The Inner Schwaller

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

Given the wide variety of contributors on this board as well as the broad range of subjects broached on any given day, I am not sure how you conclude:

“Moscow Vision 2020 seems to be a very partisan group of Moscow residents designed to discourage public information unless it meets that partisan viewpoint, and debate seems to be limited to name-calling, mudslinging, shin-kicking and eyeball-gouging.”

Unlike you, I do not presume to condemn this whole list based upon a limited sample addressing an isolated subject, unless, of course, things are not as you represented. I must confess that your shrill response indicates that I touched a nerve. It’s as though you’re personally invested in things pertaining to Douglas Wilson, despite assuring us otherwise.

Therefore, Mr. Schwaller, I encourage you to slow down, take a deep breath, and reach down to touch that inner you. Be at peace with the real person inside of you. Identify the man within and say, “Be still, Glen, there is no venom here. No one has called me any names; no one has slung any mud at me, kicked me in the shins, or gouged my eyeballs out. I’m going to be A Okay. Everything’s just fine.”

There you go, Glenn, everything will be just fine.

Perhaps it will help if I give you some more perspective. You recall how Douglas Wilson ran from this listserv after he proved to the whole community that he did not live by his own standard, which he had previously maintained was fixed and unmovable. Well, this time last year Mr. Wilson rejoined this list for a short period after a local blogger notified the community about Steven Sitler’s predations. And it’s important to note that the blogger’s information relative to Sitler was much like yours — just the facts.

The strangest thing, though, was that while the blogger focused on points of community awareness, Wilson immediately dragged the victims into the conversation, saying that any talk of Sitler reopened their wounds and forced them to relive their tragedy; and Wilson used this pretense to demand silence from the community regarding the subject of Steven Sitler: “The victims, the victims, the victims; THINK OF THE VICTIMS!”

It was a remarkable display of cowardice for a pastor to use victims of a serial pedophile as human shields to protect himself from answering for his failure to warn the flock of predation. Think about it. He never warned his congregation that a serial pedophile dwelled among them for 18 months. Talk about negligence. As you said, Mr. Schwaller, “Doug Wilson could have handled things in a better way.”

But my point is that you have provided some very helpful information with your posts, and your contributions are consistent with the goals of this list; however, you should be thankful that you’re not dealing with a madman constantly screaming, “THE VICTIMS! THE VICTIMS! THE VICTIMS!” You seem to understand much better than Pastor Wilson that serial pedophiles create horrible prospects for a community. In fact, even though you still have not answered my question (“by what standard do you ask Messieurs Fox and Hansen to apologize?”), I believe that if you had been here last year, you would have demanded an apology from Pastor Wilson to the entire community.

Anyway, I have carried on much too long here. I simply wanted to help you get composure after your last outburst and I hope I offered you some perspective in much the same way you have tried to offer “facts.”

Before I let you go, though, I have one more question. How do you think the victims feel knowing that Steven Sitler is roaming the streets on probation, and that his freedom may be due in large part to Pastor Douglas Wilson’s letter to Judge Stegner?

Herodotus

From: “Glenn Schwaller”
To: Vision2020
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:18 PM
Subject: Schwaller the Reductio

“Schwaller catches a whiff again. . .”

Just to set the record straight (not that I particularly care about setting the record straight, I just like to hear the collective hammering of the veins in the foreheads of a few of our 2020 visionaries) I was not attempting to absolve, forgive, condone, nor vilify Doug Wilson, Steven Sitler, Christ Church, nor anyone for that matter. I was simply addressing a VERY specific point in Ms Ford’s post, and how I chose to interpret (some of you might use the words “twist” “manipulate” “exploit”) that particular passage of scripture.

One can use any passage of scripture to strengthen one’s point. One can use any manner of teaching styles or methods to inform or influence. In either case, it seems it is up to every individual to determine if we agree or disagree, follow or flee. All of us are teachers. All of us have taught well. All of us have taught poorly. All of us have wounded a weak conscience and thus “sinned against Christ.”

I’ve been monitoring this site for less than a month, and the venom that oozes from a majority of these posts becomes tedious. Contrary to the disclaimer on the homepage Moscow Vision 2020 seems to be a very partisan group of Moscow residents designed to discourage public information unless it meets that partisan viewpoint, and debate seems to be limited to name-calling, mudslinging, shin-kicking and eyeball-gouging. I must admit though, it DOES make a difference.

Schwaller

“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”
John 8:7

Schwaller the Reductio

Schwaller whiffs again, this time minimizing the impact of Wilson’s influence on his devotees when he wrote,

“For your example to hold up, Mr Sitler . . . would need to have seen Doug Wilson . . . in the act of molesting children, then justify his actions by saying “Well Doug did it, it must be OK for me to do it.” Since this was not the case, Doug Wilson cannot be held accountable for Mr Sitler’s actions, in the sight of man, of law, or of God.”

Of course, this is absurd because it ignores the overwhelming testimony of Scripture, which clearly holds teachers to a higher standard, “for in many things [they] offend all” (James 3:1, ff). And the “many” includes all the little things that encompass a man’s doctrine and that illustrate his sermons on a daily basis. Consider these examples of the influence of Wilson’s doctrine on Steven Sitler:

Pedophiles rely on manipulative deceit to capture and silence their victims, and Steven Sitler sat under the master of manipulation — Douglas Wilson — when he preyed in Moscow. Rest assured that by reading Wilson’s blog and observing his interaction with the public, Sitler learned cunning beyond measure. Yes, indeed, he watched his pastor twist other’s words into meaning something that no one intended, in order to manipulate them into giving him what he wanted (do kirkers really believe the stories that Wilson peddles about Duck? He fabricated every one of them while he applied enormous economic and emotional pressure on the Schulers, hoping they’d cave). Sitler learned from Wilson how to create opportunities by misrepresentation and then pounce on weakness the moment he saw it. And not ironically, Sitler arrived in Moscow in fall 2003, just in time to witness Wilson and Jones deceitfully manipulate the thesis of Southern Slavery As It Was into a book about non-violent emancipation. He saw Wilson dismiss the capital crime of manstealing and manipulate its proceeds — slavery — into a “life of plenty.” Wilson taught him how to manipulate words so that oppressive slaveholders became “noble Christians” and stolen labor became a lifestyle of “mutual affection.” Yes, know for sure that Wilson taught Sitler the deceitful art of manipulation.

Pedophiles are typically narcissists and Sitler sat under the poster child of narcissism — Douglas Wilson — during his stay in Moscow. Indeed, his parents educated him on the Wilson classical model, praising all things Wilson, with the hope they could send him to New Saint Andrews College where he could fawn over every word that fell from the master’s lips. And as saw the master encourage the worshiping multitudes to adore him, know for sure that he learned self-love exceeds self-denial as the preeminent Christian virtue.

