Wrap on Wilson
Posted on February 20, 2016 by TJH
The Wilson saga continues. It would be a full-time job to post real-time rebuttals of his twisted reasonings and debased worldview. Recently, he stooped so low as to link to nude videos as a way to retaliate against one of his accusers. And with the latest book scandal, he and his mugsies threw McPastor Booth under the bus in a jiffy to get himself in the clear. Disgusting. Consider: what would an Anglo-Saxon warrior have done for his comrade-in-arms?
What the Wilson tragedy shows is how just one small mistake plus refusal to correct it leads to such a hideous and monstrous swamp in the course of time. It was just a little thing, very minor, say Wilson and Saul. But Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears? I Sam 15:14. This is the lesson we should each take away. It is like a Columbo episode, where after sustaining a rigorous interrogation — successfully, he thinks —, the criminal breathes a sigh of relief; but just then Columbo's head pops through the door one more time, and the inevitable, "excuse me sir, I just had one more question" … and everything starts to come unravelled.
Such a little thing neglected, it seemed — having existing pastors examine you and lay hands on, conferring the authority and accountability of the holy catholic church. Surely no one will notice…
For us, the living, there is a divine humor in it. Everything hinges on a "little thing." A baptism ceremony. Having an unforged birth certificate. A little ring.
From this we may gain a clue as to why these little things are at the gateway to everything big in Scripture. Yes, we need signs and seals. But also: it is in the little things that the heart is tried, like silver tried in the furnace seven times.
Considering the three legs of Wilsonism — church invention, gospel innovation, and orgasmism — it is interesting that the first two deny the two marks of the church, while the third ratifies the chief religion of our day. Wilson is comprehensive in both his denials and affirmations.
A word should be addressed to his followers. At the far extreme, there is just this one glimmer of hope for the groupies: quite a number are female, and, according to Tolkien, will wander off when the next hero comes on the scene. The male groupies are something else, and will, I fear, follow their mentor into perdition. But this number is actually quite small. I would peg them at no more than a few dozen in the whole world, maybe less. There are perhaps a dozen or so that chirp away in the comm-boxes at Mablog.
The larger group of loose followers numbers in the thousands, perhaps as many as ten thousand world-wide. We have encountered many of them. Many are sincere Christians, wanting to do right by their children and the law of God, earnestly seeking something, anything, to serve as a handle so as not to sink into the mire of our times. We love these people, and must gently teach them a better way.
Probably the mass of vague supporters have taken their posture on account of agreeing with certain political or social stances Wilson seems to take, and that ends it — just as, conversely, the mass of opponents have taken their stand against, just because of disagreeing with the same. But it's actually not obvious how to define DW's political niche. He says he is a "theocratic libertarian," but his hostility to Ron Paul was almost as severe as his mocking stance to the Donald. Why? The love of our Israel-centric foreign policy is the only thing that seems to be constant, besides anti-abortion. Even the anti-abortion rhetoric is extremely odd, being all twisted in a knot about "black babies" and "white abortionists." One thing he could never be blamed for is any kind of special love for his own people, family excepted of course. Of both follower and opponent, we can only conclude: we are not living in an age of deep thought.
The McPastors that saw the CREC as a solution to their problems are in a kind of middle position. Most of them are, we trust, in the "good" category of followers. Yet their culpability is proportional to the demands of their aspired office. They too were willing to come in by "another way." At bottom, something in them was drawn to creating the illusion of strict accountability that was actually a complete sham. They need to face this, and own up to it. But in fairness, even many PCA pastors only with great difficulty see anything wrong with it. We are in an era of Confusion. I would say that most of the McPastors are kind of like Puzzle the Ass serving Shift the Ape. Puzzle made it into New Narnia according to Lewis.
But how much better not to be a Puzzle.
Why the interest in Wilson? For me, this has been like an exorcism. I too used to go around with a Credenda tucked under my arm. The formation of the CREC was the wake-up call. Pastor C. Michael Chastain wanted to move our PCA church into the CREC, and I looked into it and reported several of the findings I have given here. To his credit, he abandoned the project. (It was in connection with Pastor Chastain's effort that I met the insufferable son, who must have been doing something in Annapolis at the time).
But I need to look within also. Why did it take ten years for me to see through the scam? They say that the most susceptible to the con man's tricks are… other con men. In contrast, Dr. Bahnsen saw through him instantly, already in the 80s. What is the deeper meaning that it took many of us so much longer? This is the question that the true church should ponder, moving forward. Tentatively, I would put forth the hypothesis that an age of show biz creates niches even for purported conservatives to move in and start turning bucks. We are at once victims and perpetuators of the Rule by Appearance. From now on, every reference has to be chased down, nothing taken for granted. (How else could we get a President that might not even be a citizen?)
Enough. I am done. The exorcism is over. I'm looking forward to moving into new topics — meaning, old topics.
Here is an index to the previous posts for those that are interested, organized under the three legs of the stool defining the Wilson cult. It does not pretend to be exhaustive, but it also doesn't need to be. It is sufficient. May the Lord bless this feeble effort, to His glory.
Leg 1: Church invention
Introductory lesson on presbyterial succession
The CREC Constitution
The Kirk Constitution
Leg 2: Gospel innovation
Introductory lesson on paedo- communion
The Federal Vision
Reformed is not enough
Predestinarian boom-chucka boom-chucka
Leg 3: Orgasmism
Wilson and Orgasmism
Wilson's defense of orgasmists contra the sheep
This entry was posted in Church and tagged Wilsonism by TJH. Bookmark the permalink.
