Pastor Ghoul: Brazen Indeed

Please allow me to call your attention to Pastor Douglas Wilson’s response to the editorial in the Intelligence Report that covered his pedophile problem:

The father of the girl in the second incident told the Intelligence Report that church officials tried to keep that quiet as well. At one point, he said, they threatened to bring him under church discipline for failing to protect his daughter.

Let’s just say that I have never seen quite so striking an example of a father neglecting his daughter. But this is not one that you have to take my word for. Just look at the previous paragraph. This is a father who was willing to talk to Intelligence Report about this particular incident because he doesn’t believe his daughter has been through enough. And the ghouls at SPLC were willing to print it. (“Brazenly Lied About”; emphasis original)

If you can cut past the utter contempt dripping from Wilson’s fingertips, notice his argument.

(A) Wilson has never seen so striking an example of a father’s neglect.

(B) Talking to the Intelligence Report proves the father’s neglect.

I hope someone lets me know if I missed something here, because the unstated premise of Beelzeblog’s argument appears to be one of two points. It’s either (A) Giving media attention to the crime constitutes a form of paternal neglect, or (B) Talking to the Intelligence Report about the crime constitutes a form of paternal neglect. I think that for the argument to be consistent the premise has to be (A) because the point appears to be that any public attention to the crime constitutes harm to the victim. Of course, Beelzeblog fails to observe that the interview in the IR did not identify the father or the victim, just as he failed to note that the father limited the scope of his comments to Wilson’s pastoral abuse after the crime occurred — threats of church discipline.

These facts notwithstanding, there’s only one point that’s relevant to the argument here. If we grant premise (A) that giving media attention to the crime constitutes paternal neglect, then what should we conclude about Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, after he wrote about the incident on his blog? Put another way, Wilson condemned the father for talking to the IR and he called the folks at the IR “ghouls” for printing the interview; so if they were “ghouls” for printing it, what does that make Wilson for reprinting a large excerpt from the interview and linking to it?

I believe these are fair questions. After all, Wilson blogging on the incident is infinitely worse because of the targeted audience. I don’t know anyone who reads the Intelligence Report, but I know lots of people who read Blog and Mablog. And if media attention causes harm to the victim, then why would the alleged pastor who was overseeing the incident aggravate the victim’s pain by blogging on the subject?

Take it to the next step. If publicity to the crime is drop-dead proof of neglect because it harms the victim, then the CREC (or whatever entity that holds Wilson accountable) should initiate disciplinary proceedings against him immediately, because it’s clear that when he brought even greater publicity to the crime he acted with malice of forethought. As he said, “But this is not one that you have to take my word for. Just look at the previous paragraph.” It’s self-evident.

Thank you.



HT: Anon

Covenant Children

Scandals come and go in Moscow, and I on most days I could probably produce a headline, an email, a post from the local listserv — some form of documentation that marks the anniversary of one scandal or another. For example, yesterday marked an anniversary for Wilson’s little problem in North Carolina, tomorrow marks another special anniversary for Wilson, and today marks the anniversary of a very pastoral (at least by Wilson’s standards) email that Douglas Wilson sent buckshot-style to a group of young men whom he thought were involved in the Morton Street Casino, though he did not know for sure.

As scandals go, this would be no big deal except for one significant fact — Wilson sent this email roughly one month before the infamous 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastor’s Conference where the Monroe Four revealed the Federal Vision — that new theology designed for the children:

Believing the Promises
One of our fundamental concerns is this: we want to insist upon believing God’s promises concerning our children. This is just another way of believing that God will preserve His covenant people over time. We affirm the perseverance of the saints, and not just the perseverance of one individual saint. But the saints extend over generations. The promises do not come to detached individuals. Covenant children are placed in covenant homes by a sovereign God, and we are required as Christians to believe the promises of Scripture concerning these children. Further, as church members we must believe the words of our own oaths and commitments that we make at these baptisms. Those of us who are pastors often require others to make such commitments as well. It is most necessary in such settings to actually believe what we are saying. (Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons, ed. by E. Calvin Beisner [Fort Lauderdale, Florida: Knox Theological Seminary, 2004] 1, 2)

“Covenant children are placed in covenant homes.” Right. I am very close friends with three different couples who said that they learned about the casino when their sons showed them this email. Wilson never notified them their children may have been involved in illegal gambling activity. He just fired off a flamethrower at some of the young men whom he thought could have been involved, and that was the last of his pastoral involvement. Last, that is, except for the payoff.

