<–The Big Picture. The following piece is posted with the permission of the author, 43, and has not been edited in any way. It needs no introduction: Where do I begin, to tell the story? …
What one must realize is that these people are not only without integrity, they are also entirely without pity. They think they are the ones who suffer, they’re overwhelmed, they’ve ex…
Note: I have been advised to tone down the invective a bit as my father still needs to be “approved” for ministry by the men to whom this is addressed. And indeed, based on their actions thus far it isn’t much of a stretch to think they’d use what I write as an excuse to further punish him. Thus I have made a few edits here and there, though I hope the piece is still just as strong. In their writings my father and sister have called these people on the carpet but done so in a fairly restrained manner. Between my youth and my Asperger’s I’m inclined to a higher degree of bluntness; note, though, that I don’t typically write or speak this harshly or with this much invective about people. It’s just that here I am, quite simply, fed up.
Also, I emphasize again, as I said in the second post script, that I was not put up to writing this.
And once more I say that if anyone in Classis NM takes issue with my statements concerning that group’s character as I see it manifested in their actions, then prove me wrong. Reach out to my father in real love and empathy, not just pious platitudes. Actually investigate what happened and what has been done with your approval. Agree to hold people accountable for abusing my father and then actually do the work to see if we’re right in saying he’s been abused. Show that you care about him, about truth, about justice, etc. enough to do a little work. Show me.
Dear Overseers of Christ’s Church,
I’ll keep this brief because you all seem to have very short attention spans. Well, maybe you don’t have short attention spans period, but when it comes to matters of truth, justice, and the integrity and purity of Christ’s bride, you sure do. If you take umbrage at my saying that, then fine, prove me wrong. Read carefully the things my father has written, my sister has written, I’ve written, our friend the circuit court judge has written, and demonstrate that you’ve done so by actually responding to the issues and concerns we’ve raised.
I wrote an open letter to A. CRC a few days ago. I ended by reminding them of what God’s Word says about how we’ll all have to stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account of our deeds in the body, the good and the evil (2 Cor 5:10). Well, guess what? The same goes for you.
You have been treating my father like a criminal. You’ve been acting as if he was under discipline. You have refused him audience, refused to answer perfectly legitimate questions he has, gone behind his back, given quarter to gossip about him, lied about him, prevented him from hearing what was said about him at a meeting more than once now and thus depriving him of the chance to answer the allegations, etc. Some of those—e.g., lying—are wrong no matter who is involved. The others are actions predicated on the notion that he has done something worthy of discipline, that he was fired from A. because of something he did.
The problem is that hasn’t been proven. Vague accusations were made—and then blown out of the water by both him and a circuit court judge (42), both of whom provided specific and historic documentation demonstrating the falsehood of the vague and unsubstantiated claims made in the stylistically pathetic Article 17 you approved last December. You were supposed to have read their refutations of it. You also know about the extensive documentation on my sister’s blog—she has spent hours and hours compiling material produced before, during, and after the ordeal of last year. Official correspondences and records, given word-for-word, and dated, etc. are all right there in contrast to the nebulous allegations.
You are accountable for my sister’s blog insofar as you know of it and know that it was made based on the conviction that the story you heard is constituted almost entirely of spin and lies. And you are certainly accountable for my father’s and the judge’s rebuttals to the firing document.
Nothing was proven regarding his conduct at A. Nothing. And not only that, but credible witnesses and members of the church hotly and with great precision contested what was said about him.
You ignored the protests.
You did nothing to investigate what actually happened.
You took for granted that Rev. Mayonnaise (21) was correct in everything he wrote.
You have since been treating my father as though he is a thug in need of discipline (contrary to the CRC Church Order which says that a pastor put out on an Article 17 is in good standing!).
If he is innocent of wrongdoing at A., then everything you have done is unjust and abusive. If there is even a chance that he is innocent, everything you have done is unjust and abusive unless and until he’s actually proven guilty.