Pedophiles act in contempt of all law — God’s and man’s — in order to obtain their desires, and Sitler’s 18 months in Moscow forever embedded the principle in his mind that if the law stands in your way, break it. Steven Sitler was an eyewitness to Douglas Wilson’s public defiance of state property tax law as well as the City Zoning Code, and he learned firsthand that Christian dominion Wilson-style provides for self-willed antinomianism, if necessary. Wilson taught Sitler that the law does not represent a gift from God, rather it is a tool of the godless intoleristas to persecute the godly kirkers whose reign shall be for ever and ever. No doubt Wilson’s wholesale contempt for authority encouraged Sitler to disdain any authority who would check his impulses. (If you disagree with this assertion, please show me one example in the last five years where Wilson exemplified humble Christian submission to the civil magistrate pursuant to Romans 13.)

Finally, pedophiles see children not as humans but as objects, and the most important lesson that Steven Sitler learned in Moscow was in the field of anthropology. Douglas Wilson taught Steven Sitler to take joy and satisfaction in dehumanizing and humiliating human beings made in the image of God. And just as Wilson strips people of their dignity, taking sadistic pleasure in flaying them alive with his serrated edge, so Sitler stripped children of their dignity, scarring them for life with his naked flesh. No surprise that victims of pedophiles usually suffer acute shame — inexplicable feelings of humiliation and embarrassment — as a result of their molestation. And Sitler learned the chief article of his faith in Moscow, Idaho, where Douglas Wilson, pastor of Christ Church, taught him the ABCs of dehumanization. (This is also perhaps the best explanation that accounts for kirkers’ lack of horror at Sitler’s crimes; Wilson has successfully desensitized them from feeling compassion for their fellowmen. They are “without natural affection.”)

No, Christian doctrine is not limited to a set of credos; rather, it is a system of beliefs lived out each day. And while Douglas Wilson never approved of pedophilia or taught Steven Sitler how to rape a child, he certainly helped the serial pedophile hone the deviant personality traits necessary to commit the unspeakable, and Wilson did it in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Welcome to Christ Church, Moscow.

Herodotus

Question for Mr. Schwaller

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

You would have “staved off some ignorance” and “offered up . . . factual information” if you had simply replied, “We may never know,” and even then you should not have qualified your answer with the word “may” because we WILL NEVER KNOW what drives Steven Sitler. This is because the man is a psychopath, i.e. he has no conscience and no compunction. He lacks the moral capacity to feel right and wrong — and he is aggressive. One public record (which the court has sealed) documented in explicit detail his rape of a two-year-old girl, in a room immediately adjacent to a group of adults. “Perhaps perhaps perhaps,” you find this flip. I do not; hence my inquiry about the website in relation to the so-called apology.

At best, Steven Sitler did not comprehend that the photographs of victims on his website horrified normal, decent human beings, which is another way of noting that he is twisted at levels no one understands. Consequently, “‘cured’ is not an option.” And as “cured” is not an option, then it follows that no one can ever trust him under any circumstance, which probably accounts for his constant need to have a chaperon, i.e. a court-appointed guardian who will insure that he does not wander near children. And if the man is so untrustworthy that even “a distressed result from a polygraph is going to bring P&P and the court down on him like a ton of Logos Bricks,” then it follows that no one should believe a word he says, which includes his apologies. Besides, somehow the words, “I’m sorry I molested your baby,” just don’t cut it.

So it is laughable that you attribute remorse, “even if it was not 100% heartfelt,” to a psychopath, and if this was not so serious it would be downright hilarious that you manipulated this seeming remorse into cause for demanding an apology from community members who expressed shock at the probation of a serial pedophile.

Since you represent yourself as new to the listserv, let me tell you a story. Years ago, Pastor Douglas Wilson used to berate this list with the question, “By what standard?” I say “used to” because after hectoring and haranguing the community with his fixed biblical standard, he proved himself a textbook hypocrite when he applied a relative standard to justify the unbiblical thesis of his book “Southern Slavery As It Was.” It was really quite amusing, though the amusement didn’t last long. The poor fool ran from here faster than you can say “Edna.”

I call these historical facts to your attention, Mr. Schwaller, to ask you two questions: First, by what standard do you attribute “some modicum of sincerity” to an apology delivered by the psychopath Sitler? and by what standard do you ask Messieurs Fox and Hansen to apologize?

Bob Herodotus

From: “Glenn Schwaller”
To: Vision 2020
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:37 AM
Subject: Question for Mr. Schwaller

Dear Mr Herodotus

I’m not quite sure what you are implying by referring to me as “one of the all things to all men kind of guys.” If you mean that I think I’m an omnipresent self important kind of guys, then no. If you are suggesting as Paul did to the Corinthians that “I am made All things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”, well no, I don’t think that is correct either. I don’t believe I’m trying to save anyone, other than to try and stave off some ignorance by offering up what I believe to be factual information. Not that it matters; I’m just curious.

And alas (at least for those of you who thrive on innuendo, conspiracy, supposition and gossip), I am not another incarnation of Doug and Doug on a skylarking expedition. I’m glad you “know better.”

I make no excuse nor offer any apology for seeming to be intimately familiar with the court records (they are public domain), P&P policy and procedure (I also have some insight into policy and procedure of the prosecutors office, and MPD and LCSO), Mr Sitler’s automobile (I just happened to see him leaving the jail on they way to one of his treatment programs), and Christ Church’s seating arrangement. Well, here I should make an apology — I did not intend to suggest that I know anything about their seating arrangement. I was attempting to point out that I know how other similar situations have been handled, and how Mr Sitler’s attendance at that or any other church (or public arena in which children may be present), would most likely be handled.

