<a href="http://patrickpoole.blogspot.com/2006/02/wilsonistas-gone-wild.html" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://patrickpoole.blogspot.com/2006/02/wilsonistas-gone-wild.html</a><br clear="all">
<br><br><h2>Thursday, February 16, 2006
</h2>
<a name="110a231a8f040bef_114008809361316106"></a>
<h3>
Wilsonistas Gone Wild!!!!
</h3>
Following up on my post from yesterday, <a href="http://patrickpoole.blogspot.com/2006/02/mendacious-mullah-of-moscow.html" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">The Mendacious Mullah of Moscow
</a>,
I've received a torrent of hate mail -- all of which curiously
originates from residents of Moscow, Idaho. The letters all follow
along the same lines, making me wonder if there isn't some "insert the
adjective" webmail form letter over at <a href="http://dougwils.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">dougwils.com</a>. The letters
generally run as follows:<br><br><blockquote>Dear Reformed Reprobate,<br><br>Greetings
in Christ! I am a member at Christ Church/I'm a student at New St.
Andrews/I'm on staff at Logos Schools/I'm married to one of the Great
Leader's children, and I wanted you to know how much I would love to
put the serrated edge against your throat for daring to question the
wisdom of our Great Leader, but as a fellow brother/sister in Christ, I
will refrain from doing so (at least at the moment, you presbyterian
pig). Our Great Leader vanquishes his foes merely by the word of his
power and pen, so where do you get off saying negative things without
having submitted yourself to the higher knowledge that proceeds from
our Great Leader's mouth and keyboard?<br><br>I just read on our Great
Leader's blog his recent instructions not to speak, hear, or think, let
alone blog, about anything with reference to the Great Leader's liquor
distributor, friend and future CREC colleague, R.C. Sproul, Jr.; and if
it's on his blog, I believe it and that settles it. If fact, I didn't
even permit myself to think about it as I was just writing about it.
How dare you consider yourself a Christian and believe that you too can
blog on the same topics as the Great Leader!<br><br>But you take your
spiritual rebellion even one step further and blaspheme our Great
Leader by challenging the infallibility of his version of events in the
matter that I'm not even allowed to remember. And how can you claim to
know any truth living so far away from the Moscow Mecca? Our Great
Leader only speaks truth, only thinks truth, and IS truth, you wretched
revisionist! If you have doubts, you should register your doubts with
the Great Leader's Judicial Committee, who will legitimate anything our
Great Leader says, including verifying any unsigned documents he might
provide as evidence to rebut your witness, in order to quickly dispel
your heretical notions about the Great Leader's unquestioned
truthfulness.<br><br>If that doesn't convince you, your only recourse
is to register an official complaint with the Cult of Personality
Committee of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Cults, who's
first task will be to examine if you first followed Matthew 18 before
you dared to question the Great Leader's veracity. And they will show
you no mercy, you covenant-breaking non-paedo-communionist!<br><br>It
is people like you that sow seeds of doubt amongst the weaker brothers
and sisters of the True Kirk and feed the evil that dare not be named (<em><a href="http://www.terrymorin.com/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">Dr. Terry Morin</a>--ed.</em>).
Since you posted your blog article after our weekly Wednesday afternoon
imprecatory prayer session, we will have to wait another week before we
pray down the Great Leader's Righteous Justice upon you for your
scurrilous sacrilege. My sincerest hope in life is that you rot in
eternal fires of Blog and Mablog for your crimes, or are at least
satirized as a macaroni dish in the forthcoming issue of <em>Credenda/Agenda</em>.
But even that terrible fate will not compare to the eternal horror
should the Great Leader set his steely gaze and his poisoned pen upon
you. Prepare to meet your fate, reprobate!<br><br>Peace in Christ and death to all infidels,<br><br>xxx</blockquote>Again, this is <em>generally</em>
how the hate mail runs, so I admit to taking some literary license
here. But anyone who has ever been on the working end of a Wilsonista
jihad will know that I'm not that far off the mark. While the Great
Leader is quite fond of repeatedly noting the "fellowship of the
grievance", aka the <strong>Vast Anti-Doug Conspiracy</strong>, this is far from a strictly anti-Wilson sect.<br><br>It
was last year that I began noticing whenever anything that could even
be slightly construed as negative was said on the Internet about the
Sultan of Subjectivity that the same cast of characters would magically
appear out of thin air to fiercely attack not just any criticism of
Wilson, but savage the critics themselves.<br><br>The best example I
can remember was the hatchet-job that the Great Leader engineered
against Knox Seminary professor Cal Beisner in a <a href="http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/014287.html" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">WorldMagBlog discussion </a>last April (this is lengthy, but please bear with me).