You have been duly informed at length from several different parties now that a different version of events from the one presented you exists, and you have expressed no interest in looking into that. Thus, if he is innocent, you are piling up guilt and judgment for yourselves.
What you are doing, Classis NM, is wicked. It is willful neglect of the pursuit of truth and justice with the result that an innocent man of God has lost his house, his job, and quite possibly his career, not to mention his good name among many people.
Why are you doing it? Why do you persist? I can guess—last year you didn’t want to know what happened because you didn’t want to have to correct people—the bullies at A. and perhaps Mayonnaise as well—for their bad behavior. And now there’s that plus the fact that you’re all, and especially the Ogresight Committee (that’s what I call you and I came up with it myself!), invested in actions undertaken based on the narrative you were sold. You can’t allow yourselves to entertain the notion that that narrative was false because at this point you’re so doubled down in your position. You’re proud, too proud to admit that maybe you screwed up royally.
So your comfort and pride matter more than truth and justice, and more than the spiritual, emotional, and financial wellbeing of another pastor who is quite probably innocent of any wrongdoing. Shame on you.
Don’t you have any integrity at all?
Don’t you have any fear of God?
I’m inclined to say: no. All or nearly all of you have neither of those things based on your attitudes and behavior throughout all of this. Why seek out the truth if doing so takes work, right? Especially if the truth uncovered shows that someone needs to be reproved or rebuked. Heck, I think some of you (in particular, the P. CRC elder following this blog) enjoy the power trip.
Well, I hope it fills whatever void you have, BDK. And for the rest of you I hope the preservation of faux peace and good rapport with cool guys like Mayonnaise makes things nice and comfortable.
Because you’ll all stand before the Chief Shepherd one day, and then what will you say for yourselves?
P.S. In his communications with some of you my father has mentioned my intention never to enter a Christian Reformed church again. This is true. Your behavior has so thoroughly disgusted me that now the CRC represents nothing but politics, corruption, abuse, and oppression of the helpless (my father is at your mercy) to me. I am never going back.
P.P.S. You’ve probably picked up that I’m angry. Yes, I’m livid. But I assure you, these are my words and my thoughts. My father did not ghost-write for me (another slanderous accusation Mayonnaise made to you all last year, all the more disgusting because he repeatedly ghost-wrote for A.’s Council!). …Well, I guess I can’t take credit for referring to 21 as “Mayonnaise”. Trouble is, I don’t remember who came up with that. My friend from Alabama thinks he was the one who came up with it, but it may have been my friend from Washington or my boyfriend from Texas, too. All three have been apprised of the s**t you people have been pulling for a year now. And all of us have alternated between feeling anger and disgust on the one hand and wanting to laugh at and ridicule you on the other because your laziness and cowardliness make you all embarrassments to yourselves, to Classis NM, to the Christian Reformed Church, and to the Church universal.
About a year ago my father preached his last sermon at A. Christian Reformed Church. The clergy-killing undertaken months before was then nearing its completion as far as the church was concerned (it continues in his treatment by the Classis), with him being “suspended”, then fired, shortly thereafter. I wrote at length in December of last year about what went down; a more thorough record can be found at the blog Veritas Praebita, run by my sister, “ekklescake”.
Right now, I want to address the people of A. Church, particularly the people I considered my/our friends. In fact, I believe I’ll plagiarize my sister’s alias convention—13 on this blog may thus be identified with 13 on hers, as can 19, 28, etc.
Most of you haven’t seen me in a year. Not since the Nov. 10 congregational meeting. It’s been a while, hasn’t it? I’ve spent most of that time living in a farmhouse with almost all my belongings in storage. It’s only in the last month that my father and I finally moved from F. And I was thrilled to get out.
I started thinking a lot about you all in the last few days. Well, to be fair, our circumstances are such that I’m nearly constantly thinking about you, about Classis NM, about the CRC and why I’ve left it, etc. But recently my thoughts have shifted in emphasis a bit. I’d been angry, thinking about how my father was and is being treated by his peers, men who are supposedly fellow pastors. But now I’ve got a whelming sadness.
