James Jordan said . . .
Go to and compare the joint FV statement with the report of the PCA committee. Or read the responses there. It was understandable that a bapterian group like the PCA contained men who misunderstood the historical Calvinism of the FV meetings, but after the matter had been explained dozens of time, and the FV people continued to be mischaracterized as undermining justification by faith alone (which we all affirm wholeheartedly), then it becomes a matter of lying.

James Jordan said . . .
Well, this is now just a joke. If you don’t think Sproul is a clown, you obviously did not watch his performance at GA. I don’t need to interview him. He clowned around quite clearly in front of everyone. For the rest, you chaps clearly are not interested in the Bible and the Reformed confessions, so there’s no point in continuing with you. And, you clearly despise Presbyterian church government, since the LA Presbytery has TWICE investigated Wilkins and found no ground for charges. You are not presbyterians at all. I wash my hands of you. Be offended as much as you want. If you wish to be treated with respect, cease your contemptable [sic] behavior.

James Jordan said . . .
The idiocy continues. Justification by faith alone has nothing to do with the FV matter, since all FV exponents affirm completely and wholeheartedly the historic protestant and Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. No matter how many times you men repeat your lies, we shall stand up and call you liars and rebuke your wickedness.

As for the Star Chamber, it’s true that the PCA, like a gaggle of fools, set this evil thing in place. It’s the opposite of any kind of Biblical and presbyterian government, as anyone can see, and it’s going to be pointed out as such by many more than Armstrong and myself.

You have to be amazed at the morality of the gods of the PCA. Among normal decent people, if you said I was beating my wife, and I said, “No, I’m not,” that would be it. Innocent until proven guilty. Not in the PCA. No, there has to be an investigation. So, the investigation conducted by those nearest to me comes back and says, “Nope, he’s not beating his wife.” Among normal decent people that would be enough.

But not for the gods of the PCA. No, they demand another investigation. The second investigation, by people close to me who know me, comes back and says, “Nope, he’s not beating his wife.” Now among normal decent people that would be more than enough. But not for you evil men, and not for your gods. Your gods come back and say, “Either find this man guilty of beating his wife or we will cut you out of our denomination.” THAT’s the PCA.

You regard your sect as a church of Jesus Christ? It is about like the church of Sardis, and EVERYONE CAN SEE IT!

You should really step back and take a look at your collective appalling behavior — your misrepresentations, your character assassinations, your lies, and your tyrannies — and do something about it; because if you don’t, the Lord of the Church most certainly will do something about it.

James Jordan said . . .
Well, it’s been fun, men. In the Psalm 2 sense. Your history of deliberately misreading and distorting the views of ordained ministers of the Gospel has not gone unnoticed in the wider world, and has not gone unnoticed in heaven. I don’t have to be a prophet to know that. And the viciousness of your Star Chamber has not gone unnoticed either. If there were an ounce of the fear of God before your eyes, you’d know this. Sadly, there is not. I leave you to your fate.

James Jordan said . . .
Some men remain in the PCA because God has told them they have a duty to help the 7000 who have not yet bowed the knee to antichrist. The hatred of the Kingship of Jesus, which characterizes so much of the PCA, is worth fighting. The Reformed faith is that faith includes fiducia, and this is still worth fighting for, regardless of how many antinominian [sic] blogs hate it.

James Jordan said . . .
The question of why FV mean don’t leave the PCA has another aspect. Mr. Webb and others here assume that THEY speak for the majority of the PCA. That is far from demonstrable. The fact that in a few presbyteries the bullies have gotten false statements about the FV passed, and the fact that the GA was hoodwinked into the doing the same, does not prove that the PCA is in fact hostile to what the FV actually stands for. It’s entirely possible that the antinomians and two-kingdom haters of Jesus’ kingship are the minority in the PCA, and that the FV represents the majority. Why don’t you who deny that faith involves faithfulness leave the PCA? You’ve certainly left the Reformed faith.

James Jordan, you’re not obnoxious, you’re a freak.

