A common definition of hypocrisy is to understand it as saying one thing and failing to live up to that standard. While such personal inconsistency is not a good thing, the kind of hypocrisy that Scripture so fiercely denounces occupies another level. High hypocrisy, defined biblically, occurs when you accuse, condemn or assault others for things that you yourself do. The great problem comes when the same sin or worse is being committed by someone who sets himself up as a judge or moral arbiter. Douglas Wilson
For 4 ½ months in 2003–2004, Doug Wilson darkened the Palouse with his defense of race-based chattel slavery. From October 20031 to February 2004, one headline after another reported Mr. Wilson’s religious belief that Scripture authorized the antebellum slavocracy to hold an entire race of human beings in bondage, “without consent or contract.”2 Countless front-page stories, editorials, op-eds, and letters to the editor filled the Moscow-Pullman Daily News. The Spokesman Review (Spokane, Washington) picked up the story as well as the Idaho Statesman in Boise. A sociologist from Washington State University in Pullman enriched the historical record by filming a documentary called My Town, which pieced together various stages of the scandal into a whole unit. We have dedicated an entire wing of the archive (still closed) to this event. I cannot exaggerate the disgrace Douglas Wilson brought upon the gospel. He acted then as he acts now: He blamed everyone for misunderstanding & misrepresenting his true position. And he reinforced his point with vicious personal insults.
The slavery controversy launched about 16 months after the RPCUS issued A Call to Repentance. It opened a second religious front for Doug Wilson to defend: On one side he fought for the Federal Vision against the Reformed church at large; on the other he fought for race-based chattel slavery against the local community. Here is a short sequence of events:
- June 2002 — The RPCUS declared the Monroe Four heretics
- January 2003 — Doug Wilson lampooned Dr. Joe Morecraft as “Craft Morecaroni & Cheese”
- October 2003 — Doug Wilson boasted about slavery with the Moscow-Pullman Daily News
- January 2004 — The Moscow-Pullman Daily News printed a letter to the editor by Joe Morecraft III
During the slavery scandal, the Moscow-Pullman Daily News allowed columnists to scrutinize Doug Wilson’s worldview. In turn the Daily News gave Mr. Wilson the op-ed page to respond. One such exchange began on New Year’s Eve 2003, when Daily News op-ed writer Bill London wrote this:
Doug Wilson has retreated. . . .
The Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States [RPCUS], for example, accuses Wilkins and Wilson of heresy — rpcus.com/aapc.htm. A resolution posted at that Web site, dated June 22, 2002, calls upon their churches to “institute judicial processes” against them, “removing them from the communion of the church should they not repent.”
Being booted from the Presbyterian Church is no big deal for Wilson, who has created his own denomination. But for Wilkins, a Presbyterian minister, this heresy charge is more problematic.
And therein lies the danger for the Palouse. If Wilkins is driven, or jumps, into Wilson’s denomination, or builds stronger institutional ties between their churches, Moscow will be another haven for the Neo-Confederate movement. (Bill London, “We need more free speech and education”; Moscow-Pullman Daily News, December 31, 2003)3
Bill London knew that Douglas Wilson wanted distance from the neo-Confederate movement. He saw that Mr. Wilson did not want defend race-based chattel slavery and the Confederate States of America, though since then he has publicly conceded his affection for both. Regardless, Bill London touched a nerve when he called attention to the RPCUS resolution. Doug Wilson was a slave-monger and a heretic. And notice that despite his ignorance of presbyterian polity, Bill London understood that the RPUCS did not conduct a “heresy trial” and that the RPCUS called upon the jurisdictional authorities to institute process.
Ten days later Doug Wilson answered Bill London with an op-ed. Please note Mr. Wilson’s claim regarding the RPCUS and the Stars & Bars:
What London obviously does not know is that our initial trouble with the RPCUS — a small Presbyterian denomination in the South, consisting of five churches, to which Steve Wilkins does not belong — began a few years ago when our magazine Credenda/Agenda attacked self-righteous displays of the Confederate flag.
Our editorial maintained the flag ought to be taken as a symbol for Southern repentance, and neo-confederates should “burn the flag and wear the ashes.”
In other words, we attacked neo-confederate jingoism. If you want to find a copy of that editorial, do not go looking to the No Not Never On the Palouse Web site, for they have very interesting principles of selectivity. So, the denomination that London authoritatively cites is a hotbed of neo-confederate thinking, we attacked that kind of thinking, and he takes up their side. Way to go, London. (Douglas Wilson, “Leftist screeching has accomplished little”; Moscow-Pullman Daily News, January 9, 2004)
Doug Wilson accurately quoted an editorial in Credenda/Agenda that condemned those who flew the Confederate flag, which included neo-Confederates. However, Mr. Wilson fabricated the narrative about the RPCUS declaring him a heretic because of the opinion piece in Credenda. To be sure, you will not see this fiction anywhere else in Mr. Wilson’s corpus. He wrote it only once — here — to play gotcha! with Bill London. To be clear, Doug Wilson wrote a false story in an op-ed for the Daily News to create the impression that he opposed the neo-Confederate movement or anything else Confederate. He never made this claim again. It was a PR stunt to get the upper-hand on one of his vocal critics.