Regardless, when I hear the FVists cry, “It’s for the children,” I know better. These men care no more for the children than they do the gospel, which is to say they care not at all. And if you don’t believe me, then read this email and ask yourself if you would appreciate your pastor sending this screed to your child before you ever knew about the incident. Then ask yourself if this was an appropriate pastoral response from the man spearheading the “new reformation” on behalf of the covenant children placed in “covenant homes.”

One thing is clear, at any rate: Wilson sure was jealous for his reputation and that of his pet institutions, whatever else he may or may not have felt for the souls in his charge.

—— Original Message ——
From: Douglas
To: —@juno.com; —@hotmail.com; eatwood@hotmail.com; —@aol.com; —@hotmail.com; —@uidaho.edu; —@usa.net; —@juno.com; —@hotmail.com; —@hotmail.com; —@aol.com; —@hotmail.com; —@hotmail.com; Patch Blakey; Doug Jones; Matt Gray; Roy Atwood; Chris Schlect; Wes Struble; Stan Miller; Bob Hieronymus; John Howell; James Nance; Matt Whitling
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 4:00 PM

Gentlemen,

I am writing you all this way because you are related in some way to the recent gambling events at the house on Morton. Your relationship might be tenuous or not — the fact that you are receiving this does not mean that you are accused of anything. It simply means that you are connected in some way — whether through personal involvement, residence there, or because you have somehow learned about it afterwards.

First, you need to know that this situation is not a secret, but neither is it fully public. We don’t mind if you talk amongst yourselves about what has happened, or if you pass on what has happened to anyone who needs to know. But if you pass it on, please include the contents of this email in what you say. We are not trying to hush anything up, but if you talk about it, please include this.

For those who were involved, there were three gross sins in all of this. The first was the grievous lack of love for one another displayed in various ways. Some supposed friends encouraged others to get in serious financial trouble, and helped them to do it. Some just knew about it and said nothing. Some should have known about it. Some others found out about it afterwards, and are now wondering what the elders are going to do. And so forth. Scriptures do not command us all to love our neighbor, except for the young men who get to be irresponsible. The Bible does not say that males in your age group are allowed to treat one another with the kind of contempt you have shown one to another in all of this. No one that I know of is maintaining that the placing of a bet is necessarily sinful — the problem is not penny ante poker, or betting with chips. Please do not think for a moment that we are obsessing over a friendly game of cards. The problem rather is the unfriendliness, the stench of selfishness, the astonishing me-first-ism, the aroma of death that exudes from virtually everything your circle of young men has done. If it came out in the church that your group was now talking junior high girls into a getting tattooed on the rear end, why is it that many of those who know about your behavior the last few years could only say that figures. And somebody over there would probably want to argue about it — “where does the Bible say we can’t talk junior high girls into whatever? They were just small tattoos.” The answer is that you do not love God, and you do not love your neighbor, and a number of your neighbors know it by now. So the first great problem here is selfishness and a self-willed lack of love.

The second sin was the lack of interest in all the issues of reputation and testimony that we have been urging upon you in the proverbial fathead talks for several years now. By now, the pattern of stubbornness in the face of such exhortations shows that a number of you are either really stupid or bona fide hypocrites, and quite possibly both. We know that some of you are hypocrites who will say and do anything to get out of trouble. And we know that others are just simply foolish. In the midst of this, the Bible requires us to take professions of repentance at face value, and so we do (Luke 17). But we want you to know that this obedience on our part does not mean that we are gullible. The fact that you are being obtuse about your spiritual direction and drift and reputation does not mean that we are obtuse about it. The reason we give so many warnings is because we see so many who need them. I am writing to a group, so you may apply this as needed. Your carnal mindset, your lack of spiritual concern, your love of the flesh, are the reasons we give such warnings. Jesus told the parable of the ten virgins, all of whom had the lamp of covenant membership. But not all of them had the oil of grace. Put bluntly, some of you do not understand the warnings we have been giving because you are intent on going to Hell, and I am not speaking metaphorically. Hell is capitalized here, because it is a place, like Seattle. Reputation is the least of your worries, but the fact that many of you are incapable of seeing the problem here indicates a far deeper problem. Take heed to your souls — you are drifting. What does it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, but lose his own soul?

