Saturday, March 29, 2008

DUMB & Tan: Excursus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would love to hear Mr. Wilson’s answer to that one.
January 3, 2007 | Robin

Dan and anyone transversing FV waters,

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

“. . . must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.” (1 Tim. 3:7)
January 3, 2007 | Robin

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

And second, with regard to your question about the prostitute, it would depend on who it was having the heart attack at that inopportune moment — Samson? Judah? Lecherous Larry? In short, if the person was elect and therefore regenerate, they would go straight to Glory, with (I trust) a suitably abashed countenance [sic]. If they were not regenerate, they would go to their judgment.
January 3, 2007 | Douglas Wilson

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

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

FV guys, please, with due respect, don’t pull a Rick Warren and misapply your “persecutions” with Christ or his apostles. Some of us do know our Bibles. Where is Walter Martin when you need him? I’m certain he’d be updating his magnum opus.
January 3, 2007 | Robin

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

The church here in Moscow has a long way to go, and we have a lot to learn. But we have received the grace of being disgraced; we have obtained the honor of being dishonored; we have received the great compliment of being significant enough to lie about.
January 3, 2007 | Douglas Wilson


And you have the humility to behave like a martyr. . .
January 3, 2007 | KBennett

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

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

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

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

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

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

I pray God will grant you grace unto repentance before it’s too late.
January 4, 2007 | Robin

And Robin,

I shouldn’t need to say this, really, but I was not accusing Jesus of being a carouser. I was saying that His enemies threw whatever rocks they could, and one of them was the accusation that our Lord was a glutton and a drunkard, to be distinguished from John the Baptist, who was accused of having a demon. I was saying this to refute your notion that enemies of the gospel should be trusted by any of us in determining whether a minister is suffering “for the gospel” or not.
January 4, 2007 | Douglas Wilson

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

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

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

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

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

As I’ve already noted, the fallout from the story continues to this day. Wilson utterly and completely scandalized the community with his reprehensible revision of history and his equally reprehensible behavior. Here is a documented bullet list that shows just some of the damage that Wilson did to the gospel during those four months:
  • Douglas Wilson and Christ Church refused to acknowledge the book’s thesis, insisting that he wrote a book condemning the Civil War as a means of abolition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Douglas Wilson alienated himself from the community so badly that two attempted land deals for Christ Church collapsed because the sellers wanted nothing to do with the man, which forced Christ Church to retain a proxy to purchase land on their behalf in a recent real-estate transaction.
In short, Douglas Wilson — the Great Protector of all that is unholy — ruined completely his reputation; endeavored with all his might to ruin the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; and he managed to do this without the help of a single eighteen wheeler.

Thank you.


R. Scott Clark said...

"Dad Rod" is an inside-baseball way of referring to the venerable Rod Rosenblatt, co-host of the White Horse Inn radio program.

Thanks for your good work.


Mark T. said...

Shouldn’t that be the Venerable Bede Rod?

Anonymous said...

Mark T, let's tell the truth about some things.

The University of Idaho used public funds in direct opposition to Idaho state law to protest Wilson.

The University of Idaho had to bus in protesters to the History Conference illegally using state money.

Wilson has a better reputation in Moscow than you do.

Mark T. said...

Dear Monkey Boy,

Why are you ashamed of your baptized name? Let me guess: You are ashamed of your baptized name because you have to lie in order to protect your Fearless Leader’s reputation by repeating his falsehoods from 2003.

Think with me for a minute. The Fearless Leader threatened all sorts of litigation back then, citing your very storyline.

QUESTION #1: Why didn’t he sue?
QUESTION # 2: Why didn’t he repeat this fairytale to the governor when he wrote his little boohoo letter?

ANSWER: He didn’t sue and he didn’t cry to the governor about illegal use of state funds because he knew it was not true. It’s easier to lie in public and to the congregation than it is in court.

Please take a word of advice from someone who means you no harm: get out before it’s too late.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Mark T, you lied about me and you lie about things in Moscow.

BTW your new blog software doesn't lend itself to adding names. Mark T you hide behind a moniker even though no one is hunting you. The Bible says that the wicked flee even though no one pursues. Use your name sometime.

You don't have to sue when you are right. You don't have to run to court to take care of illegal actions. BTW your UofI friends were warned to stop using the computer system to post anti-Christ Church material because it was against the Idaho law.


Mark T. said...


If you are the same monkey boy that tried posting names on my blog last November, then be advised that I have not changed my rule. Furthermore, if you are the same monkey boy that tried posting last November, then I really feel sorry for you. You’re in for a big surprise when your little fantasy world comes crashing down. I know you don’t agree with this (in fact I don’t think you have the capacity to understand this), but just because you or the Fearless Leaders says something, it doesn’t make it true. You have no evidence to support your absurd accusations and you deny real-life evidence when you see it. You are living proof of the proverb: There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Seriously, do yourself a favor and get out.

Anonymous said...

I notice other than lying about your blog not permitting the use of respondents actual names, "Dave" here still posts anonymously. That is, unless "Dave" is any indicator of who this coward hiding behind his "fearless leader" really is?

Mark T. said...

Hi Sean,

Dave seems bent in more than one way, eh?

Anonymous said...

Our Dave here, who evidently is incapable of attaching his full name to his posts (even though he seems to be able to type most other words just fine) is Dave Glasebrook.

He jumped over to my blog to chastise me for identifying the man he blindly follows has an anti-Christ and false teacher. Ouch.

Mark T. said...


He’s a real nutjob. He’s the guy pictured standing on the corner with a placard calling City Council a bunch of bigots. Scary stuff.