[Vision2020] Pity Poor Pooh What makes his "hunny" yellow?

[Taro Tanaka]

I know there is little love lost for Doug Wilson on V2020, but I wonder if 
it bothers anyone here when lies without any basis in reality are told about 
him.

Pooh is suffering from a bad case of jaundice. All the while I thought Pooh 
was drinking down hunny, it turns out to have been a bucket of bile. When 
reading some of the outlandish assertions posted at PooStench recently, I 
truly feel sad for Michael Metzler's sake that his mind has twisted to the 
point where he could publish such distortions, but I am nevertheless amazed 
that he seems to believe there are thinking Christians out in cyberspace 
able to swallow such stuff. His recent posting on "Uncle Doug's Cabin and 
the CREC" causes me to worry about not only the spiritual health, but also 
the mental health of the author. Quoted material from PooStench is in 
brackets, and my comments follow --

[Here are the facts about Wilkins that Wilson neglected to cite.]

Oh, goody! We get to feed on FACTS today. Surely this means we can expect 
some serious evidence provided to establish "factuality" as opposed to a 
series of unsupported assertions. We'll find out . . .

[First, don't waste your time reading Wilkins' answers to the SJC because he 
is a dishonest man . . . ]

Things are not getting off to a good start here, but as bad as the above is, 
it just keeps going downhill. Let's consider some possible meanings of this 
assertion. Does it mean Wilkins is in fact orthodox, because his "heretical" 
replies to the SJC questions are not what he really believes? Or does it 
mean he is a heretic because his "orthodox" replies are not what he really 
believes? Or does it mean that he is a heretic because he is being truthful 
with his heretical replies and lying with his orthodox replies? Or should we 
conclude he is really just a self-conscious apostate who doesn't believe in 
God at all, and for him the third and ninth commandments are simply tools to 
be used to fleece the sheep? Or does it mean we cannot conclude anything 
from whatever Wilkins might say? Some clarification would be nice, to say 
the least. Especially since he is a pastor in good standing in a 
conservative Christian denomination that has something like 1500 churches. 
Nota bene, some people in the PCA is getting their panties twisted over how 
Wilkins crosses his T's and dots his I's on narrow questions of conservative 
Calvinist theology, not over "plagiarism" or SSAIW.

[. . . a dishonest man as evidenced by his plagiarism, which he did not 
limit to Southern Slavery As It Was . . . ]

Evidence, please? And please provide evidence that any such so-called 
"plagiarism" is even relevant. Even if someone had committed the most 
pernicious, deliberate plagiarism imaginable at some point in the past, it 
would hardly constitute proof that the person is lying now when he gives 
testimony concerning his most fundamental beliefs.

[ . . .  just as the E Free elders noted that Wilson tailors his doctrinal 
answers to his audience, so I expect that Wilkins would do the same.]

I once said, "I believe it's raining." On another occasion I also said, "I 
believe it's not raining." One thing I believe all the time, rain or shine, 
is that it is not hard to cull from the collected utterances of any person 
statements that sound contradictory when they are taken out of their 
respective contexts and placed side-by-side. It is also true that people's 
beliefs are subject to revision. But one thing I find incredible is that 
someone like Wilson would deliberately tailor doctrinal statements to give 
his audience what he thinks they want to hear. Given the kind of theology 
that Wilson is known to publicly preach, the only way he would be capable of 
doing such a thing is if he is really just a self-conscious apostate. Even 
then, it is still hard to believe because of the obvious impossibility of 
keeping such discrepancies secret. He would have to be one of the stupidest 
"evil geniuses" of all time. But even if that was a true assertion about 
Wilson, does it therefore follow that it must also be true about Wilkins?

[If you can judge a man's character by his friends (editor's note: this is a 
strong "if'), then you may safely judge Wilkins a scoundrel due to his close 
friendship with Douglas Wilson.]

I don't know what Metzler's insertion here of "a strong 'if'" means, but 
does it follow from this that Peter Lilliback, president of Westminster 
Theological Seminary, is also to be safely judged a scoundrel? How about 
Mars Hill's Ken Meyers? In the context of sympathizing with the theology of 
Wilson and Wilkins, we could also cite Reformed Theological Seminary's John 
Frame and LaSalle University professor Joel Garver, among many other 
prominent Christians in Reformed and Presbyterian circles; are we also to 
conclude that these men must be scoundrels?

[Second, Wilson's interest in Wilkins has nothing to do with friendship or 
theology; it's all about power. Wilson is working Wilkins just as he works 
everyone else, bleeding him dry of his resources, which in this case amounts 
to the eight churches that compose the Louisiana Presbytery in the 
Presbyterian Church of America.]

With a statement like this, it would be nice to see even a shred of evidence 
instead of an empty assertion. Is there any evidence that the entire PCA 
Louisiana Presbytery would defect? In a denomination like the CREC, how does 
a pastor in Idaho "bleed dry" churches in Louisiana? Do they have a 
bloodmobile go around to each church and suck all the blood out of each 
member to take back to Idaho for Wilson to consume? Seriously, as for adding 
to Wilson's personal influence, yes, perhaps in a sense there is a potential 
for his influence to grow as the CREC grows, but there is also a very real 
sense in which Wilson's control over the denomination gets diluted as it 
grows. The CREC keeps doubling in size every few years (no big surprise 
since it is so small) and these churches are not only in the USA but also in 
other countries around the world. Are we to believe that the members of CREC 
churches in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, East Asia, Southeast 
Asia, and Africa, all speaking different languages, are all just a bunch of 
Doug Wilson groupies? Local CREC churches send zero money to levels higher 
up in the denomination. There is no reason to think that the addition of 
eight churches to the CREC would put any significant money into Doug 
Wilson's pockets, especially since these particular churches already have 
their own publishing house. There is not much here (if anything) for Wilson 
to gain in terms of either "power" or "bleedable resources."