October is Pastor Appreciation Month. Did you know that? I think you did, because in the past at A. you would present my dad with a card and a cake. He preached his last sermon at A. on Oct. 25th (which also happened to be Reformation Sunday). There was no cake or card last year, though. Which is for the best, really, because it would have been the pinnacle of hypocrisy and ironic cruelty for you to make such a show of appreciation and honor while for months (and for some of you years) you’d been listening to and encouraging gossip and criticism about him and about his preaching, ignoring his attempts to talk to you directly, cutting him off with no explanation, etc.
I sent a letter to six of you right about that time. I’d actually written it more than a month before. 16 & 15, 20 & 28, 19 and B—I wrote you three couples because, after a few years of meeting regularly as a small group, you were those I had considered friends, both to me, and to my sister and father. Shortly before that I sent something to 19; you never responded, though you did apparently tell my father that you’d read it and were “concerned”.
I won’t rehash the longer group letter I sent, but here’s some of what I wrote 19 on Oct 29, 2015:
I have been very distraught over the way I’ve seen him [ST] being treated over the last several months, and hearing that the other night [about what happened at the legendary council meeting] just pushed me over the edge.
I’ve also been feeling isolated for some time and like I can’t talk to many people in the congregation, including people I once considered friends, like you all from the old small group. Without going into any details, or pointing fingers, I’ll just say that things have definitely changed, and I can sense it. And I perceive that there are people talking about my dad rather than to him, people who are upset with him but won’t talk to him about it—and I’m under the impression that among those people are some of the A.ns I liked the most.
I live with my dad. I’m the only one who does. And I can see better than anyone else, perhaps, the toll recent events have taken. I continue to marvel at how he’s been able to go up there and preach Sunday after Sunday. Because at council meeting after council meeting, he’s been told by someone that the majority of the church is “fed up” with him, is “fried”, etc. Complaints and criticisms have filtered down to him through third parties. Yet he continues to proclaim the Word as best he can and as God has called him to, looking out at all those faces and wondering who among them, and how many, are holding something against him. It’s amazing—I myself have a hard time going to church and acting like everything’s normal. (I’ve even entertained the notion of stopping going to services altogether. The one thing that’s stopped me is that I don’t want to leave my dad alone in there.)
I’ve cried so many tears in the last number of weeks. I can’t say for sure exactly what I want from you. Maybe it’s just the knowledge that you said what you did to [ekkles] and that you’re someone who’s still halfway sympathetic, who’s thinking about us, that makes me feel like I can say all this to you. The rest of the small group I feel I can’t talk to.
Does that look familiar, 19? My feeling like I couldn’t talk to the rest of the small group was vindicated by the fact that only one of you, 28, wrote back to my group e-mail, and your response was cold and wholly devoid of even a worldly sort of compassion, let alone the Christian one. I showed it to two other women, my sister being one; she interacted with some of it in her own correspondences with you. Yet you do at least get some points for responding at all, as, again, no one else did, not even 19.
My letter to the whole group covered the same things with the addition of some others; I expressed both my own personal sense of hurt and betrayal as well as my sadness over the way my father was being treated by you. In the year since then, the hurt and sadness haven’t left, but the dominating emotions have been frustration and anger when I think about the whole affair, how it started at A and how it’s continued through Classis NM. Like I said, though, in the last few days the sadness has returned to the surface in greater force.
October. One year since all the s**t really hit the fan. Pastor Appreciation Month. Here we are, my dad and I, relocated at last, having joined a local congregation that is United Reformed rather than Christian Reformed—because I have left the CRC for good. In the process of moving last month I unearthed my old high school catechism class workbooks—the somewhat silly “HC and Me”. In the last few years I’ve grown more and more convinced that the Heidelberg Catechism and other study materials/topics don’t need to be dressed up in some “relevant” coating like that, but that’s beside the point. My father co-taught that class. He continued to teach the youth Sunday school after I’d graduated. As part of the CRC Church Order the pastor is supposed to “catechize the youth”. At some point last year he was pushed out by 13—this action was both against the Church Order and manifestly at odds with 13’s insistence that the pastor needed to be more involved with the life of the church. The Mighty List even said the pastor should “Build a sense of unity and communication with teachers, committee members, and church members”—how the heck does one reconcile a demand like that with the “recommendation” that he stay out of the Sunday school room? Huh. Further evidence that my father couldn’t do anything right because 13 was determined to get rid of him.