Thank you.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

“Meet the Theonomists”

Earlier today I re-read “Meet the Theonomists” for the first time in many a moon and was blown away at Dr. Roche’s keen analysis and incredible foresight. Eight years ago he identified the key players in the Federal Vision — Wilson, Jordan, Leithart, Wilkins, Meyers, Schlissel, Smith, Bledsoe (I deleted his emails from “Bag o’ Snakes”) — before they ever had their Vision. He also identified their “high-church ecclesiocentrism,” their aberrant covenant soteriology, their depreciation of the new birth for “covenant children,” and in Wilson’s and Wilkins’ case, their absurd revision of Southern history (he even smelled plagiarism). Moreover, he saw from afar the rivalry between Wilson and Sandlin (if you don’t know how that one ended, read this), and back then he affirmed James Jordan’s “bizarre” hermeneutic.

Of course, since there was no Federal Vision when Dr. Roche wrote this essay (he wrote it two years before the 2002 AAPC), he categorized his analysis under “theonomy.” Nevertheless, it’s interesting to see how the theonomists have recast their message since then and how events have unfolded. Take the time to read “Meet the Theonomists” by Dr. Thomas Roche. He saw the Federal Vision in its germ state long before the Auburn Avenue clowns saw its infectious value and hatched it into their disease.

Thank you.

Monday, January 14, 2008

“Spaceship Moscow”

The latest Auburn Avenue high jinks furnishes me with an opportunity to plug this email written by Dr. Tom Roche, which I lifted from the BB Warfield list (fully documented anonymous attack bloggers don’t ask for permission to lift emails from public lists):

Re: [bbwarfield] From the Auburn Avenue Lampoon

It doesn’t sound like anything very new — in Credenda Agenda, for instance, Doug Wilson and his associates have long been explicitly noted for using hard, biting satire to respond to critics, often without even any attempt to answer the substantive arguments of said critics, and Wilson has written at least one essay specifically defending and bragging about this policy. Obviously, when you do not have a serious argument to rebut your critics, yelling and screaming at them and making fun of them will do, right?

Dr. Tom Roche
Norton, MA
Member — Lakeville Christian Fellowship

I call this to your attention because one Dr. Thomas Roche wrote an excellent essay called “Meet the Theonomists,” which was his farewell to theonomy and all its fruit loops. I do not know if the same man wrote both pieces, but I highly commend “Meet the Theonomists” because Dr. Roche nailed it eight years ago, predicting with incredible foresight Dougzilla’s mammoth influence on the Reformed world:

It may seem pretentious in the extreme for a self-taught former guitar leader, barely 40 years old, and Reformed for a period better measured in months than years, to start to try to export the Reformed faith, and build a national ministry presence in the Reformed orbit, but that is what Wilson did. . . . Clearly, it is obvious to me that Wilson and his associates not only see themselves as theonomists, but that they are eager to be the new primum mobile of this movement, complete with their visions for courtship, schooling, and church, in the post-Rushdoony era fast approaching. They are not actively hostile to Sandlin and the current Chalcedon crowd, not by any means, but they are rivals. Indeed, in my opinion Wilson’s is a textbook case of how to embrace a worldview and come from out of nowhere to establish yourself as a leading contender for movement leadership and a force that people think of when they consider said movement. As I said above, Wilson and his associates in Idaho constitute a colossos, and they are not going to fall into the sea anytime soon.

If you don’t read the whole essay, which is well worth your time, then at least read the subsection “Spaceship Moscow” for its insight. By the way, the Sandlin reference just kills me.

Thank you.

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.


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.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Johnny One Note Sings Again

U P D A T E:
I have corrected the typo; many thanks to all those who wrote in.

For those of you tempted to think that I’m some kind of Johnny One Note because I lay the sole responsibility for the damage wrought by the Federal Vision at the feet of Douglas Wilson, please notice this: Beelzeblog — the Great Protector — the high and lofty who knoweth all things and who cannot sin — was the first person to announce the news about the PCA Indictment of Louisiana Presbytery:

The indictment of Louisiana Presbytery by the Standing Judicial Commission has now been made public, although I don’t know where it is on the Net. As soon as I do, I will link to it.

