The Kirk Payroll: It’s Related

Regarding Doug Wilson’s nepotistic tendencies, the following chart illustrates what this essay could not. Click on the image for a clean high-resolution image or you can download a hi-res pdf here.

See also One Example of How Nepotism Corrupts.

Kirk Payroll: It’s Related

13 Comments

  1. “North Korea and evangelical empires have the same principle of leadership: nepotism to the nth degree. You may not get the call, but you inherit the mailing list.”
    Frank Schaeffer

    The real question is why do the real worker ants put up with it?
    Rose Huskey

  2. Why do they put up with it? Simply because they do not believe the Scripture where it commands us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, because they do not read God’s Word and put it into practice. . . If you love Me you will keep My commandments, because they do not pray with belief, If you ask anything in My name it will be granted to you. Because they are deceived, even the very elect will be deceived. We who are working out or own salvation, who attempt to obey the Word, who pray with belief, who are not as deceived need to humble ourselves and PRAY with belief for our lost brothers and sisters, for those who follow a false leader least we deceive ourselves with our self-righteous pride and fall into the same pit of self worship. I very humbly submit that this is the reason.

  3. Rose, you queried: “The real question is why do the real worker ants put up with it?”. I suspect it’s a question of enmeshment, both financial and emotional. If someone wants out, how do they extricate themselves, their spouse and kids from the Kirk, LOGOS School, NSA, especially if one or both spouses work for any of these entities. If one stops believing but the other spouse doesn’t, what to do then? Should one leave, the Kirk and DW seem to have enough tentacles of power and influence in Moscow to block someone from finding other work. There won’t be a glowing letter of recommendation.
    I’m sure there are people who work at one of the entities referenced above, and also have NSA boarders to pay the mortgage. It goes on and on.
    Gary Greenfield has enlightened us on worst case scenarios.

    1. Howl, I agree entirely with your assessment. There is a very high price to pay if you leave the Kirk. Since, particularly for women, it is a closed community, loss of friendship and support can be devastating. Kids who relied on other Logos or home schooled pals for friendship are suddenly not invited to birthday parties or other social gatherings. Fraternizing with the enemy is not permitted. And, as you correctly point out, boarders, who by their presence help meet the mortgage in the Fort Russell area of Moscow are in homes that are “endorsed” by NSA administrators and/or Doug. Leaving T.R. or Christ Church would exclude that income enhancing business. (Fort Russell is an old and elegant section on our community. The very well maintained homes date back to the turn of the 20th century. Because they are large they provide many bedrooms for boarders.) Many of us have wondered how many of those families report that income on their state and federal tax forms. I’m betting very few. I’d like to see them all prosecuted, especially Doug and the participating elders.
      Fortunately, for those who are able to leave the cult, Real Life church seems to offer an all encompassing safe social and theological refuge.
      Rose Huskey

    1. @Ginny: So if you were there (which I’m pretty sure is another falsehood), then you know that the congregation paid for their home (and a few other things) out of the tithe (yes, people tithed to Doug & Nancy) and you know that they don’t tithe either — because they have given so much to the church already. They’re just a pair of grifters, stealing from the church. And people like you enable them.

      1. Big words from someone who won’t publish dissenters (makes it easier, doesn’t it). Your rival, the Douglus Horrilibus, will at least do that.
        I won’t be returning as its difficult to maintain a dialogue with a monologician. I must go about my business of enabling grifters and spreading falsehood. Have a good one, Ulysses and may God’s blessings be on you.

      2. @Ginny Yeager: You are wrong. We publish dissenters all the time. No problem at all. We don’t publish falsehoods, which is different than dissent.

        But since you apparently agree that people should have the right to dissent, then I assume you would not sign the Christ Church Commitment to Loyalty, which states:

        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.

        Something tells me you would sign it and that you would roll on those who would not sign it.

        And since you claim that “Douglus Horrilibus” (your words, not anyone’s words around here) publishes dissenters, perhaps you can explain why he misrepresented Rosemary Huskey and refused to post her correction to his falsehood here: Bearing Witness to the Truth. No, it’s technically not “dissent.” It’s merely a correction. But arguing from the greater to the lesser, it follows that he would be willing to correct something so trivial. At least if we buy your assertion.

        We can have a coherent conversation as long as you stick to the documented facts. But not until then.

  4. That’s hilarious! Nothing in there about the degrees earned, the awards received, the individual work done by all those people. I’m sure Wilson must have some real influence over Oxford University and Oxford University Press, to say nothing of Random House, Harper Collins, NPR… the list goes on. It never occurs to you, apparently, that intelligent, well-educated people who value the written and spoken word often raise intelligent, well-educated children who write well (and get published) and find spouses who are also intelligent and well-educated, etc. No, it MUST be nepotism and conspiracy.

    What a joke.

    1. Hi Alice, thank you for visiting.

      So you believe that a degree from Oxford justifies nepotism? Let’s test your argument. According to the NSA website, Wilson’s son-in-law Luke Jankovic has no formal education, yet he is a “Permanent Member” (lifetime member, cannot be removed) member of the Board of Directors of New St. Andrews College and he’s an elder at Christ Church, Moscow. Can you use your standard to please explain what qualifies him to hold either position?