Dr. Joe Morecraft read Doug Wilson’s column and knew that he dissembled, because they used to be friends. As noted here, “Dixie” rattles around Doug Wilson’s head like a water-logged banjo floating down the Mississippi. Dr. Morecraft certainly knew this. Therefore, on January 23, 2004, he wrote the following letter to the editor of the Moscow-Pullman Daily News:
Connection is in Wilson’s mind
No connection exists between the stand of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States against some of Doug Wilson’s heretical positions and his Credenda/Agenda article on the confederate battle flag, except in Wilson’s mind.Relating the two as he has done recently in print (Opinion, Jan. 9) is either a figment of his imagination or wishful thinking on his part. I, too, am against all self-righteous displays of the confederate flag.
Furthermore, when I visited the offices of Doug Wilson’s school in Moscow several years ago, the battle flag and pictures of Confederate soldiers were prominently displayed.
Joe Morecraft III
minister, RPCUS
Atlanta, Ga
Joe Morecraft III
Epilogue
We now know Doug Wilson doesn’t believe the Credenda/Agenda editorial that “maintained the flag ought to be taken as a symbol for Southern repentance, and neo-confederates should ‘burn the flag and wear the ashes.’” Doug Jones wrote it and Mr. Wilson probably let it slide, to exploit on an occasion such as this. On November 22, 2005, a local band called Potatohead wrote a letter to the editor bearing witness to the Kirk’s obsession with the Confederate flag. Please read it. And on August 1, 2015, Doug Wilson jettisoned any more talk of the Stars & Bars as “a symbol of divine wrath.“ Rather, he now advances the Lost Cause meme that it’s “a symbol for sober heads of states’ rights.” The Confederacy is a mainstay if not the centerpiece of Doug Wilson’s theology. Lawlessness & rebellion define him.
1 Steven Sitler arrived in Moscow, Idaho, in August 2003 to attend New Saint Andrews College — less than two months before Doug Wilson captured headlines with slavery. Mr. Sitler immediately began molesting children and continued committing abominations until he was caught in March 2005. Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, ferments evil when he doesn’t attract it.
2 Robert William Fogel, Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1989), title.
3 Despite concluding with a non-sequitur (“Moscow will be another haven for the Neo-Confederate movement”), Bill London deserves commendation for his prescience: “If Wilkins is driven, or jumps, into Wilson’s denomination. . .” On January 28, 2008, four years after Bill London wrote this column, Steve Wilkins fled denominational accountability by jumping to the CREC. One other thing: Bill London is the gentleman who caught Doug Wilson lying about his use of imprecatory prayers. Bill was a good man.
To quote from Keely, in one of the linked companion articles:
Re your footnote 3:
Wilkins did not “[flee] denominational accountability by jumping to the CREC.” He was closely examined & exonerated by his presbytery (Louisiana). Then, when the PCA’s Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) said Louisiana Presbytery (LAP) needed to try again—implying, “and get it right this time”—LAP did so, even more painstakingly, but found him Not Guilty a second time, furthermore commending him for his patience & faithfulness throughout the process.
At that point, the SJC effectively put LAP’s continued existence in the PCA at risk. Only then did Wilkins leave—to protect the other pastors & congregations in LAP—for the sake of the churches’ peace.
Even if the PCA SJC failed to find him guilty of heresy, they obviously didn’t want him around any more, so he eventually (twice exonerated & commended by LAP) decided to politely leave. His congregation, Auburn Avenue, subsequently (separately) voted to withdraw from the PCA & pursue membership in the CREC.
(Incidentally, since then, LAP dwindled down to the point of dissolving, and its few remaining churches were absorbed into neighboring presbyteries.)
Hi Jon:
I modified the sentence with the word “denominational” on purpose. As you know, the General Assembly is the largest representative body of the PCA. Judicially, the SJC is the highest denominational authority. The SJC represents the GA, as well as the entire denomination. Further, LAP was not an autonomous presbytery (there is no such thing except in the CREC). The court called LAP was subject to the higher courts called the GA and the SJC. Both the GA and the SJC had the authority to review everything that LAP (or any other presbytery) did. This is what I meant by “denominational accountability.”
The SJC reviewed LAP’s findings, which was their responsibility, and they found that LAP erred. If Steve Wilkins believed that LAP did not err in its decisions, he could have followed process to the end. This was his right and I would argue his responsibility. So I defend the line “Steve Wilkins fled denominational accountability by jumping to the CREC” for two factual reasons:
The reason why he left is irrelevant. We will disagree about “and get it right this time,” “they obviously didn’t want him around any more,” and “the sake of the churches’ peace” because these assertions presume an element of corruption in the PCA, which no one has established. Likewise, they presume that LAP’s decisions were correct, or consistent with the PCA’s constitution, which no one has established.