And the third sin is the slander and false accusations that have been made against me, the elders, NSA, and so forth in the immediate aftermath of this. Some of you have participated in this, some of you have just listened. We know the kinds of things that have been said, and the fact that such talk can gain any currency at all shows how twisted your perspective can get when you care more about being cool than about holiness.

So consider this a severe rebuke from your pastor. Some of you are being rebuked, and some of you are simply observing the delivery of a rebuke to others. And I know that the circumstances have varied, and I do not yet have all the information, and so there may be more coming. But this is where it is right now. And so, what do we do now? Our understanding of the circumstances (since the problems with larger bets started) is as follows. If any of you know of facts that are otherwise than this, please let me know.

—— served as the bank, or the owner of the mini-casino.
Ethan Atwood served as the manager. He is currently owed a little money.
—— owes a little money. I don’t know how much.
—— played very little, never going in for more than five dollars, and is currently owed a little.
—— played frequently, and owes over $2,000 to Brett.
—— played frequently, and owes over $2,000 to Brett.
—— played frequently and is even.
—— played less frequently and owes $100 or so.
—— played only once, and played with very little money. He was paid in cash at the time, making $20
—— played only once, and with cash, not credit. He went down only $8 or so.
—— played one time.

What we want is for all of you to do what it takes to get back to the status quo ante — the way it was before the big money betting started. In other words, if you got a check from Brett for three hundred dollars, we want you to get that money back to him. If you cannot do this for financial reasons, please let me know. If you owe money generated out of credit, then the elders have determined that you no longer owe the money. All the betting was illegal in the state of Idaho, a misdemeanor, and as soon as the elders discovered that brothers in the church were treating one another this illegal and unloving way, they determined to cancel the obligations on the basis of the principle contained in Numbers 30. The day we heard of it, we said that brothers in Christ under our charge were not to be permitted to act this way. Therefore, to the extent that real money changed hands, we want it to go back to the original owner. To the extent that bets were made on credit, those obligations are now cancelled. If anyone has any question about what they are to do, please ask me.

There are other possible ramifications from this which do not concern you directly as a group. Please seek God’s forgiveness, one another’s forgiveness, and ours, and pray for us that we would have wisdom in the situation. And do not assume that if you do not know about something that it is being covered up.

I am also willing to meet with you singly or in groups.

Thank you.

“A” for “Abuse”

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

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

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

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

Douglas Wilson

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

Thank you.

The Destroyer

Mr. Hoover,

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Federal Vision Discipline With a Hint of Postmodern Simony

I have plugged the local listserv a couple of times now, and it occurred to me that someone might read this post and arrive at the wrong conclusion. The post was written by Dr. John Brown, who used to be a member of Christ Church, Moscow, and who used to practice medicine at this clinic.

However, things have changed and it’s safe to say that Dr. Brown has had two epiphanies since then. First, he converted to Roman Catholicism and, second, he now holds an entirely different impression of his former pastor than he had in October 2003.

The first epiphany: Dr. Brown has told me and many others that Douglas Wilson’s Federal Vision theology led him to Rome. This is not a rumor, it is a well-known fact in Moscow. To be fair, though, anyone who knows Brown knows that he always had a soft spot for Rome in his heart, so leaving the Kirk wasn’t a huge leap. What most people don’t know, however, is the reason why the Kirk elders did not discipline Brown when he left Christ Church for Roman Catholicism. They didn’t discipline him because his two partners were both members of Christ Church and one of them was an elder who begged Wilson not to excommunicate Brown because it would hurt the business. Wilson, who is always negotiable, conceded because he understood that Brown was the most popular doctor in the office and that if they put the big X on his forehead it might damage public relations. So Wilson sent the Browns a nasty gram by mail and told them to their faces, “You are the dupes of Satan.” (And this fact is interesting in light of Wilson’s comments on this thread.)

The second epiphany: John Brown has told me and many others that his opinion of Wilson has changed significantly since his monkey-boy days. I will not write too much on this point, but he uses the adjective “evil” quite freely, and for good reason. Indeed, it’s safe to say that he penned the words “I think I am in a good position to judge the charitable nature of Christ Church and its leadership” a tad bit prematurely. Wilson knows too well how to exact retribution against those who spurn his authority, for as his sister-in-law says, “No one thinks Doug is capable of doing it, until he does it to them. And then it’s too late.”

