On The Christ Church Commitment to Loyalty: #FreeSpeechApocalypse

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” George Orwell

In November 2005 the administration of New Saint Andrews College held a vote among the fellows to determine if Nate Wilson (now called N.D. Wilson) should be promoted to fellow. NSA President Roy Atwood,1 with a full knowledge of founder Doug Wilson’s enthusiastic support for nepotism, conducted the Potemkin election.

Cantus Christi Table of Contents

Click to enlarge.

Dr. Louis Schuler, affectionately known as “Duck,” was one of only three fellows with Ph.Ds. on the New St. Andrew’s faculty. In addition to his teaching load, Dr. Schuler wrote a column for Credenda/Agenda, a self-described Trinitarian journal that ten years ago was the chief means of spreading Doug Wilson’s worldview. Dr. Schuler also led the Kirk in song every Sunday morning, while Mrs. Kim Schuler played piano. And Dr. Schuler is the genius responsible for the Cantus Christi — no Duck, no Colchester. To be clear, Dr. Louis Schuler is an upright man in whom there is no guile.

Unfortunately, Dr. Schuler believed he had the right to vote against promoting N. D. Wilson, which is what he did. He did not know the point of the election was to ratify the predetermined result. Consequently, Dr. Atwood took Dr. Schuler aside and informed him, “That’s not how we do things around here.” Dr. Schuler replied, “Then why did you ask for my vote if you didn’t want to know my opinion?” He did not understand this was not a conversation; it was his last chance to recast his ballot. Dr. Atwood did not answer his question and referred the matter to Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow.

Doug Wilson remedied the problem of Dr. Schuler’s unwelcome dissent by drafting a three-page contract. The first 2 ½ pages of the agreement were not disagreeable, except that they replaced the preexisting spirit of the law with the letter of the law, which essentially made it a de facto probationary contract. This point becomes obvious when you realize that no one else had to sign it. Mr. Wilson specifically tailored it for Dr. Schuler, which brings us to the real reason Mr. Wilson wrote it:

Commitment to Loyalty
I pledge to conduct myself in such a way that no one could ever question my loyalty to the peace and purity of Christ Church. This includes refusing to speak to any unauthorized person about grievances I might have, and includes refusing to hear any such criticisms as well. If commitment to this standard in any way compromises my conscience, then I understand that my resignation will be accepted, without notice, and without prejudice.

Christ Church Code of Conduct for Staff Members, page 3

Click to enlarge.

The Commitment to Loyalty was the final condition of Dr. Schuler’s employment at New St. Andrews College and the only reason Mr. Wilson wrote the contract. It needs no interpretation. Its intent is clear. Even the specific ambiguity of “unauthorized person” is plain — it means anyone. Mr. Wilson strictly prohibits dissent of any kind and he punishes it with instant termination.

Dr. Schuler responded to Mr. Wilson’s ridiculous terms by exemplifying the obedience of a Christian man. He told Mr. Wilson to pound sand and resigned his fellowship at NSA as well as his household’s membership in the Kirk.

In hindsight, no one knows if the Kirk elders authorized Mr. Wilson to deliver this ultimatum to Dr. Schuler, but if you think about it, who among them would say no? If Mr. Wilson required total submission from Dr. Schuler, then why would he require less from his officers? This means that if you ask a Kirk elder what he thinks about the Christ Church Commitment to Loyalty and he says he agrees with it, you cannot really know if he’s telling you the truth. Is he dissembling or has he totally submitted his life — thoughts, words, and deeds — to Mr. Wilson’s totalitarianism?

And when you grasp the ramifications of this truth, perhaps you should ask yourself, “Why am I still here?”

1 If anyone knows what Dr. Atwood did to warrant immediate termination from NSA, on a Monday morning, in the middle of a semester, please use the contact form.


  1. Every time I think Doug Wilson has done the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of, he continues to one-up himself. This is, hands down and by far, the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of in academia, *ever.* And I spent four years in grad school, so I’ve heard of a lot of stupid things.

    (For the record, I graduated with flying colors. It’s one of the reasons why I feel a bounden duty to criticize the heck out of Doug Wilson, for sheer unbridled stupidity and for unspeakable violations of any sense of academic ethics.)

    1. Well I don’t think the issue is stupidity. It was actually a very clever move for a megalomaniac. The point is, he is evil, not stupid.

      1. Evil *IS* stupid. What, did he think nobody would ever hear about this? And this anecdote further proves he only has power over people who submit willingly. Stop submitting to this whacknut, you drones.

        Why nobody has beaten Doug Wilson senseless with a tire iron yet is baffling to me.

    2. First, promoting someone to “Fellow” of such an Institution of Learning(TM) smacks of the Larry/Moe/Curly school of Authority:
      Larry cites Moe as his Authority.
      Moe cites Curly as his Authority.
      Curly cites Larry as his Authority.
      Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!

      And I’m also reminded of a description of the ending scene in the 1984 movie version of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Instead of passively waiting for liquidation, there is the implication that now 6079 Smith W will be instead promoted into the Inner Party. AKA:
      “Only when you have been completely broken to The System will you be permitted to advance within The System.”

  2. “Refusing to hear criticism”? It’s one thing to speak disloyally, but to prevent someone from even hearing criticism… that is just over-the-top fascist, despotic, tyrannical — I don’t even know what to call it because it is so unreal.

    BUT, he didn’t say anything in there about READING criticism, so all critics just be sure to pass your messages to kirkers in writing 🙂

    1. Your comment is interesting to me since a ministry I was involved with for years didn’t implode until the founder and head fiend was too senile to fight the battle and the www allowed all those with concerns to be exposed, the former victims, and there were decades of victims we had always, ignorantly labeled “off”. This included cover ups of adultery, child abuse, financial scandal, extortion by the founder, and more. Religion comes with fertile ingredients for these evils: Faith beyond reason, patriarchy, power and confidentiality rationales.

  3. Denying someone the ability to criticize or hear criticism about your institution is the festering cancer in the heart of the worst cults. This is similar enough to the policies of Scientology that I cannot imagine how a Kirker can learn of this and not pause and reflect on what they have gotten themselves into.

    1. This is similar enough to the policies of Scientology that I cannot imagine how a Kirker can learn of this and not pause and reflect on what they have gotten themselves into.

      doublethink, comrade, doublethink.

  4. Do you have primary sources on that loyalty contract? I’m no Wilson fanboy, but I don’t take anything seriously unless it can be substantiated


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *