Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Anonymity Excursus: The Kult Police State Part 1

This post is the first installment in a series of essays that consider Douglas Wilson’s claim that the Christ Church, Moscow, is not a well-organized syndicate of thugs that masquerades as a Christian church in order to advance its leader’s geopolitical-ecclesiastical agenda.

Douglas Wilson writes,

He wants to defend his anonymity by means of yet another slander — which is that we here in Moscow “haff our vays” of dealing with opponents, with a secret police and everything. Disagree with Wilson, and get a visit from jackbooted deacons in the middle of the night! (“Ninth Commandment Issues”; emphasis original)

First, I want to note that I never made this claim. Wilson is overstating my contention that he has a reputation for retaliating against those who publicly criticize him, and I would like to guess that he distorted my position because he’s interested in honest discourse, but I’m not that stupid.

Second, for this series’ sake I ask you to concede that Wilson has essentially accused me of accusing Christ Church, Moscow, of being a totalitarian state ruled by a ruthless autocrat who exacts vengeance against his critics.

Third, let’s run with it and see if his claim passes the smell test. Let’s take a basic definition of totalitarianism and compare it to the documented facts in Christ Church history. Accordingly,

Totalitarianism is a concept used in political science that describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private sectors. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cults, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, single-party states, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics. (Wikipedia)

I propose that we use this definition as a litmus test to determine if Christ Church, Moscow, is a normal church by biblical standards or if it fits the profile of a totalitarian state. Therefore, let’s see if Christ Church as a religious organization has the ecclesiastical equivalent of (1) Secret Police, (2) Propaganda Disseminated Through the State-Controlled Mass Media, (3) Personality Cult (this should be the most difficult to establish), (4) Regulation and Restriction of Free Discussion and Criticism, (5) Single-Party State, (6) Mass Surveillance, and (7) Widespread Use of Terror Tactics. Today we shall consider secret police. You be the judge:

While most members of most Christian churches live to glorify God, Christ Church, Moscow, is much different. To be sure, the one priority that all members of the Kult share in common is the duty to protect their Fearless Leader and his interests, and in this respect all loyal members of the Kult operate as secret police against one another, gathering information for the Fearless Leader.

And Wilson is not beyond gathering information himself. For example, he admitted in another forum that, yes, he had interrogated the five-year-old daughter of a long-time Kult member to see if her father had called Christ Church a cult. Wilson questioned the child alone, with no one else present in the room, against the father’s direct instruction. In fact, the father said, “Douglas Wilson, you are in darkness. The light of God is not in you. You are the leader of a cult and I resign my household’s membership from Christ Church. Now please leave my family alone; we want nothing to do with you.” Knowing Wilson’s thought process, he took this as an invitation to interrogate the little daughter and if she confirmed that daddy called Christ Church a cult, then Wilson could trump up ecclesiastical charges of child abuse against the father. And quite frankly, whatever else is true, any pastor that would question a five-year old to obtain this kind of information only proves by his behavior that he fronts a cult.

But we want to consider the police state of the Kult, so let me share a few eyewitness accounts with you that I’ve picked up over the years. For example, my former neighbor, who is now a former member of the Kult, told me that when he was in Christ Church he restricted certain people from calling him on the telephone at home for fear that one of his children might answer and take a message. He feared that if a person called whom the Kult had identified as an “enemy,” then the possibility existed that one of his children could unwittingly let the name slip while they were playing with other Kult children, which would spell the end of him and his family forever in the Kult. He knew that the other children would notify their parents who would immediately contact the Fearless Leader, who would begin preparations for their public execution.

Another friend of mine, who is also a former member of the Kult, told me that after he had accepted a lateral promotion within the ACCS network of schools, Douglas Wilson sat down with him and his wife to tell him that, since he had accepted a position of leadership, he should not be seen speaking with enemies of the Kult in any context. The Fearless Leader then rattled off a list of persons that he expected this man to shun in public — starting with the Kult’s version of Emmanuel Goldstein — as an expression of his loyalty and he closed his exhortation by saying, “People are watching you.”

I realize that I am not providing documentation for these stories, but that’s okay. We have plenty of documentation below and lots more in the next few installments. The important point that you need to grasp is the climate of fear that pervades the Kult. For example, another friend of mine, who like the others is a former member of the Kult, has said that life in the Kult felt like living in Nazi Germany where you could not confide in anyone for fear that they would act as Thought Police and betray you to the Fearless Leader. This man lost his job at Canon Press during one of the Great Protector’s purges: Douglas Wilson saw him show kindness to an enemy of the Kult in public.[1] One week later he was gone.

Perhaps the best example that proves the Fearless Leader encourages members of the Kult to secretly police one another is the documented instance where Wilson approved of one member of the Kult tape recording a telephone conversation with another member of the Kult. Wilson admitted this in an email to the Kult member whom he had surveilled:

Fourth, Ethan told me after the fact that he had recorded his phone conversation with you, which I had not asked him to do, and did not know that he was going to do. Because he told you that someone was potentially listening at the start of the conversation, I felt free to listen to it. If he had not done so, I would not have listened to it — a standard which you apparently do not share. The line you took in our phone conversation was mystifying to me at the time, but the fact that your companion [Dr. Atwood’s son, Ethan] was listening in unbeknownst to me makes more sense of the situation. The deceptiveness involved is revealing to me. (dougsplotch)

Wilson’s admissions here are disturbing enough, but first you have to notice how he distances himself from the espionage, writing, “I had not asked him to do, and did not know that he was going to do.”[2] He’s implying that he had nothing to do with instigating the surreptitious act, but then he threw his disclaimer out the window the moment he admitted he listened to the tape: “I felt free to listen.” And why did he feel free? Well, he heard it on the tape: “Because he told you that someone was potentially listening at the start of the conversation.” It makes perfect sense. He listened to the tape and heard his spy state that someone was potentially listening, which gave the Fearless Leader license to actually listen. But you can’t miss this point: After Wilson had one Kult member secretly tape record another Kult member on the telephone, he immediately turned around and accused the person whom he had just spied on of “deceptiveness.”

This just kills me. Wilson relied on all manner of deception to accomplish the deed when he encouraged one member to entrap another and then he put his hand with the treachery by listening to the tape. Despite these facts he accused the member of his congregation that he betrayed of “deceptiveness.” Amazing. But the point stands: members of the Kult tape record one another to gather intelligence for the Fearless Leader and he documented this totalitarian fact in an email.

I have one last example for your consideration but first let me remind you that in Orwell’s 1984 the story reached its climax when the Party successfully reeducated lead character Winston Smith to betray his lover, Julia, insuring that Winston would give all of his love and loyalty to Big Brother while he accepted the Party’s version of reality. [3]

Nancy Wilson writes:

But what about when the husband is in sin? This is a very important issue. What if the husband has adopted a wrong attitude and is heading in the wrong direction? Is a wife obligated to go along? It all depends. I have often been saddened that we don’t see more Abigails in the church today. She was not afraid to call her husband a fool and to make arrangements behind his back without his permission. . . . If a man is acting foolishly, a woman is foolish to go along quietly. . . But there are times when a godly wife should beseech her husband not to act in a foolish manner. It may involve doctrine. Perhaps she is alarmed that he is being attracted to heretical ideas, whether it is “openness theology” or Roman Catholicism. She should speak to him respectfully about this, but letting him know she cannot follow him there. If she belongs to a godly church, her elders would support her in this. Perhaps he is plotting to create some kind of stink in the church. Abigail would not stand for it. A good Christian wife should go to the elders and ask them how she can be a good church member and a good wife at the same time. She should not simply stand by, hoping that her husband will do the right thing. Nor should she just accept anything her husband does as though he is infallible. If a husband is bad-mouthing his elders, his pastor, or his friends, a godly woman should refuse to go along. She should speak to him privately first, but if he is not receptive, she should go to her pastor or elders and seek their advice. . . . A wife is to be a helper to her husband not a blind follower, and this sometimes includes going past him to get help. God blessed Abigail when she did this. In her case it was abundantly clear what was necessary. In other cases it might require pastoral oversight. But obedience and submission to a mere man is never absolute. . . . (Nancy Wilson, “Submission,” Credenda Agenda, Volume 15 Number 3)[4]

I’m not sure that you have to read between the lines on this one; the implication is there for everyone to see: “obedience and submission to a mere man is never absolute” because obedience and submission to the Kult is absolute. The Kult’s authority supersedes a husband’s authority, especially in matters of conscience. Like Julia in 1984, you must betray him. As far as the Kult is concerned, Wilson’s intelligence-gathering network creeps all the way into the bedroom. They expect you to report everything.[5]

Now, even if you set aside my handful of stories that I did not document and only considered the ramifications of the two documented accounts I presented, do you believe that they are representative of everyday life in a biblical church, or do they resemble life in a police state? Is it normal for pastors to eavesdrop on their congregation and is it normal for members of churches to tape record their conversations so they can hand the tape to the pastor, or does this look more like the work of secret police operating in a totalitarian state? Or how about the husbands and wives — do pastors normally instruct the wives of their congregation to report on their husbands? What kind of person thinks in these categories? What kind of man obligates the women of his church to submit to him as opposed to their husbands? Can you imagine being afraid to speak your conscience to your spouse about the church government for fear that she might roll on you? Is this normal behavior in Christian churches or is this Orwellian? Do you think Wilson’s conduct and his expectations cater to an environment of love for God and love for the brethren, or do you think it fosters fear and suspicion?

Personally, I think it’s sick across the board; there is no moral justification for this kind of sweeping invasion of privacy. But for other folks it’s just another day in Christ Church, Moscow.

Whatever you may think, however, do not forget this: You must tell the Fearless Leader all your secrets because


Thank you.

[1] It’s critical to note that these so-called “enemies” are persons identified by the Fearless Leader as enemies because they publicly criticized him. It’s even more critical to note that most of these enemies are devout evangelical Christians.

[2] It really does not matter if Wilson asked him to do it. The fact remains that he did not dissuade the young man from taping the conversation and by participating in the act he approved it. This is more evidence that Douglas Wilson corrupts those under his influence. Moreover, the message Wilson sent to his loyalists by approving of this behavior was loud and clear: Tape recording one another is acceptable conduct in the Kult.

[3] As I reflected on this post, it occurred to me that the similarities between Christ Church’s culture of oppression and Orwell’s 1984 are staggering. But the one similarity that someone needs to develop is the comparison between Orwell’s Two Minutes Hate and the Kult’s imprecatory prayer ritual. It appears that the Fearless Leader’s ultimate goal with his daily imprecations is to sear the names of Kult enemies on Kult members’ brains so that they understand the importance of hating these human beings in public. Along these lines, I had an extended comment exchange with a member of the Kult last week where I noted a chapter called “The Winds of Hate,” in a book titled On Killing, where the author documents the psychological devastation caused by cultures driven by hate. Hate damages the hateful and the hated — but especially the hateful. Can you imagine the injury one suffers when they close their eyes in prayer to beseech the God of all mercy to inflict physical pain on another human being simply because they criticized Wilson in public? These people are really twisted.

[4] Rosemary Huskey’s exchange with Wilson on Vision 20/20 says it all; she is brilliant. But the important point you need to note is that Wilson initially denied that the Kult teaches this standard, writing:

First, Rose simply made up the stuff about making a stink “about the church,” and questioning “decisions of church leadership.” That was not in the column at all. Perhaps Rose has taken a course in research study methods from Quinlan and Ramsey. Oops. I really am trying to live up to certain exacting scholarship standards I just found out about recently — make that Rinlan and Quamsey.

These last two sentences are stabs at the two University of Idaho historians who put the lie to Southern Slavery As It Was. They’re the same men who refused to debate the subject with Wilson. I’m sure it was because of his kindness.

[5] Nancy Wilson’s Credenda column is especially ironic in light of the two emails written by A Christ Church Wife. This godly woman — this Abigail — understood that her husband was fallible and that her pastor was evil. She recognized that a cult leader had blinded her husband’s eyes and was holding her family hostage. She, however, had no recourse. She could not go to her elders and she could not go to her husband.

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Another Context

We’ve had some pretty clever graphics on this site but we don’t want to be too clever for our own good. I had an inquiry this morning about our favorite image of Wilson; here’s the exchange:

Anonymous said . . .

Not that it may matter to some people, but do you know when Wilson had this picture taken of himself? He looks like a thug. Amazing that he would want to present himself in this context, especially since he looks so pale? I’ve never known a pastor who would enjoy making himself look so cheap. Do you know what gives?

Mark T. said . . .

We pulled it off Blog and Mablog when he had his debate with Christopher Hitchens on CT. I remember going to Hitchens’ site (or one of the sites he writes for) and seeing a portrait of him dressed in a drab gray jacket smoking a cig. So Wilson took the time to have himself photographed in a similar pose as Hitchens, presumably to mock him as part of the debate, and since Hitchens argued for atheism I am sure that Wilson’s mockery of him adorned the doctrine of God our Savior in all things.

On another note, my favorite book by Hitchens is No One Left To Lie To. He wrote it about the Clinton administration but someone could write a book about the Fearless Leader with the same title.

Anonymous said . . .

And here I always thought that shot was only, but adroitly, photoshopped! This changes everything. You really should give more context!

Mark T. said . . .

Photoshop cannot unveil the abundance of a man’s heart; he has to pose for that!

A picture’s worth a thousand words and we’ve got thousands of miles out of this one (and we intend to get thousands more). But since this is a fully documented anonymous attack blog, I believe it’s important to document the origin of this telling photograph and place it in its proper context.

Thank you.

Anonymity Excursus: Context of A Christ Church Wife’s Email

I firmly believe in the importance — indeed the responsibility — to keep things in context. Whether it’s an historical event or a four-sentence paragraph — it behooves us to keep it in context.

With this in mind, here is the fully documented historical context of A Christ Church Wife’s email:

A Christ Church Wife sent her email to Vision 2020 about thirteen months after Wilson sent this email to the Kult, essentially notifying the membership that he found “the mole” — a traitor in the Kult (interestingly, I recall seeing an email from the Fearless Leader to this family where he noted that they needed “pastoral encouragement” or something to that effect; a few months later he held a public execution); one year after Credenda Agenda hosted its so-called “history” conference that completely scandalized the Palouse; eight months after the Latah County Commissioners revoked the Kult’s and NSA’s property-tax exemptions; three months after the Fearless Leader began sowing discord among the brethren at Church of the King–Santa Cruz (notice the words “two years”); five weeks after the Fearless Leader drove a family out of the church because they refused to sign the Christ Church Commitment to Loyalty; two weeks after three former members of the Kult filed a zoning complaint against New Saint Andrews College, which the Moscow City Council sustained (Wilson positively vilified the complainants in the press and on the Internet).

A Christ Church Wife posted her email to Vision 20/20 one month before the day that Wilson discovered that a serial pedophile had raped several lambs from his flock for the past 18 months; five weeks before he wrote “Three Stumbling Blocks” where he declared the Church was on the verge of a new reformation; roughly 10 weeks before the Fearless Leader strutted uphill to threaten the Latah County Commissioners that they better not revoke any more property-tax exemptions from the so-called ministries where he sat on the board; three months before WORLD Magazine reported the story that Douglas Wilson and Steven “Machen” Wilkins plagiarized enough body text in Southern Slavery As It Was to cover the Mississippi Delta; four months before “A Labor of Love” received broad circulation on the Palouse; one year before Patrick Poole Kut His Losses on the Kirk Kult; and seventeen months before the Fearless Leader took precious time from his strenuous blogging schedule to stroll downtown and file a frivolous police complaint that named five of his neighbors as possible suspects in a federal offense.

I’m sure that if I gave it more thought I could document other highly recognizable dates in Kult lore; but perhaps it’s best to think of A Christ Church Wife’s brilliant emails as just another day in the busy life of a petty self-absorbed tyrant.

Thank you.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Anonymity Part IX: “A Christ Church Wife”

Today I want you to consider Douglas Wilson’s claims vis-à-vis Christ Church, Moscow, from another point of view — that of a member in good standing. Before we get there, here is the Fearless Leader’s quote for your consideration:

So here is the summary. I believe that men like Mark T lie as as [sic] fast as a dog can trot. And when I say “lie,” I mean that in the old-fashioned sense that would get you into a fight in a bar. He wants to defend his anonymity by means of yet another slander — which is that we here in Moscow “haff our vays” of dealing with opponents, with a secret police and everything. Disagree with Wilson, and get a visit from jackbooted deacons in the middle of the night! That’s why he has to attack without any accountability for himself. We, by our evil, have forced him to it. Now I don’t fault anonymous critics in cultures where there are Gulags, racks, stakes, and more. But is anonymity really necessary when what would happen is that the man’s pastor (assuming with a long shot that he has one) would get a letter? (“Ninth Commandment Issues”; emphasis original)

It’s possible that at some level Wilson actually believes that I lie as fast as a dog can trot, but as I asked a few days ago, Where’s the proof? Where’s the evidence? Where’s the documentation that contradicts anything here? There is no proof; there is no evidence; there are no documents to contradict anything here or else he would have produced it faster than a greyhound chasing a hare at the track. So they have resorted to abusive ad hominem arguments against a complete stranger — a ghost, a phantom — an invisible entity that uploads documents to the web for the world to see. Despite this fact, I am an anonymous accuser. I’m a slanderer. I’m a liar. Not only am I a liar, I’m an old-fashioned liar. My lies are so egregious that they would get me into a bar fight, whatever that means. But for all his vivid rhetoric, the Fearless Leader has yet to substantiate one accusation against me. Honestly, if you’re going to call a man a liar, it behooves you to support your claim. To be sure, even though I don’t frequent saloons I’d really appreciate knowing where I lied. A guy never knows when he might find himself in a watering hole and it would be good to know what not say. But they won’t even afford me this courtesy that could save my life some day. Perhaps it’s one of those imprecatory things: “Kill him, God, and his documents too.”

And there’s an irony here that they don’t see. I have maintained that Wilson and his disciples are cruel, malevolent, and deceitful people, and they have replied to me with cruel, malevolent, and deceitful answers. Well, maybe irony isn’t the word. But the point of today’s post is to let you read the testimony of an “anonymous accuser” whom Douglas Wilson validated as a legitimate witness.

On February 9, 2005, a woman who identified herself as “A Christ Church Wife” appeared on the local listserv Vision 20/20 to offer her testimony of life inside the Kult. She never revealed her name and to this day I am not aware of anyone who met her. Her two posts speak for themselves — straight from the heart — and her testimony was compelling for two reasons: First, her evangelical faith and her love for God were obvious; you could see it in every word she wrote. Second, she confirmed the community’s worst fears about life inside the Kult. And you have to admit that outsiders would be a little curious about the inner workings of the Kult, especially after the Southern slavery scandal of 2003–04 when Wilson asserted his presence in the community with the same gusto that he has shown during the FV controversy. Prior to the slavery scandal, Wilson was just an arrogant blowhard who pronounced his opinions ex cathedra on the list. After the slavery scandal, the local population was genuinely curious about what kind of people would sit under Wilson’s toxic indoctrination, which is a reasonable curiosity when you think about it. What kind of person would attend a church where the pastor was so delusional that he wrote a book championing the cause of the antebellum slave owners? The answer to this question seemed evident by the way Wilson’s disciples crowded Vision 20/20 with nut-job posts. And I emphasize the words “nut job.” They really got behind slavery and if you check the archives from that time, you’ll see the exact same phenomenon taking place there that happens every time someone challenges the Fearless Leader’s character on a blog — flying monkeys everywhere — which piqued the community’s curiosity even more: “Why are his disciples so rabid?” It’s safe to say that A Christ Church Wife confirmed what everyone suspected about the Kult.

A second thing you need to know is that after A Christ Church Wife thanked the community listserv, someone named “Christian Burns” and his “wife” answered her with counsel that essential said, “Submit to your husband and drink the Kool-Aid.” I will not post their emails (you can read them here and here) because the important thing is that A Christ Church Wife was much too savvy to let them manipulate her.

Three other housekeeping issues: First, she references the word “kirkers,” which is a term coined by members of the Kult to identify themselves in the community; it’s a play off the Kirk. Second, you’ll notice that she thanked Daily News columnist Vera White for withstanding Wilson; you can read one of Vera’s columns from the slavery scandal here. Third, we inserted the hyperlinks in her email for your assistance:

----- Original Message -----
From: ChristChurch Wife
To: vision2020@moscow.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 7:22 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Message from a Christ Church Wife

Dear Visionaries,

I am a Christ Church wife. Of the many of things I could write, I decided in the end that what I’m about to write is the most important. I realize there’s no reason why you should trust an anonymous posting like mine but it’s my hope that somehow you’ll decide to read it anyway.

It’s amazing how God has been so merciful to Christ Church/Trinity members through this forum. Many of you have been such a comfort to me and you don’t even know it. It’s hard to belong to a church whose pastor treats people the way Doug Wilson does, especially those who oppose him publicly. No, it’s not hard, I take that back. It’s horrible. It’s become a nightmare. It’s shame and outrage and grief that no amount of tears can wash away. Part of me wants to write a thousand more words but I won’t waste your time. Why? Because of the glaring question that logically follows: “Then why don’t you leave that church?” I’m working on it as hard as I can. Some day I will get out but when I leave I refuse to go alone. I will be taking my family with me. I will not allow my marriage to be destroyed or my children split apart in the process. Slowly and consistently my husband has begun to heed the words I speak to him regarding Christ Church. The day is coming when his eyes will be fully open and his faith will lead the way. That is the day we’ll leave. I believe that with all my heart. It’s coming. But even then, the road to recovery will be long. That’s okay. I’m not deceived. My marriage will survive and we’ll be fine again someday. Nobody said that only husbands are responsible to protect their families. Wives are called to do the same. Mine is also a rescue and recovery mission and you, on this forum, have been an incredible blessing in this long, difficult process.

My reason for posting today is because I want to say thank you. With all my heart I thank you for how you do your best to help open the eyes of Christ Church/Trinity people. (I dislike that word “Kirkers.”) Thank you for the insight and careful observations you’ve brought to issue after issue concerning Christ Church. I especially appreciate how determined you are in your resolve to speak forth. Thank you for your example of courage, for exposing the tactics of Doug Wilson and refuting them. For remaining vigilant no matter how Christ Church leaders respond to you. Thank you for the humorous statements that have literally made my day so many times. It’s amazing how much strength one can get from humor. Thank you for all the personal time you’ve given in posting. And most of all, thank you for your compassion for Christ Church wives and children and even our husbands that has comforted me time and time again. It’s been overwhelming.

I’ve learned so much about people from Vision 2020. Your service to the Palouse is unquestionable. People who don’t even know me care about me and in their own way have tried to help me. My mind has been stretched. My world has perspectives it never had before. I’ve gained more understanding and compassion for others in ways that have made me a far better person. I don’t have to agree with everything written on a post to be able to say thank you for writing it. I see in you a true desire to make the Palouse a better place to live. I see individuals trying and one by one it’s working. Thank you. Thank you with all my heart for what you’ve done for me as a person and Christian. If I may, I would like to say a special thanks to Tom Hansen for his “Not on the Palouse” site. God only knows how many people have been spared the grief I’ve known because of it. For their lives sake, I thank you.

Because the Daily News, understandably, will not accept anonymous letters I’d also like to publicly thank Vera White for her brave column. She has withstood the vehemence of Wilson’s world for years and done it with remarkable grace. She never ceases to amaze me with her lion’s heart. Vera’s example of courage and integrity in journalism has inspired me more than she’ll ever know. Even if I don’t agree with every word she says, she’s my hero. Thank you, Vera. Thank you forever.

Thank you, Vision 2020, for allowing me to post this.

With deepest gratitude and respect,

A Christ Church wife

----- Original Message -----
From: ChristChurch Wife
To: vision2020@moscow.com
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 3:12 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] thank you

Dear Visionaries,

The intent of my original posting was to thank Visionaries for their kind and helpful postings. I didn’t think I’d be writing again, but here I am. You have my deepest appreciation for your responses to my first letter. I wasn’t surprised or offended that some of you thought I was a phony. Anonymous postings beg for questions of authenticity.

I believe the Burns’ letter were written with the desire to help me although I was left bewildered by many of Mr. Burns’ conclusions. He wrote that he didn’t know Doug Wilson and that he’d never met him. Not meeting or knowing him in no way excludes him from knowledge or study of Wilson’s theology, though nothing he wrote was specific to Doug alone. If Mr. Burns is totally unacquainted with Doug then ignorance of the teaching, writings, and serrated edge ministry of Christ Church could leave him in shock upon perusal of it.

I have a few small suggestions you may want to consider, Mr. Burns. Fundamental to any aid for Christ Church members is a basic knowledge of Doug Wilson’s ways. It is why I find Vision 2020 so refreshing and in it’s unique way, healing. A clear understanding of Doug’s ideas and theology establishes a type of credibility that is impossible for those ignorant of it to possess. If you don’t know what cancer is, you certainly cannot treat it. Having said that, I understand that people do not have to walk through a valley of darkness to be able to minister to those who have. I believe presumption is a great temptation, though, for this kind of counselor. There is no replacement for walking a mile in someone’s shoe.

Presuming that someone left a church because they were “taking the bait of the enemy” is a drastic accusation at best. Assuming you knew their reasons for leaving is a sad thing. I admit that your conclusion of my state of heart and life would have left me shocked had I not witnessed for years the harshness that Christians inflict upon their brethren in the Lord. Unbelievers are not nearly as capable of hurting us as we are of hurting each other and your letter spoke loudly to that condition. Your thoughts indicted me of bitterness, potentially rotting from the inside out, and not submitting to my husband. All of those things are untrue. But your worst offense was the question, “Are you going outside your husbands covering and getting together with others to share your concerns for the church?” which was then followed by your command for me to, “Stop it.” Why did you bother asking the question?

Through your words you have made yourself judge, trial, and jury of my life. You have no authority biblical or otherwise to make such presumptions of me or anyone else. I fear, by your command, that you could be unsatisfied with the submission of your wife alone. You presume to command me?? Perhaps your scriptural interpretation of submission is increasing your appetite for power. If that is the case I urge you to beware.

Submission is not fairy dust that magically turns wrong decisions into eternal bliss for the family. Wrong decisions yield wrong results. They also reap pain and consequences that could have been avoided if husbands had only listened to and followed the wisdom of their “helpmeets.” God said it was not good for man to be alone. He needed help. My husband needs my help, Sir, whether you believe that or not. He needs my protection from a man who has blinded his eyes and I am fully qualified and capable of giving it to him, thank God. I will not allow our family to be swallowed up by the deception that comes from sincerely trusting in the arm of ecclesiastical flesh. Life is very complicated. It is very scary and hard. Husbands and wives need each others wisdom and love desperately in life. Thankfully, my husband is giving me a chance, a chance that used to be a huge part of our lives until we became Christ Church members. I intend to rescue my family in as prudent and peaceable way as I can. I will not allow you nor anyone else twist submission into a decree for silent tooth grinning while a monster is on the loose attacking anyone he pleases. Two are stronger than one and a three fold cord is not easily broken. It is not submission that “never fails,” it is love.

A Christ Church wife

I think she acquitted herself quite well, don’t you? More importantly, at least for this post, she opened her statement by affirming a point I have made repeatedly, though she said it much more eloquently, writing from the position of a hostage held by her captor:

It’s hard to belong to a church whose pastor treats people the way Doug Wilson does, especially those who oppose him publicly. No, it’s not hard, I take that back. It’s horrible. It’s become a nightmare. It’s shame and outrage and grief that no amount of tears can wash away. Part of me wants to write a thousand more words but I won’t waste your time. (emphasis added)

Does anyone really doubt that Wilson has a reputation in Moscow for harassing those who publicly oppose him? She certainly did not and I assure you that everyone who read her email on 2020 had an appropriate point of reference to understand exactly what she meant (she posted one year after Credenda Agenda hosted its so-called “history” conference that completely scandalized the Palouse). It is shame, outrage, and grief that no amount of tears can wash away.

Now let me return to the Fearless Leader’s words when he wrote, “I don’t fault anonymous critics in cultures where there are Gulags, racks, stakes, and more.” Of course, I never made this representation; this is Wilson’s distortion of my position. But that’s okay because it seems clear to me that A Christ Church Wife felt as though she lived in a world surrounded by “Gulags, racks, stakes, and more.” I could be wrong and I don’t want to overstate her position, but I wonder if the Fearless Leader — the only architect of the Kult’s culture of death — faults A Christ Church Wife for anything she wrote or if he faults her for writing anonymously. He built his concentration camp from the ground up and A Christ Church Wife lived behind his barbed-wire fence, witnessing all the malice that he showed to the community. Indeed, she is one more witness in a long line of witnesses who testified to his evil being. And for her sake and her family’s sake, I hope her so-called pastor never located her.

Thank you.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

“LaP Opposes FV”

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

Thank you.

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Anonymity Part VIII: When Documented Facts Constitute “Slander”

I want to continue my examination of the Fearless Leader’s claims yesterday, where contra the serrated edge that has defined his ministry, he suddenly adopted the Golden Rule as if he really conforms his behavior to it, and where he claims that those of us who document his vindictive acts are “liars” and “slanderers”:

So here is the summary. I believe that men like Mark T lie as as [sic] fast as a dog can trot. And when I say “lie,” I mean that in the old-fashioned sense that would get you into a fight in a bar. He wants to defend his anonymity by means of yet another slander — which is that we here in Moscow “haff our vays” of dealing with opponents, with a secret police and everything. Disagree with Wilson, and get a visit from jackbooted deacons in the middle of the night! That’s why he has to attack without any accountability for himself. We, by our evil, have forced him to it. Now I don’t fault anonymous critics in cultures where there are Gulags, racks, stakes, and more. But is anonymity really necessary when what would happen is that the man’s pastor (assuming with a long shot that he has one) would get a letter? (“Ninth Commandment Issues”; emphasis original)

Notice that he says he believes men such as me “lie as fast as a dog can trot.” Clever line, but where’s the proof? Where’s the documentation to support his claim? Where’s the documentation to refute all of my documentation? Yesterday we uploaded 3 pages of his police report — two of them handwritten and signed by our neighbor — to demonstrate that when he retaliates, it’s forever. And by that I mean that that public record will remain in the City archives forever and anyone can put in a FOIA request at City Hall to see the sewers where his mind wanders when he has a vendetta.

Moreover, yesterday I linked to a post that documented one of Doug’s Thug’s attempt to silence a University of Idaho employee (professor?) from commenting about cults on the local listserv. This was just one out of dozens attempts by Wilson’s disciples to silence members of the community. It took exactly 18 minutes from the time the original email posted on the list for Doug’s Thug to fire a complaint to the man’s superior seeking disciplinary action. I realize the Fearless Leader thinks this was a harmless act, but the target of this attack — Wilson’s neighbor — saw it differently, writing,

“While there are explicit laws applicable to contacting someone’s employer or supervisor with the aim of undermining the employment or status of an individual with regard to their employment. . .”

He understood that Wilson’s disciple had just made a move on his job. And don’t forget that this particular incident took place only two days after Wilson’s personal assistant Mike Lawyer asked forgiveness from Bob Mattes for his despicable email attack on Bob.

And as long as I’m on it, I anticipated Wilson’s attack on Bob Mattes (I would call him “Mr.” but I assume he’s an officer and I think it would sound disrespectful) last August when Bob called Wilson on his sin. Here’s the thread from Green Baggins:

Douglas Wilson said,
August 17, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Lane, then what you are saying is that it isn’t over, and that the courts haven’t spoken, and that Chris Hutchinson was asking my friends to move along prematurely?

greenbaggins said,
August 17, 2007 at 5:45 pm

No, it isn’t over. The study committee report is a shot across the bow, shall we say. It indicates what direction the guns of the PCA are directed. If the FV ships wish to avoid the broadside that is coming, then they will leave.

reformedmusings said,
August 17, 2007 at 6:18 pm

Cute analogy, Lane, and appropriate.

I guess it depends on what one considers “over.” None of the PCA officers who signed the joint statement have come before their presbyteries since the 35th GA. That changed the landscape significantly. Even before that, one presbytery examination committee admitted that they didn’t have time to adequately study the individual’s views. Listening to the recordings of proceedings in another presbytery sounded more like a meeting of a “good ol’ boy” club than a serious ecclesiastical examination, even loaded with apologies to the examinee.

I personally expect the landscape in the presbyteries to continue moving with the 35th GA vote, accelerating as we go through the coming year. As I’ve said many times, it’s a shame that a few men believe that it’s OK to drain the precious resources of the church away from spreading the gospel to require contentious and divisive trials.

Douglas Wilson said,
August 17, 2007 at 9:59 pm

. . . Reformedmusings, you said:

“As I’ve said many times, it’s a shame that a few men believe that it’s OK to drain the precious resources of the church away from spreading the gospel to require contentious and divisive trials.”

To which someone might reply, “Why are you wasting my time getting beat up like you are? What are you doing lying on the ground like that? Why do you think it is appropriate to get blood from your face all over my knuckles?” I like that — the people bringing charges, making accusations, creating controversy, and so on, then turn around and accuse those they are attacking of wasting their precious time. You really ought to know enough about this controversy to be able to state who is on offense, and who on defense.

reformedmusings said,
August 17, 2007 at 10:26 pm


Cute, but WAY off point. This is not an arbitrary or trivial situation like the one you posit. Please see comment #57. Since you aren’t in the PCA, I guess that I shouldn’t expect you to honor our denomination’s rulings, though as a Christian brother you probably should not aid and abet those who defy them. Your call. However, I do expect PCA officers to submit to their PCA brothers since they swore an oath in that regard.

As for creating controversy, the PCA was generally doing well until the Auburn Avenue conference in 2002. The PCA, RCUS, BPC, OPC, OCRC, RPCNA, and URC didn’t start anything. That distinction belongs strictly to those who are trying to redefine the Westminster Standards and 3FU over the objections of the overwhelming number of their brothers in seven denominations (so far). Not your denominations, but a Christian brother shouldn’t be inciting or aiding dissent within other ecclesiastical bodies. Again, your call.

Douglas Wilson said,
August 18, 2007 at 6:48 pm

I just wanted to note for the record how much I appreciate the manner in which Lane, Vern, Grover, and R.F. White are discussing these things. I thank you.

Mark T. said,
August 18, 2007 at 8:13 pm

Notice that Wilson’s expression of gratitude did not acknowledge ReformedMusings, did not thank him, and certainly did not answer him — and this is not because ReformedMusings has not been gracious and it’s not because he has not been any less charitable than the others. It’s because ReformedMusings held Wilson accountable for his irresponsible behavior when he wrote,

“. . . but a Christian brother shouldn’t be inciting or aiding dissent within other ecclesiastical bodies. Again, your call.”

Of course, Wilson is the so-called “Christian brother” inciting and aiding dissent within the PCA, most likely because he holds dear the peace and purity of the church. Regardless, the point is that if you want to get along with Wilson you have to ignore his sin. . . .

This was classic Wilson endeavoring to split Bob off from the rest of the list — silently singling him out, just as he tried to isolate Dr. Clark. Wilson established this pattern for everyone to observe; I’ve seen a million times and when I saw it this time I nailed him. Sure, he backed off and threw Bob a bone after I flagged him (just as he threw Pastor Lane a bone yesterday); but his bones don’t displace his enmity. In Bob’s case Wilson waited three months until he found an opening and then he struck, like a wolf, coming out of nowhere to pounce on his victim. But the predator underestimated his prey. Bob’s no lamb; he’s a true shepherd, like David who killed a lion and a bear, and feared not the uncircumcised Philistine. Bob taught Wilson that his Moscow tactics only work in Moscow. So they hugged & kissed and everyone will live happily ever after. Not likely. He’ll be back, which doesn’t matter because Moscow is still Moscow and Wilson is still Wilson. Nothing has changed.

That’s why I pointed to two documented proofs, i.e. two witnesses, that Wilson exacts vengeance against those who criticize him in public — an attack on an employee’s job at the University of Idaho and an attack on the reputations of five law-abiding citizens in Moscow. Wilson responds, however, by calling these facts “slander”:

“He wants to defend his anonymity by means of yet another slander — which is that we here in Moscow “haff our vays” of dealing with opponents, with a secret police and everything.”

Did you notice his misrepresentation about “secret police” and all? I never said he does it in secret (though he definitely operates surreptitiously): I’ve been pretty clear that Wilson and his thugs do their dirty work outside in public for everyone to see. Wilson bullies and harasses people in public on purpose — he wants to send the signal that he will make you pay if you speak. This is his reputation in Moscow. This is the reputation that he carved for himself, in Moscow, with a serrated edge.

But please do not miss this point: THIS IS THE REPUTATION THAT HE WANTS IN MOSCOW. The police report states, “Wilson said he did not want to pursue the incident, but wanted to have it documented.” Wilson wanted to document the names of five neighbors in Moscow as persons he thought may have committed a federal offense. He did this without ever contacting them. HE SIMPLY WANTED IT DOCUMENTED. That’s right: Write it down with an iron pen because Wilson shows his love for his neighbors with a club, a sword, and a sharp arrow — “A man who bears false witness against his neighbor is like a club, a sword, and a sharp arrow” (Prov. 25:18).

The thing I don’t understand is why he doesn’t want to admit these facts on his blog or to Pastor Lane. Why does he call it “slander” when people infer the most obvious conclusions from his terrible behavior? Why doesn’t he want people to visit my site so they can see his police report written with his own hand? After all, he did this in real life to real Christians who are his real neighbors in Moscow. This is how Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, loves his neighbors. Oh, and did I mention that one of the persons he named in the report teaches Sunday school at the local Baptist church? Yes, that would be the same church that prohibits Wilson from performing marriage ceremonies on their property. (They have a wonderful building whereas the Kult meets on a basketball court.) But I digress. The point is that he has gone out of his way to make a reputation in Moscow for striking back at those who criticize him but for some inexplicable reason he refuses to admit it. I would think he’s proud of it.

And I wonder why he didn’t think what any normal person would have thought when he allegedly discovered the unclean contraceptive — this is a college town and teenagers commit sin. I remember visiting the Arboretum last summer and seeing a used condom on the gravel in the parking lot. It was disgusting. But we live in a college town. Teenagers drink in their cars, commit sin in the cars, and toss the unseemly evidence of their act out the window. That’s teenagers. But you know what? — I never thought to file a police complaint alleging that Wilson may have placed the condom in that parking lot to continue his pattern of harassing me. After all, Wilson and his hooligans uploaded a website to persecute leading citizens of the community who took offense at that worthless monograph Southern Slavery As It Was. He called it hatesplotch.net. He used it to verbally abuse Christians and non-Christians alike. He insulted them, called them names, and ridiculed them — including me because I signed the “Not In Our Town” petition and hatesplotch.net targeted everyone who signed that petition. It follows therefore that he would soil a prophylactic and leave it in the Arboretum parking lot to continue his pattern of harassing me and Moscow. Sound stupid? Of course it does, but that’s his argument.

And you have to ask yourself this: Why would a so-called Christian pastor who just yesterday wrote 2,205 gushy words expositing his obligation to love his neighbor — including his enemies — upload such a reprehensible site? Here, let me frame the question another way: Why would any Christian, pastor or not, upload a highly offensive website that he specifically designed to insult about 20,000 of his neighbors? The vitriol on that site is so damaging to the Kult that they killed the link in archive.org so that no one can see the truth about them. But that does not change the site’s intent. Wilson put it up to intimidate an entire community into silence. He sent the message loud and clear that if you criticize him, he will ridicule and humiliate you in public. But the Fearless Leader is too much of a coward to admit it now. As I predicted a few days ago, he revised his story. Suddenly he’s a kind-hearted Christian who loves the Golden Rule and I am evil slanderer for publishing his documented record.

Now I ask you, am I lying when I present these historical facts? Am I slandering that Son of Belial by publishing the fruit of his ministry? Or did he slander thousands of his neighbors with that hate-filled website? Did he slander five of his neighbors when he identified them as possible suspects in a vile federal crime?

Maybe I’m just too sensitive. Maybe I don’t understand the Golden Rule. Maybe I don’t understand the hidden gospel message of hatesplotch or the Christian compassion of Doug’s Thugs’ acts of harassment or the pastoral example of filing a police report to stain five of his neighbors’ reputations. I invite Beelzeblog to account for these things.

But whether he accounts for himself or not, this much I know: he may dismiss these documented facts as “slander,” which completely befuddles me; he may accuse me of countless absurdities while he refutes nothing here; he may laugh it all off as one big April Fools’ Day joke — indeed, he can laugh till Judgment Day, and I’m sure he will. But he forgets that the Scripture says, “and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works” (Rev. 20:12). He doesn’t understand that these documents and the works they represent are the fruit of his ministry, and if they’re written down on a silly blog, easily accessible for all the world to see, then he should rest assured that they’re written down in God’s holy books for that dreadful day. Only then it will be too late.

Thank you.

Friday, April 18, 2008

Anonymity Part VII: The Chilling Effect

I read Wilson’s response to Pastor Lane and I have to admit that he really knows how to pour it on as though he really believes the Scriptures. But you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t join the love fest just yet, because I want to isolate one comment from his long, flowery exposition of the Ninth Commandment and demonstrate that while he knows what the Bible requires of him well enough to put it in writing, in real life — in real-life Moscow — he somehow forgets what the Bible commands.

Here’s the comment:

Keith, I think we are actually under more stringent requirements with regard to our enemies. But I agree that Mark T does not think so.

Douglas Wilson — 4/18/2008 11:59:07 AM | Report Comment

I think that comment fairly summarizes his recent discovery of the Golden Rule. I call it a “recent discovery” because less than two years ago he sauntered down to the Moscow Police Department to file a frivolous police report that named five citizens of Moscow as possible suspects in a crime that no one ever established was committed. The police never confirmed it or investigated it (unlike his April Fools’ Day joke, where he was one of the criminals) and he produced no evidence — fraudulent or legitimate — to demonstrate that it actually took place. Furthermore, while four of the possible suspects were (are) Christians, he did not bother to confront any of his suspects with his baseless suspicions pursuant to Matthew 18; he went directly to the police to put their names on public record.

That’s bad enough. But I think the most insulting and disgusting thing about this sordid incident is the crime itself. He specified by name four brethren (all members in good standing in their respective churches) and one law-abiding citizen as persons who possibly put a used condom in his mailbox. Let me spell this out for you just so you can feel the filth. He identified four of God’s children as persons he believed may have taken the time to soil a condom (you do the math) and drive across town to leave it in his mailbox.

Not satisfied with that, he continued to say that they may have spread a “foul-smelling substance” on his windows and sabotaged his driveway with screws & nails. Interestingly, he omitted the part that he was remodeling his home and had all sorts of construction vehicles on his property (I know this from his neighbor whom he regularly harasses).

Here’s the kicker: He used rightful legal complaints that law-abiding citizens in the community had filed against Christ Church and New Saint Andrews College as the pretext for his police complaint. I call it the kicker because the Latah County Commissioners and the Moscow City Council affirmed every one of those complaints, which means he was the one breaking the law. Despite this, he called those lawful complaints “harassment.” Yes, he was the one breaking the law and yet he accused those law-abiding citizens of harassing him. I’m sure it makes sense to him in an April Fools’ sort of way. Regardless, I point that out because those legal complaints have no connection to this invisible crime. None, zip, zilch, nada. The people he named were persons who at one time or another had publicly noted his sin, hypocrisy, or evil deeds, which he characterized as “public animosity.” And he repaid them — all five of these his neighbors — by putting their names down on the public record as suspects in his mind to this vulgar and smutty crime that I personally believe never took place.

This is real-life Moscow. Criticize Wilson and Doug’s Thugs are on you in a heartbeat. Effectively call him on his sin, and he’ll sully you in a police complaint. It’s all designed to chill his critics; it sends a signal far and wide that he’ll come after you — and he obviously has a creative imagination when it comes to dragging others through the dirt. But the message is clear: you will pay if you speak. One thing for Wilson, at least he signed his name to it, just as he signed those forged minutes.

