Wrap up on Wilson

I haven’t posted anything on the Doug Wilson rape/sex scandal in a while.  Most of his groupies will die for him and are beyond all reasonable means of persuasion.  Still, facts and analysis being what they are, this by far is the most penetrating set of critiques of the Moscow, ID theology.

Wrap on Wilson

I’ve added it to the side link page.

Update on Wight-Wilson police report

This buries the Wilsonista case.  Wilson’s disciples tell me, “But you don’t know the whole story,” to which I reply, “Bulls*&%.  I do.”

Confession and Court Records.

Key excerpts:

Jamin Wight Contradicts Doug Wilson
Jamin Wight contradicts Doug Wilson on two key points:

  1. Jamin Wight states that he “was asked to move in with the Greenfields (February 2001) and have his room and board paid for in trade for working around the home”; whereas Doug Wilson claims the Greenfields “had bizarrely brought Jamin into the house as a boarder so that he could conduct a secret courtship with Natalie.” (Doug Wilson’s ‘Reluctant Response’)
  1. Jamin Wight states that the Greenfields forbade him from holding hands with Natalie: “the first time they ‘broke the rules’ . . . they held hands. . .”; whereas Doug Wilson claims “her parents permitted a certain measure of physical affection to exist between them (e.g. hand-holding).” (Doug Wilson’s ‘Reluctant Response’)

The 31-page police report contains no exculpatory evidence or testimony on behalf of Jamin Wight. The entire document — with the exception of Doug Wilson’s two-page letter — affirms Mr. Wight’s guilt in the matter of sexually abusing a minor. Mr. Wight admits his guilt several times in unequivocal terms.

An addendum to Neo-Jovinianism

Last year during the uproar on one of the many, many Doug Wilson scandals, I wrote “Against the Neo-Jovinians” where I argued that a semi-monastic life of disciplined ascetism is a better cure for pedophiles than, say, marrying them off so they can have more babies to abuse. I suggested that the pedophile should go live with some cranky monks for about 30 years to burn away the garbage.

I stand by that as common sense.  In one facebook debate a key Wilsonite pointed out that many monasteries suffered from sodomy.  And that’s true.  So I need to clarify what I meant.  When I said person x should go life with some monks, I didn’t mean in a communal, coenibitic monastery with a bunch of Wilsonites his own age.  That certainly is a recipe for disaster.

No, I meant something along the lines of going to life with five or six older (50 years +) men who can guide him.

Can Wilson even deal with Heidegger

So after I finished Heidegger’s Being and Time I went to the leading “Evangelical spokesman” to see what he said. Long story short, if you go to www.dougwils.com and type in “Heidegger” you will get three pages of “see how stupid they are” or “muh Nazis!”  What you won’t get in a sustained, mature interaction.  

The only time he remotely gets close to understanding Heidegger is when he is citing Leithart’s discussion of Westphal’s discussion of Heidegger.  And it’s clear that Wilson is out of his depth, which he kind of admits.

(Is he speaking in tongues in this post?)

Here he shows himself mentally incapable of dealing with a godly and renowned philosopher like Merold Westphal.  (Mind you, I have some differences with Westphal.  I think he too closely identifies ontotheology with metaphysics).

Wilson’s Influence on “Classical Christian Education”

More evidence to show that Wilson is mentally unhinged. Granted, not everything in the Omnibus is wrong. The NT Wright section on Paul’s preaching a new cosmos is fine, for example.

My own thoughts on Classical Education:  if it works for you, fine.  I think some aspects of the “classics” are okay.  Latin, Greek, Plato, Virgil.  But to make an ideology and movement out of it is mental death.

But still–Rachel has done a fantastic job getting this evidence together.

A Daughter of the Reformation

As I noted in the last post, Doug Wilson’s views on theology, history, slavery, patriarchy, marriage, sex, etc. are present in materials that many CCE schools, programs, and homeschools use. In doing my research, I focused on the six-volume Omnibus produced by Veritas Press. Veritas Press is owned by Marlin and Laurie Detweiler who were members of Wilson’s CREC denomination.

