Update, April 2019: Adding This Post to Abuse Case Studies List
Issues regarding abuse of spiritual authority regularly arise regarding Douglas Wilson of Moscow, Idaho. I lived in Pullman, Washington, and Moscow, Idaho, for a total of 15 years from 1973-1987. (These two university towns are just across the border from one another, less than 10 miles apart. They are part of what is called the Palouse Region.) During that time, I observed firsthand the early growth of CCM (Community Christian Ministries), the influence of Jim Wilson and his son Doug on the campuses and in the communities, and their destructive impact on the faith of my own friends.
I have added a link to this post to the navigation bar section on 3 Abuse Case Studies and Articles. It links to other comments I’ve made over the years on social media that include the most information on my thoughts about living in Pullman/Moscow during those formative years of Mr. Wilson and CCM, and how I have occasionally tracked them and the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC) association since then.
I hope this helps give further context and perspective to the history and negative impact Mr. Wilson and his organizations have had–not just in that region, but via the influence of his social media and publications.
* * * * *
There has been an ongoing discussion about Douglas Wilson, about specific situations where there are allegations of abuse of authority, and about his leadership of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, and of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). Since I lived in Pullman, Washington, and Moscow, Idaho, during the beginnings of what turned into CREC, I have been watching this current situation unfold and reflecting on its roots. For my observations and opinions on the history of ministries in these two towns, see these links on The Wartburg Watch: Comment 1, Comment 2, Comment 3, Comment 4, Comment 5. (There are other comments I made related to certain types of Reformed theology and Reconstructionism. To find them, search the comments section of this post for “brad/futuristguy.”)
The following comment is one I posted in response to a comment by mirele, who talked about the seductive nature of Mr. Wilson’s system. My general thoughts on what makes us susceptible to seduction by those with no conscience are here in Part 1. In Part 2, I focus in on some aspects of “fatherlessness” that makes us particularly vulnerable to authoritarian men with charisma who provide precise answers to our questions and presence to meet our father-longing.
* * * * *
Part 1: General Susceptibilities to Seduction by Those with No Conscience
You know, when I was quite a bit younger, I would have found Douglas Wilson’s world quite seductive.
Thanks for your very insightful comment, mirele. As I mentioned in other threads about Douglas Wilson and Christ Church, I saw the beginnings of this current and very elaborate system when I lived in Pullman and Moscow from 1973-1987. So, I’ve been thinking about those source issues that led to where things are today.
The key word you said that struck me is *seductive*. I’ve been working on an article that explores what kinds of things can set us up to be groomed by authoritarians — the susceptibilities to seduction by sociopaths, as it were. Some of these factors are internal/personal, some are external/social in origin.
In light of the discussion about Mr. Wilson’s church-educational-community-political industrial complex in Moscow and beyond, I think some of these points might be of interest to consider. I’ll follow up with something about fatherlessness, because I think that’s a particular factor that we’ve consistently seen in the Neo-Calvinist/Neo-Puritan movements which focus their theological seduction on young men … and set them us as “fathers” in a patriarchal system.
Anyway, meanwhile, here’s my initial list of what can make us vulnerable to getting picked off by people of pathology, for what it’s worth.
* Fatherlessness that leaves “holes in the soul” and a longing for connection with a father figure — which a charismatic authoritarian man will gladly step in to act as and act out as. I suspect the dynamics here often lead to learned passivity, learned helplessness, learned devaluation of personal worth — and a false elevation of authority systems, masculinity, and patriarchy.
* Sincerity in wanting to please God and do what’s right — and authoritarians are ready to tell us precisely what those things to do are.
* Power as a magnet for drawing in whatever pleases self — and we seek roles that benefit us. [I see this happening with “commenders” and cronies who end up serving in high-ranking roles that keep theological dictators at the top of the pyramid.] This hearkens back to Frank Herbert’s quote that “Power is a magnet that draws the corruptible,” as a counterbalance to Lord Acton’s maxim that “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.”
* Linguistic philosophical perfectionism, and arrogantly believe the doctrines. This is an Enlightenment-era idea/ideal that assumes if we can just capture the precise language to describe our beliefs perfectly, then we will have captured the one and only true, right, and beauty philosophy/theology. This kind of pseudo-intellectualism and erudite elitism attracts those drawn by absorption with I.Q. (whether they’ve got the points or wished they did).
* Idealism, romanticism, and naively believing the doctrines because the system surrounding it and the purveyors of it appeal to aesthetics, sentimentality, and/or a throwback to a seemingly simpler time.
* Looking for security but ending up settling for predictability, stability, routine – i.e., legalism. I think this one is often based in fear, such as of how hard it is to live in an increasingly complex world, and the relative ease of just following some checklists that imply guaranteed outcomes.
* False identity – integrate self identity in people or things or organizational systems – not in God and who He made us each to be. When we integrate our lives in something outside ourselves, we lose the necessity to discern and decide for ourselves how we will navigate our way through life. Someone or something else dictates that for us.
* Naïve overtrust of authorities who are authoritarian, and fusing the role of overseer with the people who fill it — even if they aren’t qualified to serve in it.
I’m sure there are more. This is just my starting point after thinking for a very long time about various dynamics used to draw us into the orbit of a dictator and then keep us there …
* * * * *
There are additional comments by/to me after the exchange with mirele. These add to the perspective.