      Also, perhaps you can explain why “intelligent, well-educated people who value the written and spoken word” would justify the marriage of a fixated serial pedophile to a graduate of New Saint Andrews College. I am unclear about this.

      1. Ulysses – Nothing like logical fallacies to start a discussion, is there? That was… interesting. However, I will answer somewhat more seriously than that opening deserved.
        When you assume someone is in a position because of nepotism, without considering that they may have earned the position by their own accomplishments, you begin wrong-footed. Is it so surprising that a Christian college would be delighted to have as its president a man who not only got masters and doctoral degrees from Oxford, but whose doctoral dissertation was chosen for publication by OUP? It seems far more likely that Dr. Merkle had many opportunities, and chose NSA (a relatively small Christian college in Idaho!) as being close to his heart, rather than that Wilson pulled strings to get such a “lofty” position for his son-in-law. This is one example of several.
        As far as Mr. Jankovic – first let me ask what on earth this has to do with Oxford degrees? Bit of a non sequitur there. But to answer your question, not knowing him personally and also not knowing the selection criteria held by NSA, I would first be required to assume there are reasons for his selection beyond the simple fact of his being Wilson’s son-in-law. (The character qualifications for both positions are probably similar, in fact, but that’s neither here nor there.) Apparently your definition of “formal education” doesn’t include a B.A.; perhaps you meant to say “graduate degree”? It would appear that graduate degrees are not required by either the NSA board nor his (well-educated and extremely articulate) wife. Since there are a number of permanent members who have no degrees of any kind listed and are not related to Mr. Wilson, it would seem that their selection criteria include other qualifications to which neither you nor I are privy. As for his position as an elder at his church, that has nothing to do with education and everything to do with character. The Bible requires an elder to be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, not a drunkard, not violent, but gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money, managing his own household well and keeping his children in control without losing his dignity, not a recent convert, well thought of by those outside the faith. Assuming Mr. Jankovic meets those criteria and is willing to serve in the often exhausting and thankless position of elder, you and I have nothing to say in the matter. It’s not up to you to challenge his position, nor is it up to me to defend it. He stands before God in this responsibility.
        Hope that helps, dude.

        As far as your issue with what’s-his-name, you aren’t actually interested in an answer to that, and I shan’t waste any effort on it. In fact, had I seen this last paragraph prior to writing the above, I would probably not have done that.

        Bye.

      2. “Nothing like logical fallacies to start a discussion, is there?”
        Yes, you advanced a non sequitur and I called you on it, without using the word. You argued that

        Oxford University and Oxford University Press, to say nothing of Random House, Harper Collins, NPR… the list goes on. It never occurs to you, apparently, that intelligent, well-educated people who value the written and spoken word often raise intelligent, well-educated children who write well (and get published) and find spouses who are also intelligent and well-educated, etc.

        nullified the charge of nepotism, which is a non sequitur. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

        “Is it so surprising that a Christian college would be delighted to have as its president a man who not only got masters and doctoral degrees from Oxford, but whose doctoral dissertation was chosen for publication by OUP?”
        I agree with you; not surprising at all. However, it is very surprising that any college, even one with phony accreditation, would hire a known plagiarist for its president, such as New Saint Andrews College did when they hired Ben Merkle. So please explain to me why the Board of Directors of New St. Andrews College asked Randy Booth to resign from his seat on the board when they discovered he committed plagiarism in A Justice Primer, but they said nothing when they discovered that Dr. Merkle committed plagiarism in his contribution to the Omnibus textbook. I argue that the Wilson family nepotism safeguards Dr. Merkle from unemployment. Perhaps you can think of a better explanation for this double standard. Also please explain why Randy Booth took a bullet from NSA for A Justice Primer because he edited the book, but when Doug Wilson edited six textbooks that contain cover-to-cover plagiarized text, the NSA Board of Directors did nothing. I argue that the Wilson family nepotism protects Wilson.

        “first let me ask what on earth this has to do with Oxford degrees?”
        As noted, you made the non sequitur when you argued that

        Oxford University and Oxford University Press, to say nothing of Random House, Harper Collins, NPR… the list goes on. It never occurs to you, apparently, that intelligent, well-educated people who value the written and spoken word often raise intelligent, well-educated children who write well (and get published) and find spouses who are also intelligent and well-educated, etc.

        qualified these people for their positions. You’re free to change your mind but this was your argument, not mine.

        “Apparently your definition of “formal education” doesn’t include a B.A.; perhaps you meant to say “graduate degree”?”
        No, I quoted from the NSA website, which showed no degrees. If they changed it since I last checked, good for them. Still doesn’t meet your standard of

        Oxford University and Oxford University Press, to say nothing of Random House, Harper Collins, NPR… the list goes on

        Which is why I challenged your argument.

        “it would seem that their selection criteria include other qualifications to which neither you nor I are privy.”
        No, it would seem that selection is based on nepotism, as Doug Wilson admitted here. I’m not sure why you’re so quick to defend him against a charge he conceded 10 years ago.

        “As far as your issue with what’s-his-name, you aren’t actually interested in an answer to that”
        This is a fallacy of argument by assertion. It’s false too. I am very interested in your answer to this and so are all of our readers.

ComBox

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