Finally, John Brown no longer practices medicine with the two kirkers. In fact, the three men dissolved their partnership at no small cost to two of them. But if we learn anything from Dr. John Brown, we learn that when Wilson calls you a “dupe of Satan,” you better make cocksure you don’t get duped by Wilson.

Welcome Back, Lane!

I was very sorry to read that Lane has not posted because he remains under the weather — so sorry that I began to fear Douglas Wilson had prayed for him (you have to read this to believe it). But glory! Lane posted twice today and, if I read this one correctly, Wilson didn’t pray for him, he only misrepresented him.

Promise Them Liberty

Yesterday I posted a question to Jeffrey Meyers on Mark Horne’s blog, Once More With Feeling. Horne deleted it, as is his right; it’s his blog he can cry if he wants. But I still want to engage every FV PCA officer before they jump ship to the CREC, because they clearly do not realize that the CREC will not grant them any of the principal liberties they currently enjoy in the PCA. Not at all; in fact, just the opposite.

I raise this point because of an essay that Jeffrey Meyers posted on De Regno Christi during the “Federal Vision Controversy” discussion, where he made an impassioned plea for Christian liberty to free him from subscribing the doctrine of Imputation of Christ’s Obedience. Here are some excerpts:

It is part of our Calvinian heritage to refuse to be bound by extrabiblical categories and terminology. The Bible has absolute priority over all traditional formulations, the Westminster standards included. . . . Beautiful. Freedom! . . . .

Calvin refused to subscribe to the ancient creeds . . . solely because he was determined to preserve for himself and his colleagues the liberties belonging to Christian men, subject in matters of faith to no other authority than that of God speaking in the Scriptures. (The Works of B.B. Warfield, vol. 5, pp. 207) . . . .

But one thing we are doing, in good Calvinian fashion, is exegeting the Bible with the freedom that the Reformers won for the liberated churches of Protestantism. . . . If we are not careful, we will out do Rome in our Romanizing traditionalism. In some circles the Westminster standards seem to have become the infallible voice of the Reformed magisterium. If you deviate from the exact words, definitions, and formulations therein, or if you suggest that they might be corrected by the Bible, you may be hauled before a Reformed inquisition.

As the traditionalists are ripping out various ministers’ ecclesiastical entrails, perhaps a loud cry of “freedom!” now and then might be appropriate. Calvin would be proud. (“Subscription & Freedom”)

This is certainly compelling rhetoric and other men, more qualified than me, have already addressed the issues that Meyers evades. The point I want to address is the one essential liberty — that one critical freedom — that allowed Pastor Meyers to make this post in the first place. I refer to freedom of speech.

Last week I wrote about a Christ Church member in good standing — their minister of music — whom Douglas Wilson obligated to sign a loyalty oath under pain of termination. Here is the oath:

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

ATTENTION Jeffrey Meyers, Mark Horne, Steve Wilkins, and the all the other PCA malcontents to whom Wilson has promised liberty in the CREC, please read these words carefully and apply them to your current situation. If you join the CREC, then you will voluntarily unite yourself to an organization that deprives its membership of the very freedom that allows you to weep and gnash your teeth daily, on the worldwide web.

Think this through. Did you notice the terms of the oath? — immediate termination, “without notice,” if anyone even questions your loyalty. Had you signed such an oath prior to joining the PCA, then by now you would be unemployed (as in no paycheck) because of the way you have recklessly abused your freedom of speech to denounce your denomination.

Sure, you may argue, “That’s Christ Church, not the CREC,” but that’s shortsighted. How would you have voted if the members in good standing pursued remedy through the Confederation? Would you have voted against Wilson? Would you have cried, “Freedom! Beautiful freedom!”? Would you have quoted Calvin who sought to “preserve for himself and his colleagues the liberties belonging to Christian men”? I doubt it. Somehow your monkey-boy behavior persuades me that you would put your hand with the Confederate Inquisition to rip out the brethren’s entrails as you shouted down anyone who disagreed with the Little Man Behind the Curtain, just as you have shouted down your current detractors.

Think it through even further. If you presently held your membership in the CREC and you believed that your fellow confederates railroaded you, how long do you think they would let you throw temper tantrums on the worldwide web before they cut you loose? — plus or minus two weeks? I say two weeks max.

They would call an emergency “council” of churches to rule that your conduct “disrupted the peace and purity of the church” (sound familiar?) and they would toss you out of their confederation with a well-worded press release rebuking you for deliberately bypassing the decency and order commanded by Scripture, very much unlike the way the PCA has treated you. And, quite frankly, they would be right. You would deserve it, which brings us back to your current dilemma.