8 thoughts on "Wrap on Wilson"
Brian on March 2, 2016 at 9:45 am said:
How did Bahnsen come to know of Wilson in the 80s? My time line may be off but I didn't think Wilson moved to a padeobaptist position until the 90s with only perhaps becoming convinced of TULIP during the 80s — so it's surprising Bahnsen already there doesn't seem much in common with Bahnsen or other Reformed ministers in the 80s for Bahnsen to have known of him.
Was it because of Wilson's antiabortion activism and Bahnsen relation with Paul Hill that Bahnsen may have learned of Wilson?
What did Bahnsen say about Wilson so as to see through and how did you learn of this (via your personal conversations with Bahnsen/Butler or something about Wilson that Bahnsen stated in an article or lecture/forum/sermon)?
It's truly neat-o to hear you as a fellow EE occasionally on my CMF Bahnsen lectures ask questions or be asked questions by Bahnsen … like discussing about Euclidean vs. Non-Euclidean geometry or Einstein and relativity and/or quantum physics (assuming you are the same Tim being called on).
I hope you will still chime in on Mablog from time to time graciously with fear and reverence. Wilson still NEEDS you as a bro, Bro. I don't doubt that you make him think at least thrice with your insightful questions and comments.
Brian on March 2, 2016 at 9:59 pm said:
My hyphenated statement in the first paragraph of my comment should've rather read something like: … — so it's surprising Bahnsen already knew of Wilson since then (in the 80s) Wilson doesn't seem to have much in common with Bahnsen or other Reformed ministers ….
TJH on March 3, 2016 at 9:44 am said:
No, we knew about Wilson at least by 88/89, through Credenda and through our elder and my former room-mate Doug Jones who had already taken a shine to him. See, for example, Antithesis vol. 1 issue #4 (dated July/Aug 1990)
http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/
where Wilson even wrote for us (by Jones' invitation). At the time, we thought of Wilson as a budding vantillian; don't recall knowing that he was non-paedo-baptist, but that wasn't a gate-keeping issue anyhow.
Given my perennial interest in the topics you listed, I would say the "Tim" you heard was undoudtedly me. Brings back fond memories — thanks.
I used to comment quite frequently on Mablog, and you're right, Wilson did occasionally interact. In the last year or two it has become too much of a groupie hug-fest. My last comment with a pointed question was simply deleted, so that was it for me. (Granted, all the comments on that thread were deleted, not just mine.)
Ben Carmack on May 2, 2016 at 2:31 pm said:
It is no doubt true that Wilson did not handle the sexual abuse cases in his church well. Granting that point, it has been fascinating to me to see the who Wilson's most fiery enemies are.
On the one hand you have the God-as-Mother feminist heretics like Rachel Held Evans, way out on the theological Left. On the other hand you have White Pride Kinist/Racist heretics like Harry Seabrook or Tim Harris, way out on the extreme Right.
If you make rabid enemies of feminists and racists, you must be doing something right.
TJH on May 6, 2016 at 11:17 am said:
Except that orthodoxy is not defined as "that which avoids heresy." You can't define something positive by mere avoidance of this or that. (Just as, in formal logic, you can't deduce anything from premises that are all negative.)
Try this on: "if Harris is rejected by both leftist Evans and neo-con Wilson, he must be doing something right."
How about: Hitler is hated vitriolically by both communists and anti-communists, so he must be doing something right.
Or again, an Evans fan might say, "If Evans is rejected by a right-wing reactionary homophobic anti-semitic racist Red-baiter like Harris, AND by Wilson who avoids all those things, she must be doing something right." Did I leave anything out? How 'bout cissexist?
Moreover, feminism and racism are not contradictories. One could be both. You might just as well say, "Since Clinton was hated by both moral Puritans and economic libertarians, he must have been doing something right."
In general, I've noticed the R-bomb doesn't work as reliably as it used to, to make the unwashed masses scuttle back to their caves. We aren't scuttling any more. This is why you, Wilson, and the media are so enraged at what is happening politically. The old buttons and levers are simply inoperative all of a sudden.
How does all this pigeon-holing escape the specific arguments, which have to do with things like ordination and the nature of organic accountability? These are valid or invalid, regardless of the heresies of the presenters.
One doesn't get to just declare new heresies. If a church Council is ever called to decide if Feminism or Racism are Heresies, I don't think that sloganeering from an IQ-challenged, ill-trained poseur will carry the day. In the PCA in 2016, maybe. In the holy catholic church, I doubt it.
Arguments, Jerry: they use arguments.
Ben Carmack on June 7, 2016 at 12:06 pm said:
"Except that orthodoxy is not defined as 'that which avoids heresy.'"
Ah, so orthodoxy can sometimes be defined as "playing footsie with heresy"? Or "semi-close to heresy"? Or "dovetails with heresy"?
Brilliant. Clearly you have a dazzling intellect.
Wilson is a neocon, say you, demonstrating you have a problem with reading comprehension.
But by all means good luck with Master Race thing. Clearly you are smart enough to rule the rest of us lesser IQ beings.
TJH on August 5, 2017 at 7:15 pm said:
Well Ben, true, you come across as rather low-IQ, and surly, but that's not your main problem. Your main problem is ethical — insinuating things you don't know to be true. If you were to become honest it would add 5 or 10 points to your IQ just like that.
TJH on October 27, 2017 at 10:12 am said:
He chuckles at a comedy routine where our Savior's name is used as a cheap curse:
https://dougwils.com/the-content-muster/content-cluster-muster-10-12-17.html