Anyway. My father taught that class for years. That was one of his pastoral duties. So was the week-by-week preaching from the pulpit. As a further means of pursuing/encouraging spiritual fruitfulness among members of A., he suggested the formation of the small group. The group met at least semi-regularly for about three years, and you couples who joined it—you were enthusiastic supporters of him and of his preaching. And he preached from your pulpit, as the pastor you and the other A.ns called, for eight years. Eight years of ministry, of faithfully delivering God’s Word to you, preaching what the Spirit led him to, trying to serve you in the way God intended. Years of friendship—of meeting together, talking about things of the faith, talking about things of no consequence and just bonding as friends, and most importantly praying together.
Then it all dried up. As I already wrote to you, 19, things changed. You all started acting differently. A.ns overall started criticizing him—bad attitudes ran amok. He was cut off. Totally isolated with the knowledge that the people he’d thought were his friends were all upset with him and that many of them were talking behind his back. I asked in my letter to the group what changed, what was it that suddenly made him a bad person and justified this new treatment. Based on the fact that no one furnished me an answer to that, I assume it’s because you truly have none. What a contrast to the admonition of Hebrews 13:17!
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (ESV)
Let them do this with joy and not with groaning. What do you think your behavior was more conducive toward? Joy? Or grief? If ever there was a “gimme” question!
Years of labor and love—all for naught, apparently, as you all were so capable of quickly casting him aside, throwing him (and me) under the bus.
Pastor Appreciation Month. My father has joined the legions of faithful pastors who are incredibly unappreciated, victims of abuse and mistreatment by the congregations they served, by the people they befriended and loved. Can you see why I’m sad?
My blog avatar is a photo I took myself. It’s of a section of road in Oxford, England—the exact place where three martyrs of the British Reformation met their deaths. Interestingly enough, the first two, Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley, were burned on October 16, 1555—another October date. (Thomas Cranmer would follow in March of the next year.)
Why do I bring that up? Not because I equate my father’s abuse at your hands with execution (though I guess one could rightly say that you all, and the entirety of Classis NM at this point, are complicit in the assassination of his character). I bring it up because he has something in common with those men: he preached and spoke as he felt God led him, proclaimed in both public and private—he was more consistent than some among you, cough, 13—what he thought was truthful and necessary, and was made a target of ill treatment because of it.
There is another connection I would like to draw. Here is one more picture I took in Oxford, this one of the Martyrs’ Memorial.
The text in the inscription reads:
To the Glory of God, and in grateful commemoration of His servants, Thomas Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley, Hugh Latimer, Prelates of the Church of England, who near this spot yielded their bodies to be burned, bearing witness to the sacred truths which they had affirmed and maintained against the errors of the Church of Rome, and rejoicing that to them it was given not only to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for His sake; this monument was erected by public subscription in the year of our Lord God, MDCCCXLI.
Like many of God’s faithful servants they faced persecution during their time of ministry but have since been honored by posterity. Grateful and fairly self-conscious inheritor of the Reformed tradition that I am, I couldn’t help but be just a little thrilled to see the memorial and read the inscription.