Here is the police report, and as you read it please keep in mind all of his gooey language about “neighbors” and “enemies” and the Ninth Commandment. Maybe you can reconcile his words with his deeds, but I cannot:

My name is Douglas Wilson & I am the Minister at Christ Church here in Moscow. Over the last three years or so, there has been a small group of people harassing our ministries by means of various legal complaints — tax exemption issues, zoning, boarding, etc.

In the last few weeks, it appears that this pattern has gotten more personal & is getting closer to home.
  1. On June 26, I discovered a used (or doctored to look used) condom in my mailbox.
  2. Over the last two weeks, we have had a rash of flat tires at our house (4 on 4 vehicles). My son-in-law found a screw in the tread of his, & I just came from Les Schwab where they repaired the damage from a nail and screw, dug into my left rear tire.
  3. This morning I had to clean our living room window because someone had thrown some foul looking substance at it, creating a mess @ 4'' by 8''
Other than this evident public malice expressed in other settings, I have no evidence to say that the following people are responsible. But these are some of the foremost people involved in displaying public animosity
  1. [Deleted]
  2. [Deleted]
  3. [Deleted]
  4. [Deleted]
  5. [Deleted]
I certify that this statement, consisting of 2 page(s) is true and correct, to the best of my knowledge:

Douglas Wilson

Thank you.

Anonymity Part VI: “Anonymous Accusers”

I wrote this for GB but understandably Pastor Lane has shut down the combox. Hopefully the few clones who need to read it will muster the courage to violate the Fearless Leader’s command to avoid my blog:

I really appreciate Pastor Lee’s tone and his comments, but everyone needs to understand that all this wringing of the hands over “charges” and “anonymous accusations” is really beside the point. It’s a big fat red herring put on the table by someone who needs to elude accountability for his ministry to survive.

Please let me prove my point. In 2003 the elders of the Evangelical Free Church of Pullman, Washington, notified the moderator of the CREC that they discovered (by an investigation that the Kirk elders demanded they conduct!) the elders of Christ Church, Moscow, were using a forged document and an illegitimate document to smear the reputation of one of their officers on the worldwide web. This is a documented fact, so let me repeat it: The elders of Christ Church produced a forged document (bogus minutes) and a letter that they claimed the E Free officer signed (which he had not, the letter bore no signatures at all and the Christ Church elders knew it), to impeach the testimony of an E Free deacon. They were not satisfied with impeachment, however, because they poured it on, calling him a liar, a false witness, etc., etc., etc., on the worldwide web, for the space of about 5 months.

The E Free elders pleaded with the Christ Church elders to remove the false witness from the web, including all the references to the falsified evidence, but they refused. Therefore the E Free elders contacted the CREC Moderator for remedy. Mind you, E Free does not think in terms of church courts or church trials or bringing charges — they think in terms of right and wrong — so they did not bring “charges”; but that didn’t matter anyway because the CREC has no biblical mechanism to hear accusations against its officers. The point is that they sought remedy. The CREC Moderator, however, said he would not get involved. Period. (BTW: that moderator was converted under the ministry of E Free and the man who appealed to him for justice was his first pastor.) He told them that it was for the Christ Church elders and no one else. He saw irrefutable proof that the Christ Church elders knowingly relied upon falsified evidence and he blew it off showing the same contempt for E Free that you know who and his disciples shows for “anonymous accusations.”

The same thing happened when the OPC’s Presbytery of the Dakotas contacted the CREC to inform them that they had false witness in the minutes on the worldwide web. The moderator said he would not get involved and the Kirk elders left the falsehood in place for about six months.

Let’s be honest here. It’s not about biblical requirements for making accusations. These people strain at the most ridiculous gnats while they swallow corruption by the camel load. Both the E Free elders and the Presbytery of the Dakotas brought lawful accusations in a biblical, brotherly way, and the CREC told them to take a hike. Get real. It’s not about biblical requirements for accusations. It’s about sin and iniquity in the CREC’s highest offices. They forge documents and publish them on the web: “Oh, we’re not going to get involved.” They bear false witness on the web: “Oh, we’re not going to get involved.” They destroy reputations like they’re playing with marbles: “Oh, we’re not going to get involved.”

So let’s get a little perspective here. I am not an “anonymous accuser”; I present facts with color commentary. I republish newspaper articles, blog posts, emails, newsletters, etc. and I expose falsehood, inconsistency, and hypocrisy; and all I hear from these people is weeping, gnashing of teeth, a few threatened lawsuits, and “ANONYMOUS ACCUSER,” while they don’t give a rip about the content. I have no interest in accusing anyone in the CREC because they have no adequate mechanism to address sin in their ranks, let alone protect those who are not in their ranks. Even worse, they established precedent in two separate cases that they would rather wink at a false report than give justice to the stranger (see Exodus 23).

So I encourage the handful of clones on this thread who have repeated the absurd mantra “ANONYMOUS ACCUSER” to reconsider their words. Someone fed you a sound bite and it satisfied your appetite, but your sound bites are completely meaningless. Those very people whom you quote have made a career out of corrupting justice by spreading false reports, and when church authorities sought redress the CREC put its hand with the wicked.

Thank you.

Anonymous Reformers

My day is too full to write the post, so the graphic will have to do.

Thank you.

On Liars

CREC elder Sean Mahaffey, the author of this article, posted this comment on Green Baggins:


My point, which was clearly stated in the article, was that even if the traditional arguments against marijuana do not hold up then it’s use is still wicked. My position is that there is some conceivable level of use of marijuana that would not automatically be drunkenness or dissipation. This level of use is not the “high” that marijuana users are looking for. It is far lower. It could not be any greater effect than a cup of coffee, a beer, a cigar, or a benadryl. If such a mild use in not possible, then any use is sinful.

I don’t know of anyone who has used my article as justification for this sin. I do know several who were rebuked by it. If anyone has been tempted to sin by what I have written, or has used what I have written to try to excuse their sin then all I can do is ask forgiveness, but I have not heard of a single case of this happening.

If my article was foolish, unclear or unpersuasive then I apologize. But I know why I wrote the article. I wrote the article in an attempt to persuade Christians away from even flirting with the idea that marijuana use might be acceptable. I repeatedly told Mark T this and he repeatedly called me a liar.


Sean Mahaffey

Please note: Everything is true in this comment except for the impression that Mr. Mahaffey deliberately left with his closing line: “I repeatedly told Mark T this and he repeatedly called me a liar.” Yes, he repeatedly told me those things and, yes, I repeatedly called him a liar; but I did not call him a liar about this point. In fact, I gladly conceded his point, with a hard dose of reality, commenting:

Everyone who read the article understood your conclusion, the difference between you and normal people is that normal people are not so stupid as to believe that your conclusion removed your article’s substance, which is the argument you’re trying to make now.

I called him a liar because he continually shaded his facts in a false light and spoke in half truths, which always left false impressions. I noted his pattern of leaving false impressions, which he continually refused to recognize.

But Sean Mahaffey is a waste of time; the only reason he is relevant to any conversation is because he is a living example of how the Fearless Leader corrupts his disciples. If Wilson didn’t teach Mahaffey how to leave false impressions, he certainly confirmed their use as an acceptable form of communication. If Mahaffey never knew that deception is wrong, Wilson never taught him otherwise. And if Mahaffey doesn’t understand that advocating for two diametrically opposed positions in the same article so that he could claim one or the other at different times is the essence of duplicity, then the Fearless Leader’s rhetorical tactics have only served to make Mahaffey twice the son of hell.

Mahaffey is not the problem any more than marijuana is the problem. Wilson is the problem. Mahaffey’s deceit is a direct fruit of Wilson’s ministry, just as widespread alcohol and drug abuse in the CREC are a direct fruit of Wilson’s ministry. His love of deceit and his contempt for authority teach his disciples more than anything he writes or says. And as long as he has a platform to shape other minds, the problem will only spread. Wilson is the problem.

Thank you.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Not In His Dreams

I recently discovered this little nugget that the Fearless Leader wrote in response to one of Pastor Lane’s Federal Vision posts:

The response here is that I cannot think of any critic of the FV — provided we are talking about critics who sign their own name to their concerns or charges — that I would dream of accusing of deception or lying. I believe the distortions and misrepresentations (which are quite real) come from a paradigmatic net that won’t let certain thoughts or concepts through. It is not lying to say something false. It is lying to say something false deliberately. This is not to say that there is no culpability in such tangles and confusion — there is, can be, and has been on both sides. But it is the sort of thing that should be sorted out in conversation and debate, not charges. (“Letting the Grease Cool Down”; emphasis original)

This is Wilson at his best. First, he offers an accurate definition of lying by distinguishing it from a false, or incorrect, representation. Lying is a deliberate attempt to deceive. It’s all about intent; liars consciously misrepresent the truth. But then he appeals to one of his favorite devices — the tangle — to dilute the definition he just affirmed: “This is not to say that there is no culpability in such tangles and confusion — there is, can be, and has been on both sides. But it is the sort of thing that should be sorted out in conversation and debate, not charges.”