<br><br>At issue was <a href="http://www.worldmag.com/articles/10576" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
a brief article </a>published by <em>WORLD</em> concerning the <em>Southern Slavery As It Was</em> plagarism flap (follow the link and go down to "Doug Wilson and Slavery"). Wilson immediately showed up on the scene in the
<a href="http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/014287.html" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">comment section </a>(Comment #7) to rake <em>WORLD</em>
over for daring to mention the flap and for not abiding by his
interpretation of the facts. In his opening comment, he attacked the
credibility of <em>WORLD</em> because they chose to quote someone he didn't like. Here's his opening post in its entirey:<br><em></em><blockquote><em><em>"I
have gone back and forth on whether to say anything, but it seems to me
that this is an venue where we can have a courteous discussion about
this, particularly since comments were invited. That said, the article
was extremely disappointing. World magazine weighed into a local
controversy when they simply didn't have the background on it (despite
having plenty of time). For local Christians here in Moscow, it is hard
to swallow when our fellow believers at World quote someone who lives
in the Ward Churchill universe as some kind of authority. I did not
take this story as any kind of attack on us, but as a news story it
failed, at a number of points. Disappointing. I don't want to have to
start reading all World articles with the nagging thought in the back
of my mind -- do they do this kind of thing in their other reporting? I
hope not."</em> Doug Wilson (Comment #7)</em></blockquote>Did you catch that sleight-of-hand? Anyone in academia is compared to Ward Churchill. <em>WORLD</em>
quotes someone in academia, so he is concerned about the quality of all
their reporting. How's that for charity? But this was just the
beginning.<br><br>In short order, Nate Wilson showed up (Comment #30)
to attack someone who questioned his father's very generous definition
of plagarism. By the time the Great Leader made his next significant
statement (Comment #55), the "Suffering Servant" messiah complex was in
full bloom. The Wilsonistas had already laid the rhetorical groundwork
for that:<br><br><em></em><blockquote><em><em>"I'd say pastor Wilson is
operating right in the footsteps of the Christ. And if you had your
way, I'll bet there's a nice bald hill somewhere on the Palouse, where
you would end his life just as the Pharisees ended those of the Christ
that he follows!" (Comment #49)</em></em></blockquote><p><strong>Anyone attacking Wilson was now a Pharisee re-crucifying Christ!</strong> But hold on; I'm not even getting started yet!</p><p>No
sooner had someone cited the New St. Andrews catalog on plagarism
(Comment #63), then the Great Leader was back armed with a fable to
explain it all away (Comment #69). Ignore the man behind the curtian!
When everyone did not take the bait, he claimed to call it quits
(Comment #80). </p><p>After that, Cal Beisner arrived (Comments #101 & 103) citing an <em>ANTITHESIS</em> article that Wilson had written, "<a href="http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/v2n1/ant_v2n1_Wesley.html" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
Wrestling with Wesley</a>,"
where Wilson charged John Wesley with plagarism for treating texts in
exactly the same manner as Wilson/Wilkins had handled the disputed
portions of <em>SSAIW, </em>which, he was desperate to explain, was
really carelessness, not plagarism at all. Cal later cited another
instance (Comment #132) where scores of students had been expelled and
had degrees revoked for the same kind of text lifting that had occured
with <em>SSAIW</em>.</p><p>In all fairness, Cal's comments were not an
attack on Wilson and the charity and friendship he has exhibited
towards Wilson is well known. If anything, Cal had been the most
reasonable voice in the Auburn Avenue wars and went out of his way to
give Wilson, et al. a fair hearing by raising the funding and chairing
the the Auburn Avenue Colloquium to give those men ample opportunity to
explain their views. Additionally, Cal had a book published a while ago
by Canon Press, <em>Evangelical Heathenism</em>. With credentials like
that, it is difficult to cast him into the category of the "fellowship
of the grievance" or an "intolerista". </p><p>The plot thickened when Cal made the following statement with reference to Wilson's book:</p><em><blockquote><em>"Let
me make my position clear: SSAIW is historical trash, as demonstrated
by a number of written critiques (including McKenzie's--which, along
with Wilson's response and McKenzie's rejoinder, I have read). It also
makes the stupid error of equating Southern black chattel slavery,
which, founded on manstealing, was sinful, with the types of slavery
(bonded servanthood, slavery to pay debts, slavery as punishment for
crime, or slavery as alternative to death in warfare) countenanced
(under carefully regulated conditions) in the Bible. But by lack of
training in historical research, or by mistakes in logic, or both, one
may argue in substance what Wilkins and Wilson argued while not being
vulnerable to serious moral censure. Plagiarism, for someone who, like
Wilson, had demonstrated that he knew better (in his essay on Wesley
and the policies of NSA), is another matter."</em> (Comment #139)</blockquote></em><p>Whether
it was Cal's comment, or the appearance of the evil that dare not be
named (Dr. Terry Morin -- Comment #121), that provoked the following
attack on Cal, no one may ever know:</p><blockquote><p><em>Hello, I
couldn't help it. I tried putting myself in time-out until I calmed
down, but I got loose when I wasn't looking, and so here I come, cannon
balling into the fracas.</em></p><p><em>The real disappointment is Cal
Beisner, who ought to know better. How tedious to see him be so
dishonest with the facts. He is manipulating his definitions to smear
Doug. Either that, or he has absolutely no sense of proportion or
wisdom. I have sat on a number of disciplinary hearing committees for
plagiarism, and there is a big difference between someone who has
plagiarized and someone who has made a major gaffe in their citations.
One is carelessness and the other is deceit. I am completely baffled by
Beisner, a college instructor, and his refusal to make this
distinction. What a scary thought to be the student of a man who won't
acknowledge the difference. Or is there another motivation in trying to
get a plagiarism charge to stick against Doug?</em></p><p><em>Does
anybody else think it is odd that all the hullabaloo is aimed at Doug,
when the portions of the work that are being featured in our various
tirades were all actually Wilkins' sections? Is it maybe because the
point is not plagiarism, but actually the chance to go after Wilson?
Here's an interesting parallel: Rose Huskey (who posted above) has made
herself a little cottage industry here in Moscow out of bringing
charges against anything that Doug Wilson touches. And she regularly
insists that it has nothing to do with her hatred for Doug Wilson; it
is the principle of the law that she is concerned about. But she has
been provided with a number of other local churches which are violating
the same law (as she reads it) and to the same degree, yet she turns
them the blind eye. Beisner's singling out of Wilson smacks of a
similar zeal for righteousness.</em></p><p><em>Very principled.</em></p><p><em>By
the way, I don't think there is any need to go after Wilkins. He has
handled the whole thing quite admirably and is a very honorable man.
Wilkins has the sort of wisdom to make the distinctions that Beisner is
missing. I only bring him in to point out the inconsistency of the men
with the Doug-complex.</em> (Comment #150)</p></blockquote><p>Cal is
"dishonest with the facts"; he was "manipulating his definitions to
smear Doug"; he had "no sense of proportion or wisdom"; he couldn't
discern the distinction between carelessness and deceit; he had a
"Doug-complex". The Wilsonista jihad was on.</p><p>What made this comment so interesting, apart from its' vicious and condescending spirit, is that it bore a very familiar name: <strong>Douglas Wilson</strong>
.
The email address it bore, however, was also familiar to those who take
note of the Kirk Krusaders: <a href="mailto:bmerkle@nsa.edu" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">bmerkle@nsa.edu</a>. This email belongs to Ben
Merkle, Wilson's son-in-law. Remember, Wilson had said that he was
taking his leave of the discussion. What could possibly be going on?
Surely some machination of the <strong>Vast Anti-Doug Conspiracy</strong> was afoot and up to no good!</p><p>Immediately, one of Diotrephes Doug's devoted disciples and regular Blog and Mablog commentors, <a href="http://www.kyriosity.com/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
Valerie</a>,
began attacking the commentator who pointed out the bizarre scenario
unfolding before the readers, attempting to provide an explanation as
to how such could have "accidently" happened. In short order, Wilson
himself reappeared out of thin air to explain it all:</p><blockquote><em>This
really is Doug Wilson, and I know I said I wasn't going to post
anymore. Events overtook me. Anyhow, Ben Merkle, my son-in-law, posted
from our computer at our home, and through an unfortunate computer
deal, the post that he wrote from here showed up over my name. Anyhow,
I would like to take this opportunity to accuse Ben of plagiarism, and
demand a full apology.</em> (Comment #157)</blockquote><p>Yep,
no coordinated attacks on Cal Beisner from the very heart of Moscow
Mecca to be found here! Just a keystone cops series of events!
Following his father-in-law's laughable lead, Merkle chimed in:</p><blockquote><p><em>Yipes.
The earlier post, which begins with "Hello, I couldn't help it" was
written by me, Ben Merkle. I was visiting at Doug and Nancy's when I
typed it. I managed to get in my email address, but somehow missed that
Doug's name had automatically appeared in the name slot. It was me. I
take full credit for it. I hang my head way way low. </em></p><p><em>Wait.
Hold on a second. Darn it, it happened again! Doug Wilson's name
hanging up there taking credit for somebody else's work. Plagiarist!