Yet, in the grand scheme of things, what is a mere stone monument like that? There is a far greater reward promised the ministers of God’s church:
And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. 1 Peter 5:4 (NIV)
My father’s sufferings are of course in no way comparable with the Oxford Martyrs’, or Jan Hus’s, or Patrick Hamilton’s (another whose place of execution I saw), or those of any other person who died for God’s truth. But just because you didn’t kill him you are not thereby exonerated of wrongdoing, A.ns. And I think you know this. This is addressed to you, 15: my father, sister, and former landlady (who was also a member of the erstwhile small group, as you know) all report you acting strangely when they’re around—ducking your head down, turning away (with a pained expression, according to ekkles), being deliberate to avoid eye contact. And 28, ekkles noted that you also exhibited strange behavior the Sunday she visited—stammered when you saw her, misspoke, etc., and those are things you don’t normally do. Tell me, ladies, how should we interpret all that? If I didn’t know better I’d say it looks as though you’re wrestling with guilty consciences.
Some months ago my father was approached by a Christian brother he’d never met and who knew nothing about him. This man said he just had to talk to him, because he’d seen a vision of sorts. That vision was of my father being given a Purple Heart. Again, this man had no clue who my father was or what he’d gone through. So evidently Someone else besides the mere mortals in ST’s camp believes he was severely wounded by you, A. Church. And more importantly, He recognizes His servant’s faithfulness. The Purple Heart vision is a source of encouragement and uplifting mainly because it reinforces what the Scripture plainly teaches in that verse from 1 Peter; the subjective experience is substantiated by Holy Writ. And it is taking into account both, but especially the verse, that keeps me from being wholly consumed by grief as I consider what you’ve done to my father.
I hurt greatly on his behalf, yes, but he will be vindicated in the end and rewarded; this under shepherd who was abused and kicked around by you, the flock under his care, will be gifted by the Chief Shepherd with a taste of His glory for having shared in His sufferings.
These are the things I have to consider one year later. What are you thinking and feeling? Moved on? I want to snidely say that must be nice, but the truth is, I think I would rather be in my position, not having “moved on”, still thinking over the ramifications of what happened, what you did. Facing up to what you’ve helped put us through and squaring it with the permanent truths of Scripture, bringing my needs before God, openly acknowledging how I feel and what I’ve done with those feelings (for better or worse) is how I’ve been and hope to continue growing. Where are you? By all accounts you’re still in denial, still refusing to acknowledge the part you played in a series of very evil actions. I really wonder how your refusal to admit and repent of your sin affects your spiritual life overall. Like I said, I’m glad I’m in my position, not yours.
2 Corinthians 5 says believers will stand before God and give an answer for their deeds in the body, both the good and the bad. You’re the ones who will have to answer for participating in the calculated and cruel abuse, termination, and disenfranchisement of the pastor God put over you and who trusted you as his friends. Not me.
Very Truly Yours,
Puritan Girl (PG)
I love the Heidelberg Catechism. Even as I’ve left once and for all the denomination I grew up in I maintain a preference for its confessional standards over against the Westminster tradition. Lots of people have Lord’s Day 1 memorized; I myself ended up memorizing Lord’s Days 9 and 10 a couple summers ago as my father was undergoing his third set of cancer treatments. That was a very hard period for me. Little did I know that as that trial passed another, much worse one would arise–and that one has yet to abate.
But today I find myself thinking of Lord’s Day 43. A number of events have brought it to mind. For one, I was falsely accused of something. The person making the accusation was a church officebearer and there was no evidence, no basis on which to make it. Yet he made it, not to me, but to a group of denominational officials, who then passed it on to another such group, who then gave my father the third degree about it. These men are all leaders in a Christian denomination. Unfounded accusations, gossip, and rumor-mongering should be beneath such, no? But apparently not.
So. From the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 43.
What is required
in the ninth commandment?
I must not give false testimony against anyone,
twist no one’s words,
not gossip or slander,
nor condemn or join in condemning anyone
rashly and unheard.
Rather, I must avoid all lying and deceit
as the devil’s own works,
under penalty of God’s heavy wrath.
In court and everywhere else,
I must love the truth,
speak and confess it honestly,
and do what I can
to defend and promote
my neighbour’s honour and reputation.