The Omnibus Curriculum consists of six volumes covering the time periods from classical civilizations to the modern era. The material is intended for students in grades 7-12. Each volume consists of essays and “sessions” discussing the “Great Books.” The Omnibus volumes range between 500-800 pages in length and cost from $75-$100 each. The first three volumes were edited by Doug Wilson and G. Tyler Fischer. Volumes 4-6 were edited by Wilson, Fischer, and Gene Edward Veith. The first volume was published in 2005, and the last volume was published…

View original post 4,882 more words

Putin, and Wilson’s wanna-be postmillennialism

This anti-Wilson post doesn’t have anything to do with the sex scandals.  Still, he accurately sees where the historical winds are blowing, and he rightly sees that they aren’t in his direction.  We shall establish his thesis and then see if his points address them.

Thesis: I want to outline five reasons why I believe this [Putin = Constantine] is not the case, but first I want to put an important disclaimer up front.

Disclaimer: he realizes that some of his points are more anti-EO than anti-Putin.

~1. Doesn’t actually say what’s wrong in this point.  Remember, his thesis is that Putin is not Constantine.  He merely asserts that Putin is “farther down that cul-de-sac.”  Okay, how so?  Silence.

~2.  So Constantine is an imperfect ruler, what of it?  Wilson comes close to an actual argument when he claims that the Russian state specializes in “kennel-fed church dignitaries.”  This is a misleading half-truth.  The post-Petrine church in Russia (say around 1700-1825) was a department of the state.

This is not so today.  Admittedly, we can’t always find clear lines of separation, but Putin knows that the church provides him with moral legitimacy.  If he alienates the church he loses that legitimacy.  He knows that.  The church knows that.  Every scholar of Byzantine history knows that.

~3.  This point is hard to distill.  He begins by decrying caesopapism, but that seemed more relevant to (~2).  He then moves to iconoclasm, but it’s hard to see how the two points are related.  He concludes this point by lamenting the thuggish nationalism in Ukraine.

So, exactly what do I say in response? I’m not sure.  He didn’t actually focus around a single topic so I can’t respond to a single topic.  I have my own thoughts on icons and Ukraine (so, does he support Right Sektor and the child-slaying Banderans?).

~4.  This is nothing more than a summary of a Ted Cruz speech.  If al-Assad were indeed a “secular government with a Muslim culture,” then why are all Muslim cultures trying to kill him?  Why are Christians at the top level of government and military?  If Assad falls, as Wilson seems to hope, then thousands of Christians will drown in blood.

~5.  This might be a legitimate theological criticism.  But it’s just plain bad history.  And a logical fallacy.  Watch this.

If p, then q.

P.

Q.

Basic Modus ponens.   Here is the fallacious form of it.

If p, then q.

Q.

P.

If Icons are bad, then Muslim invasion.

Muslim invasion.

Therefore, icons are bad.

And Wilson teaches logic.

Gary North once said that when your career begins to embrace sin and scandal, God will impose sanctions on you by making your writing very bad.  This happened with Rushdoony.  It is now happening with Wilson. He used to be a good debater.  I’m not much of a debater but this wasn’t that hard.

 

Mafia Show Trials

I didn’t put a lot of thought into this rebuttal.  I didn’t need to.  To quote Gary North, this is a “quickie.”

Wilson realizes the heat he is taking with having Randy Booth (CREC, Covenant Media Foundation) run the investigation.  It’s like when the Mafia gets involved in football games.  The game might be fun to watch, but no one doubts the outcome.  Wilson writes,

The purpose of a judicial process is not, in the first place, to side with the victim. The point of judicial process is to determine, carefully and without jumping to conclusions, who the victim is.

That is very true.  But that’s not the whole case.  We are not saying you can’t have a trial to prove your innocence (tall order though it be).  We are saying you can’t have your lieutenant run the thing.  

As is the case with many of Wilson’s deflections, he tells a story that doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the issue.  Unless you look closer, then he is actually shaming anyone who criticizes him.  Let’s take a look.  

If one of your kids runs in from the backyard with a tale of woe, saying that her brother hit her on the head with a stick, this is certainly grounds for an indictment. Mom really should inquire. But in the course of the trial, what if she discovers that he did so because she had been poking him with that same stick for the previous half an hour?

This isn’t that hard to decipher.  Is he really saying he is justified in what he did because Natalie G. described some of the sex acts Wilson’s student made her perform?  I don’t see any other line of reasoning possible.