So, onto contradictory implications:

I was not trying to be dismissive about Mr Sitler’s trophy website — this was a response to Wayne Fox’s questions from May 4th “Was the court aware of Sitler’s trophy website of photos of children, some of whom were his alleged victims? Or was this information withheld from the court? Was this evidence in the possession of the LCSD at the time of sentencing and re-sentencing or did they miss this in their “investigation?”“

I was assuming (possibly an error on my part) that Mr Fox meant “were they aware at the time of the original sentencing.” As such, I believe I was correct in stating that if the court was not aware of the website (at the time of the original sentencing) they are now (as of his review on May 4th). I don’t know why Mr Sitler chose not to disclose that fact earlier on. Perhaps he was advised not to do so (the right to remain silent among all those obnoxious civil rights we have — sorry. I apologize for the sarcasm). Perhaps it was to see how well local law enforcement was at doing their job of “discovery.” Perhaps he thought it was not germane to the case. Perhaps perhaps perhaps. We may never know. I believe the court was well aware of his other victims since his admission to other crimes was, I think, part of the plea agreement. If one wants to split hairs as lawyers are so fond of doing, from a legal perspective (assuming these were “normal” photographs) it may not have been illegal for him to have these photos in his possession. In the interest of full disclosure, remorse, and empathy for his victims, Mr Sitler should have brought this to the court’s attention. And admittedly it does leave his apology somewhat hollow. My point was, at least at some level he did offer an apology. It may not have been 100% heartfelt, but I choose to believe there was some modicum of sincerity in there. That was more than I have seen from Mr Hansen and Mr Fox for suggesting Mr Sitler should be allowed to board in a home with children present, putting them at potential risk. As I and others have pointed out, regardless of their tongue-in-cheek or sarcastic intent, this was worse than in poor taste: this was and is unacceptable, and they (Mr Hansen and Mr Fox) should apologize to the 2020 community.

Schwaller

Question for Mr. Schwaller

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

You seem like one of those “all things to all men” kind of guys to me; in fact, if I didn’t know better I might be tempted to think you’re another incarnation of Doug and Doug on one of their “skylarking” expeditions. They’re such clever guys.

Nevertheless, since you appear intimately familiar with the court records, P & P’s policy & procedure, Sitler’s automobile, and even the Christ Church seating arrangement, I’m wondering if you could please account for the contradiction between the implications of two of your statements?

On Friday, May 4, you wrote,

“I’m sure if the court was not aware of the “trophy website” then, they are now.”

But on Saturday, May 12, you wrote,

“I would note that even Mr Sitler was responsible enough to stand in open court and apologize for his actions. Yes, it may very well have been self serving of him to do so, but nonetheless he did apologize.”

In the former instance, you seemed almost dismissive about the so-called “trophy website.” However, in the latter you placed great weight on Mr. Sitler’s public act of taking responsibility, whatever may have motivated him.

This is important because the “trophy website” contained photographs of Sitler’s victims from the states of West Virginia and Washington, and Bill Thompson has confirmed that Sitler failed to own it prior to its discovery. So if you believe that Sitler “was responsible enough to stand in open court and apologize for his actions,” then why do you believe the scope of his responsibility didn’t include full disclosure?

Thanks,

Bob Herodotus

COTK, CREC, & Tyranny: Part 16

Dear Michael,

Christopher Witmer has registered a protest on Vision 20/20 to this post on your blog about the circumstances surrounding COTK’s departure from the CREC. Unfortunately, Mr. Witmer gives no evidence that he actually read COTK’s announcement, but his ignorance furnishes another opportunity to consider the ramifications of COTK’s statement, which is good.

First, in response to Mr. Witmer’s allegations, let me note that he predicates his understanding on a mysterious email that he refuses to produce. He writes:

I am in possession of an email addressed to me by an elder of the Church of the King (COTK) which seems to clearly contradict some of the key claims made in Mr. Metzler’s post referred to above. I am not going to quote the email here at any length, but I am prepared to stand by what I state here. Any plain, straightforward, common-sense reading of the email I received makes it impossible to accept at face value the assertions made in Mr. Metzler’s post.

Therefore, I refer Mr. Witmer to this post that quotes extensively from an email exchange with a COTK elder. Between it and COTK’s original announcement, you will see that all of Mr. Witmer’s claims are demonstrably false.

In the following text, I placed Mr. Witmer’s claims next to direct quotations from COTK so that everyone judge for himself or herself. I double indented Mr. Witmer’s words in red; COTK’s once in blue. And again, the colored texts are verbatim quotations:

First, contrary to the assertion of Mr. Metzler’s post, my correspondent stated that personal disagreements had “zilch” and “zero” bearing on anything regarding COTK’s exit from the CREC.

At one point Rev. Wilson communicated to us that the main issue of this entire dispute was his personal differences with one of our elders, P. Andrew Sandlin.

Second . . . it stands to reason that short of Doug Wilson explicitly stating his motives for what he does, any conjecture as to what motivates him must be necessarily just that — conjecture — and nothing more.

Rev. Wilson communicated to us that the main issue of this entire dispute was his personal differences with one of our elders, P. Andrew Sandlin. . . Nevertheless, when Rev. Sandlin repeatedly offered to meet Rev. Wilson privately to address any differences these highly visible men might have, Rev. Wilson declined each offer.

Apparently there were some people in COTK who wanted to start a separate church and apparently Doug Wilson supported them in that. Rather than charitably cutting people some slack concerning things about which he is ignorant, Metzler’s unnamed correspondent leaps to the conclusion that Wilson sowed discord with the conscious intention of splitting COTK, all as part of a personal vendetta against COTK’s leadership. But this view is not supported by the communication from my COTK correspondent.

A group of disgruntled COTK-SC members — as well as non-members — contacted Anselm (Western) presbytery moderator, Rev. Douglas Wilson, with their concerns. He advised them to work with us local elders to resolve their issues. At the same time, however, he continued working with these dissidents behind the scenes, leading them to understand him to be in agreement with their negative assessment of the COTK leadership, thereby validating their negative assessment. . . Rev. Wilson pressed the COTK elders to support the disgruntled group in forming a new CREC church, and he irresponsibly assisted that group in plotting a course to accomplish this goal. He unilaterally contacted another CREC minister to solicit his assistance in starting this church. . . despite the fact that we had implored Rev. Wilson not to go over our heads as the duly chosen leaders of the local flock. Rev. Wilson disregarded nearly every one of our pleas. . . . Throughout this ordeal, Rev. Wilson repeatedly dismissed our concerns. . . . Again and again we asked Rev. Wilson to notify us whenever individuals from the disgruntled group contacted him, but he consistently ignored our pleas. On several occasions he portrayed the COTK elders negatively before this group, even while we were seeking to work responsibly with them. When we implored Rev. Wilson to stop his undermining our pastoral efforts with this group, he persistently ignored our requests and continued to do so behind our backs. The desires of our local leadership were of little evident interest to him, in that he ignored us so completely. . . . As it stands now, Rev. Wilson has determined to start a congregation from a church split, a split that his actions repeatedly encouraged. . . This is the same split-group congregation that Rev. Wilson has all along insisted we agree with him in recognizing, and he has finally gotten his way in starting it as a CREC church. The end was visible from the beginning.

Third, despite Mr. Metzler’s constant reference to Doug Wilson’s “tyranny,” my correspondent stated flatly that “tyrannical leadership” was never experienced by anyone involved in any way, shape or form.

The CREC constitution forbids that the moderator may exercise judicial authority. . . The CREC constitution specifies a limited, narrow scope to the moderator’s duties and authority, and the CREC has operated according to this constitutional standard until the latest unfortunate events involving Church of the King. A CREC moderator is already now operating as just such a “bishop,” but in so doing, he is acting contrary to the CREC constitution. . . . We had implored Rev. Wilson not to go over our heads as the duly chosen leaders of the local flock. Rev. Wilson disregarded nearly every one of our pleas. . . . Throughout this ordeal, Rev. Wilson repeatedly dismissed our concerns. . . . By his actions, however, Rev. Wilson shifted much of this constitutional authority to his own office as moderator — without specific constitutional warrant, and in conflict with specific constitutional warrant. Throughout our protracted exchanges, Rev. Wilson did not adhere to courtesies and Christian ethics common among church leaders. . . . Our church has been damaged by the actions of Rev. Wilson. . . . Our responsibility is to the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made us overseers (Ac. 20:28), and this awesome obligation dictates our severance from an organization that sanctions injury to that flock and its duly chosen leadership.

Fourth, the assertion that CREC leaders acted contrary to their lawful authority and in violation of every principle of justice taught in scripture is, to put it midly, a real stretch. . . What we are talking about here, from the perspective of my correspondent at least, is largely a procedural error.

It has become clear that one or more leaders in the CREC have fundamentally redefined the organization’s authority from what is expressed in its constitution, without the due process of discussion and/or vote by its member churches. . . . By his actions, however, Rev. Wilson shifted much of this constitutional authority to his own office as moderator — without specific constitutional warrant, and in conflict with specific constitutional warrant. Throughout our protracted exchanges, Rev. Wilson did not adhere to courtesies and Christian ethics common among church leaders. . . . By these actions it has now become apparent that the CREC, in conflict with its constitution, has become functionally Episcopal, coalescing around the office of the moderator as the denominational bishops vested with sweeping judicial and prelatical authority. . . . The chief issue is the CREC leadership’s disregard for their own constitution. We cannot remain in an organization that acts so radically at variance with its own constituting documents. . . the CREC leadership is guilty of dishonest subscription to its own constitution. Our responsibility is to the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made us overseers (Ac. 20:28), and this awesome obligation dictates our severance from an organization that sanctions injury to that flock and its duly chosen leadership. . . . We pray that this present statement will be helpful for responsible governance for those remaining within the CREC.

Fifth, given the slimy way these so-called “facts” have been formulated and presented, it is little wonder that no CREC official has denied them.

The Anselm presbytery has at this late date retroactively sanctioned his injurious actions.

No doubt Mr. Metzler and his unnamed correspondent will protest that they are only motivated by an overriding love for the truth.

Exactly because this “contra-constitutional” activity “could cause others to suffer,” we chose to publish what we did, in the interest in putting before those “others” the information they would need to be fully and responsibly informed, for their own future protection and choices. That WAS our intention, to seek to “protect the whole flock.”

Michael, COTK’s statement is an exceptionally well-written document that leaves no wiggle room for anyone to misconstrue its meaning. The CREC can only affirm it or deny it. They chose to ignore it and hope it goes away. This probably accounts for Mr. Witmer’s state of confusion. You can see that every one of his claims is false and he shows no evidence of actually examining the record. Here we are at the five-week mark after the announcement, and poor Mr. Witmer is still in denial. One more witness has stood up and joined the swelling ranks of those bearing witness against Pastor Douglas Wilson after he wronged them using the same duplicitous measures he deployed against so many others in the past, and Mr. Witmer has not the wherewithal to process it. He’s like a sheep without a shepherd.

I suggest that Mr. Witmer reflect upon the Rev. Wilson’s shameful behavior in light of Hebrews 13:7, which says, “Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.” Mr. Witmer should contemplate “the outcome” of Pastor Wilson’s conduct because it leads to death. It is a treacherous way full of snake pits and bear traps, strategically placed by the Rev. Wilson just in case he needs a lamb, a pastor, or a church to disappear. And someday Mr. Witmer may find himself face to face with a viper or impaled on a spike, just like the COTK elders, but because of their warning he will have no excuse.

The Need of Reproof

For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision; Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake. — Titus 1:11

St. Paul informeth us that there were many rebels even among the faithful, and such as attempted to preach the gospel, who were given to vain prattling and filthy lucre, teaching that which did not edify . . . St. Paul notes them as being the greatest disturbers of the church.

When the wicked sow tares (whether it be of false doctrine or wicked talk), to turn the faithful from the right way, if we dissemble, or make as thought we saw them not, the weak will become infected, and many will be deceived; thus there will be a general plague. . . . Shall we leave the church of God among thieves and wolves, as it were, and let the whole flock be scattered, and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ trodden under foot? Shall we suffer all order to be abolished, the souls which have been redeemed destroyed, and in the meantime shut our eyes and be silent? If we act thus, are we not cowards?

Let us therefore remember that when persons of honor and dignity have been in credit a long time, and then become deceivers, and endeavor to sow tares and destroy the building of God, we must withstand them the more courageously; for they are far more dangerous than those of lower rank. If an ignorant man, who is but little known, be wicked, and disposed to do evil, he cannot pour out his poison afar off, for he is, as it were, fettered. But he that is of reputation and intelligence, who setteth himself on high that he may be seen afar off, who can boast of his credit, that man, I say, will be armed like a madman; and if he is suffered, he may do much hurt.

Let us mark well when we see men that are honorable, whether it be on account of the office they fill, or the reputation they have had for a long time. In other places where St. Paul speaketh of those that pervert the truth of the gospel, and put forth errors and false doctrine, he calleth them heretics: but in this place he calleth them unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, who will not be ruled by truth or reason. There are no worse enemies than traitors who, under color of God’s name, come and make divisions in the church, and endeavor to destroy that which God hath established. . . I would to God we were entirely rid of such infection and filth. . . We ought to withstand such enemies courageously; but we are so far from it, that every one seemeth to thirst after nothing so much, as to be wittingly poisoned. . . .

There are bastard Christians among us at this day who know not God, nor obey His Word; therefore they will not bear correction. St. Paul reproveth the Cretians by putting them in mind of the witness of their own prophet; who saith, “The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts,” &c. When God maketh known our faults, and reproveth us, He doth it for our salvation; we ought therefore to be displeased with ourselves, and confess our sins with the deepest humility. We gain nothing by being stubborn: it is of no use; for if we will not bow, God will break us into pieces. (John Calvin, The Mystery of Godliness and Other Sermons, “The Need of Reproof” [Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Ministries] 171–178)

Heaps Upon Heaps

The Book of Judges tells us that Samson deployed the mandible of an equus asinus as a weapon to slay 1,000 men:

And he found a new jawbone of an ass, and put forth his hand, and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith. And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an ass have I slain a thousand men. (Judges 15:15, 16)

One wonders the exact body count that Ed Iverson can boast.