In the aftermath of my father’s clergy killing (calling it an aftermath seems wrong now, as it’s clear his character is still being assassinated), I am not the only one being gossiped about and accused of things behind my back. It’s happening again and again to others who have been victimized throughout this ordeal. In fact, I found out secondhand a year ago that I was being negatively talked about, and more recently than that that I was deliberately excluded from helping out in a church function which was also last year. All this has been going on that long.
The Catechism enjoins Christians to love the truth and show love for their neighbor by promoting his good name. It also says rightly that “lying and deceit” are “the devil’s own works”. What that says about the churchy, kind people where I live, I leave to the reader to decide.
In Part 1 I summarized and put forth the reasons why Doug Wilson has a well-deserved bad reputation among some inside and outside of the church, and why those Reformed and Presbyterian believers who are fond of him might do well to distance themselves just a bit.
I am not writing about this in a vacuum, and am in fact indebted to numerous other bloggers and writers. Here are some places where one can find more information:
Katie Botkin’s post, “The Man Who Would Be King”, is a good starting point for those who aren’t familiar with Wilson at all, or who are but aren’t aware of the controversies or don’t know much in detail about them. Her blog has several interesting and pertinent posts, actually.
The Truth About Moscow is a site I check frequently for the latest Wilson-related news. (To anyone who would accuse me of liking drama too much, let me just point out that Wilson seems to love getting attention and shocking people, so he and his fans really shouldn’t complain when some of that attention is negative and critical.) Ulysses is quite good at promptly and nicely compiling and presenting all the data that comes his way. I might add that he holds to the Reformed faith as well. Added 2 September 2016: see here and here for helpful overviews of the Wilson empire.
I already mentioned Rachel Miller by name. She too is Reformed and espouses the biblical view of the husband/wife relationship and church governance—which lends her some credibility, I think, when she scrutinizes Wilson and shares her findings regarding, e.g., plagiarism, sex/gender roles, slander.
Natalie Greenfield was the sex abuse victim I alluded to in Part 1. Her blog is about the experience and aftermath of the abuse overall, as well as a place to discuss abuse in general and its presence in communities and churches. There are a number of places where she talks about what happened, and her account differs markedly from Doug Wilson’s.
I wasn’t aware of Cicero’s background, so I did a google check—how happy I am to see that not only is he a Calvinist, he’s in the continental tradition like I am (Heidelberg forever!). Anyway, his blog has a handful of interesting and insightful articles. I might also add that he is a former Moscow resident and once sympathized with Wilson’s position on a number of issues, but no longer.
If you want another conservative Presbyterian, you might wander over to the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals’ Mortification of Spin blog, where you may eventually find a number of posts in which Carl Trueman, Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) pastor and professor of church history at Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia, indicates agreement with Wilson’s critics, even linking directly to Rachel Miller (and to another writer worth examining, Rod Dreher). This particular repost—regarding Mrs. Miller’s most recent discovery of plagiarism in a Wilson work—by the esteemed Englishman is especially entertaining to me, mainly because of the tagline underneath its title on the main blog: “Who saw this coming? Other than everybody, that is.”
In addition, Dr. R. Scott Clark, professor at Westminster Seminary California, mentions Wilson—though not by name—in this post about abuse in the church.
CREC Memes appears to be run largely by disgruntled ex-CREC members, or people with CREC connections.
Finally, there’s the Doug Wilson Archive… and all the other sites it will direct you to. It asks this question (and several others): If Doug Wilson is a completely righteous and innocent man, how did so much evidence accumulate against him? And, unless one is willing to dismiss all, that is, every last one, of Wilson’s detractors as gospel-denying secularists, liberals, haters, or liars, that’s a very good question.
Once more I close with Rachel Miller’s question:
To all those Reformed, Presbyterians out there who are willing to look past the recent Wilson controversies, is it time to consider if what you like is worth defending? For anything that he’s written that you’ve appreciated, isn’t there someone else who has said something similar without all the baggage? Are the qualifiers worth it?
I wrote this some months ago. I put off sharing it for some reason I don’t quite remember, then sort of forgot about it, but recent events—to wit, the subject and his church supporting the efforts of a convicted pedophile to be reunited to his infant son whom he admits arouses him—have brought it to mind again. So.