Why culpability if there’s no intent? And if there’s culpability, why is it not lying? And if six years of “conversation and debate” has not resolved the “tangles and confusion” (deliberately created), then why can’t we call it lying? Ummmm, maybe because someone’s not telling the truth.

But I don’t want to waste time analyzing his equivocation. I want you to notice this:

The response here is that I cannot think of any critic of the FV — provided we are talking about critics who sign their own name to their concerns or charges — that I would dream of accusing of deception or lying.

If I understand this sentence correctly, the Fearless Leader alleges here that he can’t think of any FV critic whom he would even dream of accusing of deception or lying, which he defined as deliberately saying something false. So I went back searched his “Auburn Avenue Stuff” thread for such words as “Ninth Commandment,” “lying,” “slander,” etc., and discovered that . . . well . . . someone’s not telling the truth.

For example, he wrote this “ethical critique” of Dr. Waters:

Here is the ethical critique. In this interview, Guy Waters did the same thing that he did in his book, and which I have already refuted section by section. He says we don’t say things we very clearly say, he says that we obscure things we don’t obscure, and in short he grossly misrepresents us (to an unsuspecting Christian audience). I would refer him to the Larger Catechism’s treatment of the ninth commandment, and ask him to adopt an attitude of strict subscription. (“Oh”; emphasis original)

I’m happy to admit that this is not a direct accusation, but I’m equally glad to point out that it’s rife with insinuation. Obviously this is innuendo, or as a friend calls it, Wilsonnuendo, which is a subset of dougspeak. Notice that Wilson clearly implies his accusation using very direct language so that the reader could arrive at only one conclusion, but he refused to state his accusation. Here’s another example of Wilsonnuendo:

The larger quibble is this. Godfrey doesn’t really get into the current fracas, only referring to it a few times. In these three places Godfrey registers his disagreement, but unlike some of his colleagues, he never moves into high slander mode. . . . (“The Screaming Moralistic Fantods”)

Again, the accusation is implicit: Wilson believes that some of Dr. Godfrey’s colleagues operate in “high slander mode,” which is another way of accusing them of lying because Questions 144 & 145 of the WLC clearly prohibit slander, high or low. But who are the “colleagues” that Wilson accuses with his insinuation? I’ll let the Fearless Leader answer that one:

So let us talk for a moment about the tenet of Dr. Clark’s that I agreed with, the one without the iron boot. “I admit that all believers are fully justified now and shall be vindicated as such at the judgment.” I agree, Dr. Clark, and one of the things I will be vindicated from in that day will be your false charges. (“Even Warriors for Truth Have to Fudge the Facts a Little”; emphasis original)

I could be wrong, but I don’t see much innuendo here. In fact, it strikes me as a direct accusation of “false charges.” Or maybe I’m dreaming. There’s no doubt, however, that he loaded the title of the post with Wilsonnuendo and he insinuates yet more here:

Scott Clark has had some more to say, and he says it here. As part of his conclusion, he says: . . . This is just an outrage. Look at what Clark is doing — no, not that ninth commandment stuff. I would keep on pointing that out but my arm is tired. (“The Pope’s Easter Hat”; emphasis original)

Oh, yes, the lying Dr. Clark. Everyone knows he’s truth challenged. In fact, I’m surprised the brothers at MARS haven’t recruited him, because they’re next in line of those whom Wilson would never dream of accusing of lying:

We all see through a glass darkly, but some more darkly than others. Here is the problem, and it is a glaring and grotesque one. Their testimony includes a “Digest of Errors” (pp. 17–20). This is a list of 45 errors taught by “the various proponents of the current set of errors.” I am an FV guy, right? I should be able to find myself in there, right? But out of their list of 45 errors, I find that I could be able to join them in rejecting 43, and maybe 44 of them. The “error” I recognize as a reasonable expression of my own position is #36, that of paedocommunion. The others on the list participate in overt misrepresentation, with varying degrees of high-handedness. The degrees of misrepresentation range from mild to jaw-dropping. This was an unbelievably shoddy bit of scholarship. This was atrocious. This was violation of the ninth commandment with a chainsaw. (“Theologians Are From MARS”)

Is taking a chainsaw to the Ninth Commandment tantamount to lying? Really, do metaphors remove the insinuation or do they aggravate it? Should we even have to ask this question? No, we shouldn’t. But we’re dealing with Wilson, who just accused the entire MARS faculty of lying in their “Digest of Errors.”

Here’s the last example that I gleaned from dozens of citations where the Fearless Leader accuses certain persons of lying about him and the Federal Vision. I reproduce the post in entirety:

And the Winner Is . . .
Auburn Avenue Stuff
You should recall that some time ago, I invited contributions to a federal vision haiku contest. Rather than apologize for my tardiness in announcing the winners, let me just say that we all know that time is one of the tests of a classic.

First prize is 15 clams off any purchase at Canon Press, which goes to Chris Witmer for the following two submissions. Second prize is ten dollars off at the same establishment, and goes to Joost Nixon. Honorable mention isn’t worth anything substantive, which is good, because that one goes to Nate Wilson’s entry.

Chris Witmer
You don’t resemble
My caricature of you
Because you’re lying.

SJC judgment
The sound of two hands clapping

Joost Nixon
RC is aging
who will assume his mantle?

Nate Wilson
Cherry blossom spins
dropping charges, elusive,
brave debate partner

Posted by Douglas Wilson — 4/10/2007 9:34:38 AM

Well, that certainly is a winner. It says it all — “Because you’re lying.” But you have to notice that in this instance Wilson didn’t make the accusation; he just rewarded someone else for making it. Classic Wilsonnuendo: “I didn’t say you were lying; Witmer said it.” I don’t care. We all know what it means and we all know where Witmer learned it. He’s a monkey boy to the armpits and he hangs on every word that proceeds from the mouth of Doug. He’s the big bag of hate that called Ligon Duncan “Legion” Duncan in the combox at Green Baggins and received an instant lifetime ban. He learned to slander from the Fearless Leader, by reading his blog. Wilson taught him by example; Wilson encouraged him by example; and ultimately Wilson rewarded him with money.

But Witmer is a fool not worth my time. The question we need to answer is How can Wilson claim he can’t think of any FV critic he would dream of accusing of lying after he documented an exhaustive record that demonstrates he has already accused pretty much all of his chief critics of lying?

There is any number of answers to this question. I’m sure Wilson would deceive his way out of it by massaging a few terms, revising some of his story, and attacking the character of the person who points out his contradiction, which is his standard MO. I’m sure that others (including myself) would note that lying is pathological for him — he can’t help it. Indeed, he loves it. But I think the best explanation for this conundrum is to observe the dougspeak in his original statement:

The response here is that I cannot think of any critic of the FV — provided we are talking about critics who sign their own name to their concerns or charges — that I would dream of accusing of deception or lying.

He cannot think of any FV critic whom he would dream of accusing of lying because he doesn’t need to dream about it. Not at all. He doesn’t need to dream about it because he does it constantly in his waking hours.

Thank you.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

On Blogging

I was no blogger, neither was I a blogger’s son. I’m a stiff, and the discipline of writing is very difficult for me. I used to shoot for posts of 600 words and they usually ended up about 750–800 words, taking me about an hour to write. Now I shoot for 600 words and end up with 2,000, but it takes me about 90 minutes (sometimes longer) per 600 words, which I spread over a couple-days’ period. It takes me longer because I really am trying to limit the word count. Currently, I have two posts queued up, each almost 3,000 words, and I don’t know how to shrink them.

That said, there’s still a massive HIGH over Moscow and the Kult elders cannot explain it.

Thank you.

Weather Update

There’s a huge HIGH over Moscow and the Kult leaders can’t figure it out.

Thank you.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Another Stacked Committee

Today we need to examine the committee deployed by the CREC to nullify the RPCGA’s Declaratory Judgment that deposed from office the Saint Peter Four — Laurence Windam, Wayne Hayes [Hays?], Jay Barfield, and R.C. Sproul, Jr. — and then attempted to legitimize their so-called ministry, at least as far as it concerns the CREC.

To refresh your memory, on December 15, 2005, when reality finally dawned on the Saint Peter Four that the RPCGA might actually sanction them, they dropped a note to the RPCGA Moderator, Dr. Kenneth Talbot, stating,

It appears that at least three of our four elders cannot stay in the denomination. Given that reality, we would likely look for a denomination where we can not only believe in paedocommunion, but be free to practice it. If we as a church do so, we cannot then have one elder who cannot serve the sacrament. We don’t want to go, but we can’t change our convictions. The particular hardship is this. We especially don’t want to leave with a cloud over our heads. Could you either, having let us go, hear the complaints against us, and issue a ruling, or barring that, could you forward all those complaints to where we end up? We have had much to repent of these past few weeks. We have done so. We are sorry in turn that our failures have caused trouble for you and the presbytery.