Ultimately, Steve Wilkins had a grand opportunity to make the case for the FV in the PCA’s highest court but he didn’t. I personally believe this is the reason for his actions more than anything else. But I doubt we’ll ever know.
Hello, Ulysses. A couple counters:
1. There have been plenty of autonomous presbyteries other than in the CREC. Besides, I’m not even sure they’re autonomous in the CREC. Congregations are, but presbyteries? Honestly not sure (and not invested enough to review the CREC Constitution).
2. Meyers-Missouri, Leithart-Pacific Northwest, Lawrence-Siouxlands, and most recently Ohio Valley (there, technically over allowing paedocommunion exceptions [of belief, not practice] from what I gather—but paedocommunion is really where the FV starts & stops) all essentially made “the case for the FV in the PCA’s highest court” & won, but nobody cares. Still not good enough. Until the SJC takes these cases as sufficiently precedent-setting to begin dismissing complaints, it will continue wasting its & others’ time on this.
“autonomous presbytery” is an oxymoron, which was the unstated point.
“paedocommunion is really where the FV starts & stops”
This is not correct. Paedocommunion is a symptom of the FV but it is not the sum total. I noted twice that the FV holds baptismal union with Christ and baptismal regeneration. These two doctrines put the FV outside Protestantism. I encourage you to read the PCA report. It delineates where the FVists break from Westminster, which is the historic standard for Reformed Presbyterianism.
Your points about Meyers, Leithart, et al demonstrate that Steve Wilkins could have vindicated himself but he did not.
I disagree that “autonomous presbytery” is an oxymoron. By that logic, there would have to be a never-ending progression of higher courts. There would be no star chamber at which the buck stops. And unstated point aside, current & historical precedent go against your original claim.
Yes, Wilkins could have vindicated himself before the SJC, but why, when it would’ve been a waste of his & others’ time? Why not leave in peace (after already going through two lengthy examinations) and get on with the work of pastoral ministry? I maintain that doing so was in no way fleeing accountability. Even you seem to admit that he could have vindicated himself, which doesn’t fit with the nature of fleeing.
Your argument is reductio ad absurdum. Presbyterianism assumes representative government at a higher level, contra Congregationalism, which stops at the congregation. So, yes, some presbyteries are the final court of appeal, such as the RPCUS where a group of churches formed one presbytery. But even the RPCUS is subject to the will of its general assembly.
Your original argument assumed that LAP did not have to account to the SJC — what I call “denominational accountability.” Or to use your terminology, you believe that LAP was the “star chamber at which the buck stops.” Heated rhetoric aside, the burden is on you to give an example of an “autonomous presbytery” that you claim “current & historical precedent” contradict me. Please give one example of a presbytery that accounts only to itself. If you find it, it will be called an oligarchy.
“Yes, Wilkins could have vindicated himself before the SJC, but why, when it would’ve been a waste of his & others’ time?”
The “waste of his & others’ time” is an assumption you have not proven. Meyers and Leithart demonstrate otherwise. In fact, both cases establish that he PCA is not corrupt in the way that you suggest. If LAP did not err, then they could have proven their case in the court they vowed submission to. Wilkins waived his right to a public trial. Crying foul after leaving is disingenuous.
“Why not leave in peace” is demonstrably false. His actions in concert with Wilson’s actions wildly disrupted the peace of the PCA, before he left. They acted as a tag team, accusing the SJC of all sorts of unethical activities in an unrelenting attack on the peace of the PCA. This will be the subject of the next Federal Division post. Wilson described it as being “in the middle of a saloon brawl.” He omitted the part about him starting the “saloon brawl” and him taking shots at anyone who got near him. I find it difficult to believe that someone interested in the peace of the church would approve of Wilson’s antics. However, if Wilkins had followed the process that he vowed to follow, Wilson would have had no occasion to throw stink bombs from the safety of the CREC. The historical evidence contradicts you — or perhaps we disagree on the definition of “peace.”
This much is sure: We’re both too stubborn to concede anything. 🙂 The last word is yours. God bless you!
Ok, I know I’m late to this, but…
“I noted twice that the FV holds baptismal union with Christ and baptismal regeneration. These two doctrines put the FV outside Protestantism.”
The latter one at least puts them outside Reformed protestantism. If you mean protestantism in toto, then where does that leave confessional Lutherans and some Anglicans?
Hi NJ: I just amended it to say, “outside confessional Reformed Protestantism.” In certain respects Lutherans confess something not far from the FV. They teach baptismal regeneration and resistible grace. What saves them is their clear distinction of law and gospel, their relative reluctance to talk about resistible grace (and their rejection of reprobation), and their clear doctrine of unconditional election.