[Wilson has courted Wilkins since at least 1995, which was one year before 
they co-plagiarized SSAIW.]

1995 would be three years before the founding of the CREC. What "bled-dry 
resources" does Wilson have to show for the past 11 years of courting 
Wilkins? - so far that would be ZILCH. If Wilson were an investment manager 
he would have been fired long ago for such a miserable track record. If a 
Christian lusts after power and money, there are many far easier and more 
successful approaches to them than this. If those are the sorts of things 
that motivate Wilson, he is nuts for not having become a televangelist: he 
could have donations pouring in by the truckload and politicians kissing the 
ring on his papal finger.

[But here's the point: Wilson has bragged for many years (at least since 
1999) that "Wilkins and his presbytery want to leave the PCA by making a 
statement," and they've been planning a show-off exit for many years. Wilson 
sold Federal Vision to Wilkins and the Louisiana Presbytery long before 2002 
when the Monroe Four debuted, and you can be sure that Wilson convinced 
Wilkins he'll be a martyr when the PCA puts him out for false doctrine.]

Evidence, please. It does not make sense on the face of it. If Wilkins and 
his presbytery wanted to leave the PCA, and to make a statement, they could 
do so without being declared heretics. They could just say, "We want to 
practice paedocommunion and we can't do it in the PCA, so we want out." 
Wilson "sold" Federal Vision to these men? What's in it for them? "Oh, 
goody! Martyrdom! We get to lose many friendships and perhaps a lot of 
tangible wealth too. We'll be remembered in perpetuity right alongside 
Servetus. And all we need to do, to gain all these wonderful things, is 
espouse heresies that we don't really believe! Doug, you're a genius - where 
do we sign?"

[This will be the exit if the SJC decides against him (as they should). 
Wilson's latest post shows that he believes the hour draweth nigh. If they 
do put Wilkins out, then the entire Louisiana Presbytery will feign shock 
and offense as they showboat all the way into the loving arms of Pope Doug.]

The entire Presbytery "will feign shock and offense"? Essentially, what's 
being asserted here is that the entire presbytery is simply incredibly 
stupid AND corrupt. Again we have to ask, what's in it for them? The 
incredible cynicism and slander being voiced here might still make a smidgen 
of sense if we could conceive of some possible tangible benefit to the 
people in the PCA's Louisiana Presbytery. But they don't gain anything at 
all, at least nothing that they couldn't get through less painful means. The 
"logic" at work in this assertion is totally bananas.

[And don't forget that the Dixie hick has coattails with all his Southern 
Heritage Society buds as well as his League of the South klan. This probably 
explains why Wilson rewrote SSAIW and called it Black and Tan . . . He's 
courting Kentucky fried Presbyterians for that day when Wilkins leads a 
heretics' rebellion, breaking loose from the PCA's orthodox fetters, and 
flees for Confederate liberty to Uncle Doug's Cabin and the CREC, where they 
have only one confessional standard - "Doug said, I believe it, that settles 
it."]

Okay, run this by me again. To gain power, Doug Wilson in Idaho is appealing 
to a tiny group of marginalized Presbyterians located primarily in the 
American South, who are connected (at least in the popular press, if not in 
reality) with racism, and a group that has by far the highest concentration 
of so-called "Truly Reformed" types who absolutely loathe Wilson's "Federal 
Vision" theology. I must say, this strikes me as really brilliant ploy for 
gaining influence and power in America today - about as brilliant as the guy 
who put on his parking brake and then got out of the car and tried to push 
it up an ice-covered slope while wearing dress shoes. I dunno, maybe 
Wilson's evil genius is able to see a brilliant strategy here that is 
totally lost on me. But again, we have to ask, even if this were Wilson's 
plan, what's in it for the PCA Louisiana Presbytery? Why would anyone want 
to flee to a denomination where the only confessional standard is "Whatever 
Doug Wilson says?" What else could one call that other than fleeing from 
freedom INTO slavery? This does not compute.

[In short, Wilson has coveted the Louisiana Presbytery in the same way he 
coveted COTK, and he has waited over a decade for this day.]

Again, not a shred of evidence is provided (indeed, on its face it is 
obviously impossible to provide solid evidence for much of what has been 
asserted in Metzler's post). Instead, we have just another assertion.

Folks, essentially, what we have here in Metzler's post is someone sitting 
down in front of his keyboard and trying to imagine how he could portray 
events surrounding Wilson in the worst possible light, and then typing 
exactly that. It is a figment of a perverse imagination, and nothing more. I 
don't care what anyone's opinion is of Wilson or Wilkins, it still remains 
that certain minimum standards have to be met in discourse, otherwise you 
not only lose the respect of those around you, you also lose all 
self-respect. In his posting on the topic "Uncle Doug's Cabin and the CREC," 
Metzler has not come close to fulfilling these minimum standards. He is 
simply spewing bilge water, and the fact that he expects his readers to 
imbibe it shows that his judgment is not to be trusted. At least where 
Wilson is concerned, he has neither objectivity nor discernment. Even 
allowing that people might have legitimate disagreements with Wilson over 
various matters, that cannot justify a willingness to publish any slander 
regardless of how utterly implausible it might be on its face. If someone 
were to ask, "Is there a sense in which Doug Wilson and the CREC might stand 
to gain from what seems to be unfolding now in the PCA?" I wouldn't have any 
problems with that kind of speculation. But for Metzler to publish these 
assertions that all of this is part of a diabolical plot that Wilson has 
been working on for over a decade is a both an insult to human intelligence 
and also a slander beneath contempt. Metzler needs to have his head 
examined, and his heart too.

-- Princess Sushitushi

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/