I call this “dropping a note” because these words, more than any others, demonstrate the Saint Peter Four’s complete ignorance of the magnitude of their sins, which is no surprise. Men seldom repent of abusing the flock apart from divine intervention of the Damascus Road variety. The same principle applies to criminals; they seldom turn over new leaves to become model citizens unless God gives them new hearts. In this case, these men confessed to rampant abuse of their ordained authority; they confessed to at least one felony, perhaps two if you count the perjury; and they confessed to multiple violations of the RPCGA BCO, which constitutes “covenant breaking.” And despite these facts, RC Jr casually states on behalf of he and his fellow sots, “We especially don’t want to leave with a cloud over our heads.”

Please read that again: “We especially don’t want to leave with a cloud over our heads.” Let’s see, they committed multiple egregious and grotesque crimes against the Lord Jesus Christ and against His sheep, and the only thing on their mind was withdrawing from the RPCGA without having a cloud over their heads. They actually called it a “hardship.” These men were so detached from reality that they acted as though they were negotiating a settlement. Clearly they had no grasp of their sin or of the gravity of the situation, which accounts for their expectation — “the expectation of the wicked.” It also accounts for their sense of privilege and entitlement. Notice how they acted as though they deserved to remain in the ministry, just in another denomination where they could serve communion to infants. “We confessed, we repented; now cut us loose so that we may practice paedocommunion and commit felonies elsewhere.” Whatever else is true, this is not the posture of a broken spirit and these are not the words of a contrite heart. But it’s consistent with their pattern of sin and it explains the immediate appeal that rose between them and the CREC. Thieves prefer the company of thieves — beats lawful accountability any day.

So the CREC appointed a “pastoral commission” to duly nullify the RPCGA’s Declaratory Judgment and welcome the Saint Peter Four into their thieving fraternity, which brings us to the composition of the committee — the men whom the CREC appointed to duly nullify the RPCGA’s Declaratory Judgment against the Saint Peter Four. And the first thing that we should note about this committee is that the CREC failed to appoint any representatives from the RPCGA, which would be the most obvious pool of men to select a body of commissioners from because . . . well . . . because the RPCGA happened to be the denomination that was the most familiar with the facts of the case. The second thing that we should notice about this commission is that the CREC neglected to appoint any representatives from the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, which is the denomination that the Saint Peter Four defrauded in an identity-theft scam to commit tax fraud. (I also noticed that the CREC didn’t appoint anyone from the federal government to the commission, probably because it would have resulted in an indictment.) And finally we have to notice that the CREC was remiss in appointing to this commission any representatives from the families that were abused by the Saint Peter Four. Call me a cynic, but everything in me says that these oversights were not accidents.

Nevertheless, these facts establish who wasn’t on the commission, but they don’t tell us who was on the commission. According to the “Report from the CREC Pastoral Commission for Saint Peter Presbyterian Church,” however, we see that the CREC sat five men to serve on this commission, and taking them in order of their appearance, we see —
  1. Randy Booth
    Randy Booth holds the office of Moderator of the CREC and he chaired the “Pastoral Commission,” which means that he was the principal nonentity whose strings the Fearless Leader tugged to accomplish the deed. The other commissioners simply had to nod their heads. But despite his nonentity status, Booth has the most unique qualification to hold any office in the CREC because he’s the only man on record whom another church officially identified as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Don’t let the collar fool you — he’s lupine to the bone. But Booth has another unique qualification for this position that we’ve never explored, he wrote a book titled Children of Promise, published by P&R. I’m pretty sure he wrote it before his teenage son began selling mushrooms and marijuana to the students at Logos School and NSA, as well as violating the daughter of a certain Kult elder. But if it’s any consolation, at least they were all children of promise in a covenantal sort of way.

  2. Patch Blakey
    Patch Blakey is a ruling elder at Trinity Reformed Church, Moscow, ID, which means that he reports for Kult duty about thirty minutes after Christ Church meets and about 100 yards from Christ Church’s meeting place. It’s a long story, but the Kult doesn’t plant a church in Moscow in order to meet the needs of the community; they do it to circumvent a potential Kult split. Nevertheless, Blakey was uniquely qualified to serve on the Saint Peter Four pastoral commission for two reasons: First, he was one of the Kult elders who helped stage the April Fools’ Day joke of 1999he countenanced the whole thing — and, second, one of his teenagers intimately participated in Randy Booth’s aforementioned drug ring. These two events — the April Fools’ Day joke and the drug ring — took place during the same year and I’m sure that Blakey has convinced himself that there is no causal connection between his illegal activities and his teenager’s illegal activities. After all, recreational drug abuse is commonplace in all covenantal homes, isn’t it?

  3. Virgil Hurt
    Virgil Hurt, pastor of Providence Church, Lynchburg, VA, was uniquely qualified to sit on this pastoral commission for four reasons: First, he obtained his religious training at Wilson’s Greyfriars Hall, where like a good clone he wrote a paper on the all-important subject of marijuana. Second, he was the Kult deacon who used his office as manager of Kinkos to stonewall the police after the Kult’s April Fools’ Day joke turned into a criminal investigation. Third, the RPCGA named him in the Declaratory Judgment; at best he was a witness and at worst he was an accomplice to the Saint Peter Four breaking covenant with their presbytery. And fourth, this guy’s really dumber than a box of hair, take a peek at his blog.

  4. Gene Liechty
    Gene Liechty is pastor of Christ Church, Carey, North Carolina, where you’ll notice that the church website states,

    Although this is Gene Liechty’s first pastorate, he is well on his way to being a model pastor. . . Mr. Liechty studied theology at Greyfriar’s Hall in Moscow, Idaho. . . Before entering the ministry, he worked as a marketing professional in a wide variety of fields.

    This brief bio conceals as much as it discloses. First, note that he attended Greyfriars, which means that he can bob his head up and down better than most monkey boys and make it look solemn: “Yes, Doug, I agree wholeheartedly.” But then notice the clever copy: When it says, “he is well on his way to being a model pastor,” it really means that he was (is?) a professional model; and when it says, “Before entering the ministry, he worked as a marketing professional in a wide variety of fields,” it really means that he was a professional model. You should look for him the next time you see a Fruit of the Loom ad. (This is not a fabrication; to be fair, however, he’s a great looking guy — even better looking than my dashing avatar!) But Liechty’s unique qualification to serve on the CREC’s pastoral commission was the unflagging loyalty he showed to the Fearless Leader when he refused to distance himself from the Kult after the public discovered that his church-associated school used Wilson’s & Wilkins’ trashy little booklet Southern Slavery As It Was to indoctrinate children. Generally speaking, most normal people have a problem when adults deliberately teach falsehoods to children so that they can grow up to admire the Fearless Leader, but not in the CREC or the ACCS. Liechty didn’t have a problem with it either; love for the truth didn’t compel him to break ranks with the Kult, so he’s a natural choice to serve on any committee appointed to arrive at a predetermined decision.

  5. Dennis Tuuri
    No CREC committee is complete unless Dennis Tuuri is present to guarantee that abusive ministers have fair representation, which appears to be a primary means employed by the CREC in order to achieve growth. Of course, Tuuri is the renegade who fled from the PCA rather than answer charges for “abuse of the flock.” Interestingly, his ministerial credentials bear a remarkable similarity to the Fearless Leader’s. You will recall that Wilson described his act of self-will as an “irregular ordination”; similarly he described Tuuri’s ordination as “irregular,” which leads me to believe Tuuri has less credentials than Wilson, if that’s possible.
These are the men who composed the CREC’s so-called “pastoral commission”: one (1) wolf and one (1) brown-nosing toady — both with tainted households and equally tainted values; two (2) illegitimate Greyfriars — one a misdemeanant, the other a loyal airhead; and one (1) irregularly ordained yet abusive minister. I kid you not.

For the record, I am advancing an ad hominem argument, but it’s not fallacious. First Timothy 3:1–7 requires elders to be “above reproach,” along with other specific obligations such as ruling their households well, having children in submission with all reverence. Most of these men, however, couldn’t meet the basic requirements for church membership in a legitimate (“law-abiding”) church, let alone the high standards for leadership. Indeed, any church foolish enough to bring them in would have to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them the moment they administered their membership vows. They are no less rebels against the kingdom of God than the Saint Peter Four whom they were appointed to refrock.

In the end, Wilson hand-picked this commission to accomplish his will and there’s no way he would leave this job to anyone he had not already corrupted. Therefore, every one of the five commissioners was an insider. Every one of them sat under his tutelage to one extent or another, learning to call evil good and good evil. All of them were as dirty as the Fearless Leader. And this gang of misfits and thugs successfully achieved his decree, which was to nullify the RPCGA’s Declaratory Judgment and bring the Saint Peter Four into the CREC so that they could resume persecuting God’s saints with impunity and break covenant at will.

But it won’t end well for these rebels because Scripture pronounces a woe on them (Isa. 5:20), and though the Fearless Leader may be able to blow off a Declaratory Judgment written by man so that his fellow hoodlums can wreak havoc in the Church, he cannot invalidate the Word of God, for the Lord Jesus Christ declares, “the Scripture cannot be broken.”

Thank you.