Not Given to Filthy Lucre

For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre. — Titus 1:7

They must be no strikers nor brawlers: they must not be like soldiers or contentious men, who are always ready to fight and wrangle; this fault must be corrected also: neither must they be given to filthy lucre; they must not be covetous. The minister that seeketh to enrich himself by his office, will not do his duty faithfully. He will put a gloss upon the Word of God and . . . he will endeavor to ascertain in what way he can make it most advantageous to himself. Therefore, if covetousness reign in ministers of the Word, they will undoubtedly prove to be false teachers, whose chief study will be to pervert good doctrine, and turn the truth into a lie. (John Calvin, The Mystery of Godliness and Other Sermons, “The Character of the Faithful” [Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Ministries] 160)

The Character of the Faithful

For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed. — Titus 1:7

The virtues here spoken of by St. Paul are necessary for all ministers of the Word of God, who must show the way to others. . . Is it a small matter to be a minister of God, and governor of His house? St. Paul showeth in this place that those to whom God hath committed His Word, and called to preach the gospel, ought to conduct themselves in an exemplary manner.

St. Paul saith a good shepherd must be blameless; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre: as if he had said, the man that is given to these vices, doth nothing but infect the place he is in, and injure the church. He that is blemished with any of these faults is not a fit man to serve God: these things must therefore be purged out from among us. The first virtues required by St. Paul, in order to qualify a man to preach the Word of God, is to abstain from the faults which are here condemned.

If he be stubborn and self-willed, he will offend the flock of God, and make a breach in the church. . . Thus we have the meaning of St. Paul in a few words: namely, those who are called to preach the Word of God must take heed that they be not self-willed, but willing to be taught: they must be meek and quiet spirited; not puffed up with pride, but endeavoring to edify others; they must not think that they know all things, but on the contrary desire to learn continually and be gentle in their behavior. Those who are lofty spirited, and self-willed, often become schismatics: that is to say, they trouble the church of God, and divide it into sects.

They must be no strikers nor brawlers: they must not be like soldiers or contentious men, who are always ready to fight and wrangle; this fault must be corrected also. . . . (John Calvin, The Mystery of Godliness and Other Sermons, “The Character of the Faithful” [Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Ministries] 158–160)

When in Doubt, Confess the Other Guy’s Sins, or Kicking the Habit

The Confederation of Evangelical Churches has memorialized today, September 11, as a day of prayer and fasting for member churches, that they “may unite in confessing the sins of [their] respective nations.” Accordingly, the CREC believes that the 9-11 terrorist attack against the USA was a judgment from God for our republic’s sins of “wholesale idolatry and polytheism,” “tolerating everything except the truth,” “telling damnable lies,” and “turning its face against the living God.”

Now, from a distance, this memorial appears devout, noble, grandiose, and even prophetic. Indeed, such a memorial might even tempt one to believe that the men who framed it held genuine religious convictions grounded in a sincere desire to see the Christian Church united in true biblical worship. Up close, however, when you examine the origin of the CREC and the backgrounds of its principal leaders, the nobility, as well as the sins needing confession, takes another form.

Consider, for example, the Rev. Randy Booth, CREC “Council Moderator,” who is pictured to the right wearing a snappy black habit. In 1994, while he was an ordained elder in a Reformed Baptist church, the Rev. Booth split his church over infant baptism. At the time, Booth tried to get the building and the money, however, he only succeeded in getting half the people, which compelled his elders to draft a letter declaring him a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

In January 1998, the Rev. Booth applied for membership in the CRE during its first “Presbytery Meeting,” and they received him into full membership in November 1998. Unfortunately, the Rev. Booth had to reapply for membership into the CRE in 2000 because he left his previous church — the splinter group that gave him his first pastorate — for another church after a few issues at home called his qualification for the ministry into question. The Rev. Booth’s household problems didn’t produce any felony convictions or unplanned children, so in 2002 the CRE once again welcomed him into full membership, appointing him moderator in 2003.

It’s safe to say that while the Rev. Booth lived up to his former elders’ denunciation, his checkered past certainly didn’t hinder the CREC from elevating him through their hierarchy. This is probably because Booth’s approach to the ministry resembles Doug Wilson’s, whose coup is carefully documented on Dr. Terry Morin’s website.

Moving right along, in 1998, while only 1 year old, the CRE voted to receive Pastor Dennis Tuuri and his church into fraternal status even though the CRE minutes say that Tuuri needed to “seek reconciliation” with Westminster Presbyterian Church (PCA), who charged him with “abuse of the flock.” The minutes also say that Westminster Presbyterian Church cautioned the CRE not to accept Tuuri into membership. But Doug Wilson argued “that reconciliation between RCC (Reformation Covenant Church) and WPC is unlikely apart from RCC becoming part of a larger body like the CRE,” which makes perfect sense to us. In 1999 the CRE voted unanimously to receive Tuuri into full membership.

Greg Strawbridge, moderator for the CREC “Augustine Presbytery,” once held the office of elder in a Reformed Baptist church, and though he did not split the church, he embraced infant baptism — contrary to the Statement of Faith — and somehow forgot to notify his fellow elders of this change in doctrine. Two years later, in 1998, those same elders accidentally discovered his secret when they caught him teaching paedobaptism. They terminated his employment immediately. In 2001 he joined the CRE where bad faith appears to be a prerequisite for membership in good standing.

In 1999, PCA minister Burke Shade split his church, making a move on its savings account and half of the furniture. His money grab failed as did his quest for the furnishings; but he did take half the congregation. Not long afterwards, the PCA defrocked him, which placed him on the fast track to join the CRE who welcomed him with open arms a year later. Michael Metzler has thoroughly documented this scandal on Pooh’s Think.

Of course, we must note R.C. Sproul Jr., whom the RPCGA defrocked earlier this year for a laundry list of crimes that uniquely qualify him for honorary membership in the CREC, though he is currently unaffiliated. And since Sproul is not a member of any denomination, the Rev. Booth commissioned a “non-judicial” tribunal from the CREC to vindicate Sproul from the RPCGA’s uncontested Declaratory Judgment. A few weeks later, without trial or testimony, the CREC deemed RCJR “ordained.” Michael Metzler has documented this travesty as well.

We could write more, but this short list of rogues, scoundrels, and miscreants represents the body of men who framed the CREC’s “Memorial on Terrorism,” which certainly puts their lofty words in another light. So if it’s not too late, the editorial staff at Cultists in Hats calls upon the CREC to confess its own sins this day, that the Christian Church may be safe from your schismatic hypocrisy.