The CREC may promise you liberty, but as Scripture says, they are slaves of corruption who will bring you into bondage (2 Peter 2:19), and you need to consider this fact carefully before you ditch true Christian freedom so that you may chain yourselves to Wilson’s tyrannical oppression.

Would Jeffrey Meyers Sign This?

On a more serious note, I want to substantiate my testimony that Douglas Wilson applies economic sanctions against those who disagree with, criticize, or oppose him. And while I have several accounts to cite, I want to isolate one in particular, which I referenced earlier on Green Baggins.

Two years ago the professor of music for New Saint Andrews College voted against promoting Nathan Wilson to full fellow. Unfortunately, he didn’t know the unwritten rule that voting at Christ Church is like voting in the former USSR — never vote no. So Roy Atwood took him behind closed doors to explain the importance of loyalty in the voting process, but still the professor refused to change his vote. In fact, he said, “Nate Wilson’s arrogance is the reason I would never allow my children to attend NSA.” Roy replied with the standard “loyalty” lecture and the man answered, “Why do you ask me to vote if you don’t want me to vote my conscience?” Roy informed him that they used the vote to determine the conscience.

The professor, who also served as the Christ Church minister of music, then met with two elders and, after offloading his truck to them, asked, “So, am I going to go the way of Brian?” (long-time Canon Press manager whom Jones terminated after he questioned his wife’s loyalty to Christ Church). Both elders blushed and answered, “No, this is nothing that we can’t work out.”

Then the professor and his wife met with Pastor Wilson on two occasions, but they resolved nothing except that Wilson said he planned on sending a letter to the congregation in about a week. One week later the members of Christ Church received this letter, and a week after that Doug Wilson asked the minister and his wife to sign a contract that contained the following clause:

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

The Christ Church minister of music refused to sign the document and immediately resigned his membership from Christ Church, but Wilson refused to accept his resignation and sent an email to the church announcing it. The man said, “You don’t have a choice, I’m out of here,” and the rest is history.

Now, I believe that the “Commitment to Loyalty” clause constitutes an economic sanction against the minister of music, who derived half of his salary from Christ Church (the other half from NSA). Douglas Wilson disagrees with me. Therefore, rather than argue the point with him, I want to bring this full circle.

If the “Commitment to Loyalty” clause contained initials the “PCA” instead of the words “Christ Church,” would Jeffrey Meyers and Mark Horne be willing to sign it? or would they scream, “Freeeeeeedom,” with Mel Gibson in the movie Braveheart?

Let’s see what kind of tyranny the Federal Vision sanctions.

Federal Sanctions

One last comment regarding Douglas Wilson’s horrible treatment of his brother Evan, and then a connecting thought: Evan taught at Logos School for many years (I’m guessing more than a decade) and one day Doug proposed that the school board amend its statement of faith to prevent it from employing anyone who held Open Theism. At the same time, Doug assured Evan that he was not making a move on his brother’s job; rather, he was simply taking care of loose ends. And after the board adopted Doug’s proposed amendment, they terminated Evan’s employment. Naturally, Doug is a lifetime member of the board.

Connected to this is one of Doug’s primary weapons that he uses against his perceived enemies (anyone who effectively criticizes him): economic sanctions. Take this to the bank — whenever someone nails Wilson in the public forum, the first place he looks to seek revenge is money — economic sanctions. It’s a natural reflex. Sadly, several people in the Moscow–Pullman community have learned the hard way that Douglas Wilson exacts a high price from those who criticize or oppose him.

College professors, administrators, politicians, and your everyday regular Joes — it doesn’t matter — Wilson dispatches his goon squad (aka “Doug’s Thugs”) to initiate a complaint campaign against the target, and they begin writing letters and making phone calls to the person’s employer, complaining about some exaggerated or fabricated act committed by the target. The goal is always to silence the target through intimidation or termination, and Wilson has succeeded on more than one occasion. These facts are all true and many people in town will testify to it (and have; I hope to write more on this in greater detail, i.e. with documentation, in the near future).

This is one reason I conceal my identity. I refuse to give Wilson the inside track on harassing me or my employer, and I intend to develop the subject of anonymity in the near future as well.

Fact Check

The New York Times Magazine recently reported,

Evan Wilson, 52, has been estranged from his older brother’s church and college ever since a theological quarrel in the late 1980s that he dubs “the Great Unpleasantness.” . . .