Holocaust denier!Horse thief!</em> (Comment #160)</p></blockquote><p>Can you hear the nervousness in their laughter increasing? Wilson had to keep the laughter going:</p><blockquote><em>No,
wait. It was his writing, and my name, so I was the one guilty of
plagiarism on this one. Is that right? We need a determination from the
line judge.Seriously, that was not a set-up. Not done on purpose. Pure
accident and computer glitch. But still, my name showed up under Ben's
writing. Should I confess to plagiarism? Given some of the
argumentation above, why not?</em> (Comment #161)</blockquote><p>Ha ha!
Chuckle, chuckle! But no apology for the clearly coordinated backstab
to Cal Beisner. Demand all the charity you want--this was a planned hit.</p><p>Professional Wilson apologist <a href="http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
Tim Bayly </a>(follow
the link to his blog and check out the posts in recent weeks by he and
his brother, David, shouting down any criticsm of Wilson and Sproul,
Jr.) showed up to cover-up the hatchet job with a Wilson lovefest:</p><blockquote><p>My
brother, David, and I want to state publicly our support for Christ
Church, her pastors and elders. You may read our fuller comments on our
blog found here: <a href="http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/</a>.</p><p>May God bless Pastor Doug Wilson as he confesses our most holy Faith.
</p></blockquote><p>Wilson
is confessing "our most holy Faith", so his opponents must not be.
Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Cult (CREC) members quickly
gathered to join the happy chorus (Comments #222 & 223) to make
sure that any discussion of the bungled attack on Beisner was quickly
shoved out of sight. But the attacks on all members of the <strong>Vast Anti-Doug Conspiracy</strong> continued over at Blog and Mablog for more than a week afterwards:</p><p><a href="http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=1040" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
Boethius Counting His Toes </a>(where he describes his critics on WorldMagBlog as <em>"a weird coalition of lesbians, evangelicals, secularists, anti-Auburn avenue folks, and pro-abortionists"</em>)</p><p><a href="http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=1042" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
Can't Tell the Players Without a Scorecard </a>(where Wilson begins reciting his enemies list of those who posted, and many who didn't, in the WorldMagBlog fracas)</p><p><a href="http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=1044" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
Son of Can't Tell the Players </a>(where he spins the discussion and Beisner's comments by stating that <em>"Cal
joined up with overt enemies of Christ and His gospel, trying to make
the same point they were making, with no apparent sense of who his
friends and enemies actually were"; yeah, real charitable...)</em> </p><a href="http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=1045" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
My Relationship with WORLD </a>(where he admits to brow-beating
<em>WORLD</em> publisher, Joel Belz, before the <em>WORLD</em>
reporters even interviewed him to avoid having to address the plagarism
issue; also note the ritual denunciation of "intoleristas", etc.) <a href="http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=1046" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
Me and Steve </a>(where he wrings the admission of sloppiness out of Steve Wilkins that he refuses to give regarding the plagarism in their
<em>SSAIW</em> book) <a href="http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=1047" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">Gettysburg Do-Over </a>(where he revisits the criticisms from the WorldMagBlog discussion in an environment that HE controls)
<a href="http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=1048" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">Accuracy and Objectivity </a>(another sucker-punch to WORLD and the quality of their reporting)
<a href="http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=1049" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
Biblical Absolutism </a>(addressing Beisner, Wilson says that his interpretation is the only one truly faithful to Scripture) <a href="http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=1050" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
Kick It Up a Notch
</a>(where he thanks his supporters for doing his dirty work during the WorldMagBlog brawl and takes his rightful place upon the <em>Credenda/Agenda</em> cross to suffer for the sins of the "intoleristas") <p>If you've followed me thus far, I hope that I've identified the malicious methodlogy of the Great Leader and his followers:
<em>de l'attack, encore de l'attack, et toujours de l'attack; et Le Mullah est sauve!</em></p><p>When
you see it spelled out like this in blow-by-blow detail as I've laid
out examining the coordinated attack on Cal Beisner, the abusive
patterns are easier to see. It truly is heart-breakingly tragic.
Really. The blind, unquestioning faith that the Wilsonistas place in
their Great Leader makes it all acceptable. So I have been hardly
surprised by the hate mail I've been getting from the Wilsonistas. This
is the behavior they are taught is normal; any attack on Wilson is by
anti-Christs or those who are only "objectively" Christian, but have
aligned themselves with the forces of pure evil. Even better, they have
the whole theology and ecclesiastical system to back it all up. Much
like the Matrix.</p><p>I have some further thoughts and responses to
some of issues raised in the hate mail that I want to respond to, but
the hour is late (or early, as the case may be) and I'm going to take
my leave to get some overdue rest. Stay tuned!</p><br><br><br>-- <br><br><br>Juanita Flores<br>Advocate for the Truth from Jesus