Zoning Wars: Revenge of the Androids

On Tuesday night, the Moscow City Council voted 4-2 to show kindness to New Saint Andrews College by granting them a temporary conditional use permit, to use the downtown, predicated on four conditions:

1. NSA must maintain 160 feet of commercial street frontage.

2. NSA must provide 42 parking spaces in or out of the Central Business Zoning District within the next two years, though they do not have to use the parking lot.

3. NSA must cap its student body at 150 FTE students until they have met the parking requirement.

4. NSA must give City Council a “progress report” every six months.

As far as conditions go, NSA got off easy. In fact, their leadership should get down on their knees and thank God that City Council didn’t deny the CUP outright, exacting from the Kultmaster the letter of the law without mercy, which would have been much kinder than the various sanctions he’s meted out to various members of Kult and community over the last decade.

Nevertheless, City Council did put an edge on its kindness. The terms of the fourth condition, i.e., the “progress reports,” included a very clear message to NSA that they had better start getting along with their neighbors. Indeed, the point of the condition is to insure that NSA works with their neighbors as they endeavor to mitigate the parking problemn caused by their 166 students and 25 faculty..

The City Counci framed this condition after NSA spent the last 18 months hurling monkey clumps and other insults at anyone who squeaked a complaint about their loss of parking due to NSA’s illegal presence in the downtown. Of course, this has been the Kult’s standard operating procedure since 2003 when the leadership adopted A Serrated Edge as their public relations manual, which successfully helped them achieve their goal of giving offense to everyone — especially their neighbors.

For example, Louis Reed, who is the former owner of Bassilios Restaurant (NSA’s next-door neighbor for three years), testified that his sales plummeted 70% after NSA occupied downtown, essentially squeezing him out of business through lost parking. The Daily News reported,

But some neighboring business owners said the students who drive are causing the problem with parking. Louis Reed, owner of Basilios Italian Ristorante, located in the Moscow Hotel building and adjacent to the college, said he is being forced to shut his doors. “I’ve been here for six years and I’m going out of business because of the lack of parking. NSA claims it is a nonprofit institution. Well, I’m nonprofit too, but not by choice,” Reed said.

Reed said during peak restaurant hours during the week, at noon and at dinner time, there is no parking available for potential customers. “A retail parking space can generate nine customers in an eight-hour shift, whereas a parking space for the college only generates one customer for eight hours,” he said. (March 29, 2006)

And how did the Christ Church Cult respond to Louis Reed, who also happens to serve as deacon in a local Christian church? — with their usual insults and contempt. Gabe Rench, organizer of the Trinity Fest, posted these thoughts concerning his neighbor on the worldwide web:

In regards to the owner of Basilios: Microwave Spaghetti has never tasted good to me, and how many restaurants have moved to Moscow or grown since 2003 . . . hmmm . . . Patty’s, Rudy’s, Sangria, Wingers, Tucci’s . . . I understand competition is tough but blaming it on parking what a cop-out. I cant [sic] tell you how many restaurants that I have been to in big dowtowns were [sic] parking was way more difficult than in our little downtown . . . it is not about parking. But hey it is always good to find someone to blame when your business can’t make when there is ligit [sic] competition. . . . . . . Cheers! (Gabe Rench)

Factoid: Louis Reed owns Basilios Italian Ristorante in downtown Pullman, which has operated successfully for years, and the only difference between his Moscow & Pullman operations was parking supply: the City of Pullman protected Reed’s parking whereas NSA and the City of Moscow have not. And Reed’s lost parking supply translated into lost customers, forcing him to change his menu several times in the last three years as he scrambled to make a profit while serving a leaner customer base. More importantly, Reed was one of many downtown merchants who complained about lost revenue because of NSA, which gives the serrated saints even greater cause to thank God because if they had any Christian virtue they would pay restitution to their neighbors. But then A Serrated Edge gives license to abuse in the name of the gospel, much like “Corban” relieved the Pharisees of their obligation to the Fifth Commandment, which brings us back to City Council.

NSA has two years to be nice neighbors. They have two years to provide a limited number of parking spaces, and during that time they have to give “progress reports,” like a schoolyard bully on the verge of expulsion, updating the Council on how well they’re getting along with the other kids on the playground. Unfortunately, at the end of those two years, the Moscow City Council will learn that despite all of their good faith in granting the “classical Christian college” a CUP, Friendship Square will be unchanged if not worse. And hopefully by then, the new Council will understand that there is only one remedy to the problem created by NSA — “Cast out the scoffer, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease” (Prov. 22:10).

The Most Dangerous Man in the World

The most dangerous man in the world is the religious leader who is guided by nobody. He trusts his own visions. He obeys the attractions of an interior voice but will not listen to other men. He identifies the will of God with anything that makes him feel, within his own heart, a big, warm sweet interior glow. The sweeter and warmer the feeling is, the more he is convinced of his own infallibility. And if the sheer force of his own self-confidence communicates itself to other people and gives them the impression that he is really a saint, such a man can wreck a whole city or a religious order or even a nation. The world is covered with scars that have been left in its flesh by visionaries like these. (Thomas Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation [New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1961] 194–195)

Another Contemplation for Labor Day

As the United States honors its working force with a national holiday, we reflect upon the Communist hero Joseph Stalin whose rise to power paved the way for Douglas Wilson and whose form of government became the blueprint for the Christ Church Cult. Purges, show trials, secret executions, “rehabilitation” camps — Comrade Stalin wrote the book; and Wilson has incorporated every principle into everyday Kult life.

Today, we shall contemplate Nikolay Ivanovich Yezhov, whom Stalin appointed to carry out his decrees. Nikolay led the NKVD (Russian acronym for People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs), which developed into the KGB (Kirker Gone Bad), and you can be sure that a midnight visit from Nikolay meant that you would disappear for the rest of your life. Starvation in a gulag, bullet in the head, mass grave — it didn’t matter — you were a dead man. And after you vanished, everyone knew better than to ask what happened because they could disappear just as fast.

But Nikolay knew the importance of cleaning up the details. He left no loose ends, no evidence, if you will, or reason to inquire. If you were a well-known party official, he made sure to erase you from the history books and, more importantly, he airbrushed you out of the photographs to insure that you never existed. This, of course, made it easier for people to adapt their worldviews to Stalin’s, though their ease probably ended there, which brings us back to the Kult.