The portion that was emailed to me . . . (“Louisiana Indictment”)

Of course, Doug Wilson has no formal denominational affiliation (if words have meaning a federation is no more a denomination than it is a presbytery) and he has absolutely no connection to the PCA apart from his promise to taunt, jeer, and harass them without mercy as their judicial process continues. Nevertheless, he scooped Reformed Musings by one full day when he blogged that the PCA cited and indicted LAP, which is interesting because Bob Mattes is actually a member in good standing in the PCA.

As you consider this fact, please notice the dougspeak he used when he identified how he received news of the Indictment: “The portion that was emailed to me. . .” Yeah, right, I believe that. Someone cut and pasted a “portion” of the Indictment into an email and sent it to Wilson rather than forwarding the entire text. This probably explains why he condensed and analyzed the charges with such certainty and it probably accounts for his accurate summary of the Amends:

The first is that the language seems to alternate back and forth between saying that there were grounds for indicting Steve Wilkins for being out of conformity with the Confession (which is of course appropriate for them to say and do), and assuming that he actually is out of conformity with the Confession (which has not yet been established anywhere). The former is saying that there was “probable cause,” enough indications of a problem to warrant a trial. But in their indictment of Louisiana, they are going well beyond this. They are saying that these indications were so marked that Louisiana, by not acting on them, were guilty themselves of a “fundamental neglect of the Biblical responsibilties [sic] of the eldership.”

The second point is really striking. The indictment gives Louisiana Presbytery two options for breaking this “impasse.” The first is for the Louisiana Presbytery to repent (and show its repentance by bringing Steve to trial, or referring the matter to another body to try). The second is to have the ecclesiastical connection between Louisiana Presbytery and the PCA dissolved, with the borders of neighboring presbyteries being adjusted to pick up any Louisiana churches that desire to remain in the PCA.

If Louisiana pleads not guilty, then their trial will be held at the beginning of March. If they are found to be in the clear, then that should settle it. If they are found to be guilty, then that would require a trial of Steve. But it also looks as though the SJC has given Louisiana the option of pleading guilty now, retaining jurisdiction over Steve, and scheduling a trial for him before Louisiana Presbytery. (Ibid, emphasis original)

As noted, Wilson has no interest in this matter at all; it’s none of his business and, to the extent that the peace and purity of the church are concerned, it’s in everyone’s best interest to keep him out of the loop. As a rule, you don’t feed rogue elephants — unless, that is, you want to encourage rampages, which raises the question, Who fed the rogue?

I think it’s safe to rule out Prosecutor Sam Duncan; I can’t think of any good reason why he would tip off the Fearless Leader about how “Biblical justice and due process are clearly not being honored.” And I think it’s safe to rule out Assistant Prosecutor Lane Keister as a possible suspect. The Great Protector already charged Lane to “recognize that what is right and what the PCA is positioned to get away with in this prosecution are two different things,” and I see no reason for Pastor Lane to notify Wilson that “the charade will simply be brazened out.” After all, it’s a charade.

So if no one from the prosecution emailed the Indictment to Beelzeblog, then who did? Well, I suppose that one of the prosecutors sent an electronic copy of the Indictment to the Stated Clerk of Louisiana Presbytery, who immediately forwarded it to the 10–13 presbyters in LAP who have run interference for Steve Wilkins from the beginning. And I suppose that Wilkins forwarded the email in toto (not a “portion”) to Prince Blog who immediately posted his brilliant analysis to the web.

Now, there’s no overt sin in forwarding this email. The PCA’s form of government is not like the Biblical Horizons Yahoo group. It doesn’t conduct secret meetings on public groups and then threaten frivolous suites to chill critics. And the PCA’s form of government is not like the CREC’s because, technically, the CREC has no form of government just has it has no demonstrable standards. But there is sin involved if Steve Wilkins forwarded the email to Wilson hoping he would do his Xs and Os imitation of John Madden to disrupt the PCA, because that would be a clear violation of the covenant he made when he vowed “to strive for the purity, peace, unity and edification of the Church.”

This raises the question, Why did Steve Wilkins send the email to Beelzeblog? He certainly didn’t send it for counsel; that would be like me seeking copyright counsel from Al Sharpton. Wilson already admitted he has “no special knowledge of things BCO,” which is a huge admission from the man who generally puts himself forward as THE authority on all things ecclesia. So what other reason would Steve Wilkins forward the Indictment to Prince Blog? And the answer to this question brings us back to Johnny One Note.