And Douglas Wilson writes on his blog,

And just so you know, out of respect for my parents, I am not going to answer any particular questions about Evan in this setting. To the extent that something has been made obvious to the world (as happened with the NYT article ) I am willing to acknowledge it and say what is generally up. But I am going to do whatever I can to keep the details from being hauled out on the public stage. Whether that resolution will be successful remains to be seen. Suffice it to say for now that I believe it is really sick that the first notice that my father’s extremely fruitful ministry got in the NYT was notice of a conflict between his sons.

And Wilson enlarged upon this subject at Green Baggins (after misrepresenting Kevin Johnson and taking him to task for that misrepresentation), writing,

I would characterize our relationship as personally cordial and doctrinally and positionally strained. No hypocrisy there. When you are dealing with such complicated issues in the future, and assuming it to be your business, I would urge you to get the facts first.

Here are the facts, which are all well known and public in the Moscow–Pullman region. Douglas Wilson has had a family feud with his brother Evan for about 20 years, or roughly since Wilson embraced “Reformed” theology. At that time, Evan served with his brother as a pastor of Faith Evangelical Fellowship(?), which eventually changed its name to Community Evangelical Fellowship and then Christ Church. 20 years ago or so, Faith Evangelical Fellowship was an Arminian- and Baptist-oriented church, until Douglas went “Reformed,” which was when he delivered an ultimatum to his brother Evan: “Embrace ‘Reformed’ theology or face a trial for heresy.” Evan saw the writing on the wall and left the church to plant another church across town, with less than half the congregation following him, feeling more than a little disdain for Douglas.

Evan describes this event as “the Great Unpleasantness”; he talks freely about it; and to this day the core membership of his congregation thinks very little of Doug and his imperial ambitions. Evan, on the other hand, does not have a bitter bone in his body and speaks with affection for his brother, though he freely admits that

1. Douglas has functionally excommunicated him from the faith;
2. Douglas openly treats him as an unbeliever (they only speak when Doug needs something from Evan); and
3. Douglas is drunk with power, arrogant, deceitful, and mentally disturbed.

He affirms these things without a trace of animosity.

I have spoken with Evan on more than one occasion and many of my friends attend his church. Evan is an honest and godly man who is a theological independent, just like his brother, and he attributes their mutual independence to their father who calls himself “the Bishop of Moscow.” All three men are sophists (which I attribute to their father); however, Evan lacks his brother’s guile. Evan matches his brother’s rhetorical skill word for word and slam for slam, but he can’t write worth a lick (to be fair, Doug has been self-publishing since the late ’80s, whereas Evan’s first real consistent effort began when he opened his blog).

Evan has a lovely wife who, when she speaks about the Great Unpleasantness, has said to more than one person, “No one believes that Doug is capable of doing it, until he does it to them.” Leslie speaks from experience. She has watched Doug blame Evan for scandal upon scandal that took place at Christ Church — from the NSA drug ring to the Christ Church casino — Douglas found a way to pin it on his brother. Indeed, Doug’s contempt for his brother goes much further. He regularly ridicules Evan in private conversations; he often exhorts members of his congregation not to speak with Evan; he prohibits officers’ children from visiting Evan’s home; and Christ Church has issued at least two letters warning the congregation to avoid Evan. In other words, Doug has made a deliberate effort to treat his brother as a leper and he has intentional done this in public.

This is not gossip. These facts are all public knowledge, well known throughout Moscow and Pullman, and Doug Wilson knows it. Even worse, his father pled with him on several occasions not to let his animosity for Evan go public with church censures et al., but Doug ignored his father’s pleas.

So if Douglas Wilson doesn’t like reading this in public as he alleged when he wrote, “But I am going to do whatever I can to keep the details from being hauled out on the public stage,” then he should not have spent the last 20 years creating the public record. In fact, if the man had any decency at all, he would repent publicly for the horrible way he has treated his brother (and many others).

Regardless, when Doug Wilson writes “And just so you know, out of respect for my parents, I am not going to answer any particular questions about Evan in this setting,” he is using mom and dad as human shields. He had the opportunity to respect his parents long before the NYT got wind of the family rift, but he refused. And when Doug Wilson writes, “I would characterize our relationship as personally cordial and doctrinally and positionally strained,” he is . . . well . . . he is lying through his teeth.