A visit from Nikolay in 1936 was tantamount to a letter from Doug Jones, “on behalf of the elders,” in the Kult. He may lead a “life less petty,” but if you hear from him then it’s guaranteed your life in the Kult is finished. They’ve arranged your disappearance; the only question is whether or not you’ll get a show trial. For example, in one case, they took an entire family of members in good standing and simply dropped them from the membership roll, in defiance of their constituted authority and their pastoral charge. But in another case, they conducted the trial and the execution by mail. First, kulters received written notice of the imminent demise of a high-profile member in good standing; second, the member and his family vanished from the Kult forever, which is where we meet Stalin’s playbook again.

Take a moment to examine these two side-by-side photographs of the NSA faculty. The photo on the left was taken before the arrest, and the photo on the right is the same image after the arrest. Please notice that the Wilsonist regime erased a man from memory, as if he meant no more to them than an electronic pixel, simply because he voted against promoting the Kultmaster’s son to full fellow. If you didn’t know this, it’s probably because Wilson fabricated all the other stories you’ve heard. After all, he hadn’t written his 89 “Justice Primers” yet, so he couldn’t draw from his own wisdom before pumping the rumor mill full of yarn. But what did that matter? It only mattered that kulters had something to hang their hats on. The people need something to believe.

And what of Doug Jones who lived next door to the terminated? Well, Jones extended to his neighbor in time the very thing that Jones should expect in eternity — shunning. He didn’t bother to help his neighbor move; he never lifted a finger or said goodbye. He was too busy being “less petty.” But he did dispatch his son to ask the names of those who were helping the vanished family move, which reminds us of this text:

Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders. And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity. Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, saith the LORD. Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, Behold, I will melt them, and try them; for how shall I do for the daughter of my people? Their tongue is as an arrow shot out; it speaketh deceit: one speaketh peaceably to his neighbour with his mouth, but in heart he layeth his wait. (Jer. 9:4–8)

So the next time you open your Cantus Christi, don’t worry about the Table of Contents. Comrades Wilson & Jones will airbrush the forgotten name away forever, before the next printing.

Posers and Hypocrites

They devour books of piety indiscriminately, not stopping to consider how much of what they read applies, or can be applied, to their own lives. Their chief concern is to acquire as many externals as possible, and to decorate their persons with the features they have so rapidly come to associate with perfection. . . . If they do their job thoroughly, their spiritual disguises are apt to be much admired. Like successful artists, they become commercial. After that there is not much hope for them. . . They have become satisfied with their own brand of sanctity, and with the perfection they have woven for themselves out of their own imagination.

Such “sanctity” may perhaps be only the fruit of mutual flattery. The “perfection” of the holy one is something that reassures his neighbors by confirming them in their own prejudices, and by enabling them to forget what is lacking in their own communal morality. It makes them all feel that they are “right,” that they are on the right way, and that God is “satisfied” with their collective way of life. Therefore nothing needs to be changed. But anyone who opposes this situation is wrong. The sanctity of the “saint” is there to justify the complete elimination of those who are “unholy” — that is, those who do not conform.

So too in art, or literature. The “best” poets are those who happen to succeed in a way that flatters our current prejudice about what constitutes good poetry. We are very exacting about the standards that they have set up, and we cannot even consider a poet who writes in some other slightly different way, whose idiom is not quite the same. We do not read him. We do not dare to, for it we were discovered to have done so, we would fall from grace. We would be excommunicated.

A clever kind of insolent servility, a peculiar combination of ambition, stubbornness and flexibility, a “third ear” keenly attuned to the subtlest modulations of the fashionable clichés — with all this you can pass as a saint or a genius if you conform to the right group. You will be blamed in a way that gives you great pleasure, because the blame will come from an out-group by which to be blamed is praise. You may not be enthusiastically praised, even by your own friends. But they know exactly what you are driving at. They full accept your standards. They dig you. You are canonized. You are the embodiment of their own complacency. (Thomas Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation [New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1961] 110–103)

Union and Division

And now I am thinking of the disease which is spiritual pride. I am thinking of the peculiar unreality that gets into the hearts of the saints and eats their sanctity away. . . . As soon as they have done something which they know to be good in the eyes of God, they tend to take its reality to themselves and to make it their own. They tend to destroy their virtues by claiming them for themselves and clothing their own private illusion of themselves with values that belong to God. Who can escape the secret desire to breathe a different atmosphere from the rest of men?

This sickness of most dangerous when it succeeds in looking like humility. When a proud man thinks he is humble his case is hopeless.

Here is a man who has done many things that were hard for his flesh to accept. He has come through difficult trials and done a lot of work, and by God’s grace he has come to possess a habit of fortitude and self-sacrifice in which, at last, labor and suffering become easy. It is reasonable that his conscience should be at peace. But before he realizes it, the clean peace of a will united to God becomes the complacency of a will that loves its own excellence.

The pleasure that is in his heart when he does difficult things and succeeds in doing them well, tells him secretly: “I am a saint.” At the same time, others seem to recognize him as different from themselves. They admire him, or perhaps avoid him — a sweet homage of sinners! The pleasure burns into a devouring fire. The warmth of that fire fells very much like the love of God. It is fed by the same virtues that nourished the flame of charity. He burns with self-admiration and thinks: “It is the fire of the love of God.”

He thinks his own pride is the Holy Ghost.

The sweet warmth of pleasure becomes the criterion of all his works. The relish he savors in acts that make him admirable in his own eyes, drives him to fast, or to pray, or to hide in solitude, or to write many books, or to build churches and hospitals, or to start a thousand organizations. And when he gets what he wants he thinks his sense if satisfaction is the unction of the Holy Spirit.

And the secret voice of pleasure sings in his heart: “Non sum sicut caeteri homines” (I am not like other men).

Once he has started on this path there is no limit to the evil his self-satisfaction may drive him to do in the name of God and of His love, and for His glory. He is so pleased with himself that he can no longer tolerate the advice of another. . . When someone opposes his desire he folds his hands humbly and seems to accept it for the time being, but in his heart he is saying: “I am persecuted by worldly men. They are incapable of understanding one who is led by the Spirit of God. With the saints it has always been so.”

Having become a martyr he is ten times as stubborn as before.

Its is a terrible thing when such a one gets the idea he is a prophet or a messenger of God or a man with a mission to reform the world. . . . He is capable of destroying religion and making the name of God odious to men. (Thomas Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation [New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1961])

Cultist Fables

Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one an evangelical Christian, and the other a Kultist. The Kultist stood and prayed thus with himself, “God, reign down judgment upon my enemies because I want them to be my friends so much that I harass them daily, but they repent not.” And the evangelical Christian, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, “God be merciful to me a sinner.”

A Happy Compromise

As West of Paris faces a showdown with PETA, the editorial staff here at Cultists in Hats suggests this happy compromise that should satisfy all parties, including those gaggles of geese.