Wilkins forwarded the Indictment to Wilson because Wilson has helped coordinate their every move since this controversy erupted, and without him as their leader the whole Federal Vision movement would collapse. The PCA has effectively trapped LAP in a corner by holding these rebellious presbyters to their covenant vows and neither Wilkins nor LAP knows what to do. They are like sheep without a shepherd. So they turned to a man who no has ever ordained and who has never submitted to a legitimate ministerial examination, which includes the doug-and-pony show in front of his hand-picked CREC flunkies. They looked to the man who fantasizes that he is Martin Luther ushering in a new Reformation while he fights imaginary wolves (I wonder how many sheep he ate, mistaking them as wolves); they appealed to the self-proclaimed authority who declared — ex cathedra — “Steve Wilkins is today’s Machen.”

These facts are true and I present them as one more proof that Douglas Wilson is THE leader of the Federal Vision. And if you want to see the end of the Federal Vision, then you must stop (or at least marginalize) Wilson, because if you want to kill a snake you have to cut off its head.

Thank you.

A Monkey Boy Comments

I just received this comment from another monkey boy who is ashamed of his baptized name. He wrote:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post “Bag o’ Snakes”:

I’m an arrogant ass who won’t even state my name, yet call others out on being ashamed of their baptism.

I repent of my ways and for outright stealing private correspondence and then posting it publicly, proving once and for all that I do not possess the smallest trace of testicular fortitude. Instead of dealing with the exegetical and theological issues, I would rather slander other brothers in Christ.

Why? Because I’m sure Jesus would approve.

And so would Jack Bauer.

Well, you are an arrogant ass (ignorant too) and I don’t blame you for not stating your name. But let me answer your argument point for point, to demonstrate your ignorance.

I only call on monkey boys to state their real name because the Fearless Leader — Beelzeblog — has declared that I am ashamed of my baptized name because I host a fully documented anonymous attack blog. Of course, this argument is just plain silly because he refuses to acknowledge his well-deserved reputation for harassing, bullying, and intimidating anyone who criticizes the Kult. Furthermore, the Great Protector doesn’t account for all the times that he adopted pseudonyms on the local listserv to defend his “good name,” which is a subject for another website. Frankly, if anyone has reason to be ashamed of their baptized name, it’s Douglas James Wilson, founder of this century’s most malevolent non-Christian cult. But I think we’ve established he has no shame.

Your second paragraph asserts that I stole “private correspondence.” This is not true and your argument (and your anger) disappears the moment you admit the truth. You also assert that you “do not possess the smallest trace of testicular fortitude,” and I must agree. After all, you are a monkey boy who is ashamed of his baptized name.

You continue by asserting that I refuse to deal with “the exegetical and theological issues.” And I have to admit that this is true because better men than me have already demolished the FV seven times from Sunday. But the FVists insist that these biblical scholars and trained theologians have misrepresented them, which immediately makes this a character issue. Someone’s lying. Personally, I find it hard to believe that seven Reformed denominations and countless micro-denominations have condemned the Federal Vision based upon numerous misrepresentations made by honorable men in the Church, which is one reason I focus on the FVists’ deficient moral characters as witnessed by their email exchange titled “Bag o’ Snakes.” Maybe you would understand this point better if I named the post “House o’ Liars.”

Monkey Boy continues, stating, “I would rather slander other brothers in Christ.” First of all, it’s not slander if it’s in writing; it’s libel. Second, it’s neither libel nor slander if it’s true. And third, I do not count any of these Bozos brothers in Christ. The closest biblical definition for them is “false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves” (Matt. 7:15). And I point to the email exchange “Bag o’ Snakes” as one more proof of their two-faced duplicity (is that redundant?).

Finally, Monkey Boy writes, “Why? Because I’m sure Jesus would approve. And so would Jack Bauer.” Yes, Jesus does approve of exposing hypocrites but methinks you don’t know this because your too busy watching TV instead of reading your Bible.

Thank you.

PS: You really need to do something about your pent-up anger.