In lieu of serving foie gras, West of Paris should offer fresh cornmeal to its customers, served via a hand-held funnel manned by the wait staff. As proposed, it would work like this: one waiter would grab the customer by the throat and shove the funnel down his esophagus, holding it firmly in place. Once secure, another waiter would pour the cornmeal into the funnel until the customer starts vomiting. When the convulsing ceases, the wait staff would immediately resume the force-feeding and thereby insure a complete dining experience.

While this compromise is labor intensive, it is considerably cheaper than the huge overhead required to harvest goose livers. Nevertheless, it would still create logistical issues, such as the amount of resistance waiters should tolerate from customers before knocking them silly and when to clean up the vomit (before or after dessert?), etc. But in the main, this appears to be a very wise solution to a rather nasty problem. Take the culture war to the customer instead of the beast.

Take the Duck and Shove It

Few images capture life in the Christ Church Cult better than a hand covered in vomit shoving a funnel down a caged duck’s throat, force-feeding it cornmeal to fatten it for the slaughter. And few PR blunders capture the Christ Church Cult’s relationship with society better than Francis Foucachon’s smash-mouth turnaround, cramming pâté de foie gras in Moscow’s face after promising to remove it from his menu.

Francis Foucachon owns West of Paris, the gourmet restaurant francais that replaced Zumé Bakery, the high-end French bakery that closed up shop after eating hundreds of thousands in American dollars. West of Paris occupies the ground floor of New Saint Andrews College, where Foucachon plans to go out of business when he’s done offending the folks he hoped to feed.

Foucachon justified his about face in typical CCC fashion by casually dismissing the public outcry as part of the community conspiracy to persecute the Cult: “This is a group that was looking for something to use against my business and they found something.” Never mind that Israel, Germany, the United Kingdom, Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Italy, Poland, Denmark, California, and Chicago have banned the product — this group was looking for something to use against his business. So he’ll give them more.

Not ironically, Foucachon contradicted himself as he explained his position. According to the Daily News, first he claimed the menu that sparked the controversy was “outdated,” suggesting that he never intended to serve foie gras. Then he claimed he nearly sold out of the dish, suggesting that he gave his customers outdated menus on opening night. Then he agreed that the goose-stuffing process is “questionable,” and finally he changed the subject to lobsters, chickens, and why activists should protest grocery stores — after declaring he would still serve the liver.

Perhaps Foucachon could put side orders of foot in mouth on his menu too — right next to red herrings. Better yet, he should offer chickens with their heads cut off; then he could coordinate it with his PR. But most importantly, he should proudly display the vomit-covered hand so that all may see where the problem lies.

Now, if you really want something to feast on, eat this.

Shun Thy Neighbor as Thyself

One of the most difficult things for a Christian to learn when they join a cult, or when they belong to a factious sect emerging into a cult, is the Amish practice of shunning. Of course the Amish are those radical Anabaptists well known for their stylish sixteenth-century hats, hook & eye clothing, and horse-drawn buggies — you could never mistake them for postmodern. They don’t even have cell phones. Anyway, this cutting-edge Christian culture gave birth to shunning, which in its elementary form is the religious ritual of intentionally avoiding someone to show your allegiance to your sect. In cults, however, the rite oftentimes takes on various nuances unique to the particular sect.

For example, in the Christ Church Cult, they practice shunning in coordination with imprecatory prayers because, as the Cultmaster said, they really want those people (i.e. the “targets”) to be their friends. And we all know that the best way to befriend someone is to treat them with contempt and pray that God would kill them. It really says that somewhere in the Bible. But these things are beside the point. As noted, shunning is not easy to learn, so here are some important tips to remember as you grow in your shunification:

1. First, if you see your neighbor — whether driving on the road, walking through the neighborhood, or nose to nose in the market — then make your face like flint, stern & unforgiving.

2. Second, look away and be as mean as possible. You must remember that you do not approve of this person and they must know it. More importantly, your Cultmaster rejects that person, and the Cultmaster’s opinion carries more weight than God.

3. Third, ignore them. Do not say “Hello” or offer any kind of greeting. You must resist the temptation to be kind — especially if you see them in need. You are superior to them, so let them know it. And if you succumb to temptation or if your natural reflex overwhelms you so that you initiate a greeting, then make sure you grunt it with a begrudging tone. You’re a miserable soul, don’t hide it.

4. Fourth, if you feel awkward, you should. The practice is unnatural, unbiblical, and it makes you look like a jackass. But don’t worry about it; you’ll get over it as your conscience erodes with further indoctrination from the cult. Pretty soon you’ll learn to like it.

5. Fifth, teach your children to be as mean and nasty as yourself so that the world can be a better place for everyone.

6. Finally, don’t forget that the Cultist Bible says, “He that shunneth not knoweth not God.”

If you do these things, your heart will continue to harden and you’ll enjoy the rich fellowship provided only by your cult. So carry on and dread naught.

Existential Liar

TO and I once debated the subject of Doug’s dishonesty. TO held the position that Doug is not guilty of “lying” when he delivers a bald-faced lie, because, according to TO, Doug really believes the lie when he utters it. In other words, since Doug really believes his lies when he tells them, he is therefore not guilty of lying. To TO, it doesn’t matter if Doug says one thing and five minutes later completely contradicts it; TO believes this involves consistency and competence, not honesty.

I do not deny that Doug believes his own lies at any given time, even when he contradicts them within a 5-minute window. However, I hold that Doug has studied the finer points of rhetoric and he understands the importance of closing the deal, i.e. a salesman, or con artist, will not bag the customer unless he prevails upon him with his sales pitch, which relies not only upon the content of his words but their delivery. Therefore, Doug taught himself how to use persuasion in order to lie, and he learned that he could not persuade others unless he persuaded himself, or at least appeared persuaded. Of course, self-persuasion, or the appearance thereof, is not without cost. Scripture teaches that hypocritical liars scorch their scruples to a stub: “Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron” (1 Tim 4:2). But I digress.

TO’s analysis correctly identifies the reason that Doug is a successful liar, i.e., he deceives himself before he deceives others (TO does concede that Doug is guilty of self-deception). But TO fails to explain why self-deception should be exculpatory. Consequently, his analysis boils down to a ridiculous question: “Which came first, the deceiver or the self-deceiver?” as if the liar who depends upon self-deception to successfully mislead is somehow not culpable. Who cares?

If Doug predicates his lies on self-deceit, then Doug’s self-deception reveals premeditation, which only aggravates his sin. It certainly doesn’t justify him. He lies, and he calculates his lies to exonerate him. He does this by design. It’s all planned — every word. Therefore, if Doug has disciplined himself to actually believe his lies before he tells them, then he is simply an existential liar, but a liar nonetheless.