To my fellow Reformed/Presbyterian brothers and sisters who are fans of Doug Wilson:
I call you my fellows because I too am Reformed; I hold to the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Westminster Standards as accurate summaries of biblical teaching. Moreover—and this is relevant—I am not an egalitarian, for I believe that the Scriptures plainly teach male headship within the context of the home and the church. In short, I am theologically rather conservative.
Frankly, I find it disturbing how many of you like Doug Wilson, speak favorably of him, quote him, link to his blog, etc. Some of you may very well do this out of ignorance of the controversies swirling around him. Perhaps you only know his books and haven’t seen his blog, where many of his really nasty writings are. Others are aware of the controversies but dismiss them as tale-bearing. For the former, I hope what I write here is useful in apprising you of the matters. For the latter, I can only hope that looking at each link and really digging through the huge amount of material there is—including the man’s own writings, which some of these sites will direct you to—makes you reconsider your stance. To both groups: even if you aren’t convinced of the validity of the criticisms and allegations described here, I hope you at least use discretion when promoting him. So much of what he says and stands for—his own words—are needlessly offensive to unbelievers and weaker believers. The gospel itself is an offense, yes; but he goes out of his way to be a jerk. And I say that as Calvinist Christian who holds to what the Heidelberg Catechism says about the Ninth Commandment. I do not share these things lightly.
There is substantial evidence—including eyewitness testimony and, where pertinent, official church or court documents—to the effect that Pastor Doug Wilson of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho is a liar, a plagiarist1, and a defender of child rapists (according to the way Idaho state law defines rape; that needs to be pointed out because Mr. Wilson has gone on the record saying that one of the rapists “is not a sexual predator”, and making similar claims). He will stop at nothing to silence or discredit those who disagree with him, his actions ranging from the outright despicable, such as threatening the victim of one of the aforesaid rapists with releasing private journals, smearing her family, and demonstrably lying about her and her family’s role in what happened to her2, to the less glaring but still unpastoral ad hominem attacks, especially against women, whom he will not hesitate to deride using crude, and again, unpastoral language.3 History also shows he would sooner cover up (using threats if necessary) the illegal activity of people closely affiliated with his work and ministry in Moscow, such as the operation of a casino and drug-dealing, rather than suffer the consequences of it being exposed (i.e., the harm done the image of his church, denomination, and schools). The language he employs in his blog is often sexist and crass, and I would maintain, inexcusable—what’s he going for? Shock value? Even if the point is just to entertain, in what way is it at all conscionable for a Christian man, let alone a minister of the Word, to have his fans compete to come up with the best nickname for Melania Trump’s breasts? If Ephesians 5:4 doesn’t apply to pastors, just who does it apply to?
I will refrain from commenting on some of the other controversies swirling around him, such as his views of American slavery, or his Federal Vision teachings (which, while perhaps hard to pin down exactly, are nonetheless manifestly at odds with the Westminster Standards). Those matters are secondary when it comes to evaluating his character. That may be made known through his speech and actions. And those demonstrate that he is a corrupt, deceptive, narcissistic fraud of a pastor.
Harsh language, I know, but that’s how thoroughly disgusting his behavior is and should be recognized as. It’s evil. It’s also a poor Christian witness, to say the least. I have a friend who lives in Pullman, WA—that’s right by Moscow for those of you who don’t know—and Wilson, in his words, is “a blight”. And he was able to confirm for me that, aside from those who attend Christ Church or are involved in the New Saint Andrews, Greyfriars, or Logos schools, Wilson is practically universally disliked in the area. Of course the opinion of the world isn’t a perfect test of character, but first, my friend and his family are conservative Christians, and second, an elder in the church ought to be “above reproach” (1 Timothy 3:2), and “well thought of by outsiders” (v. 7). Between the cover-ups, the plagiarism, and the ungodly speech, Doug Wilson has given people of the Palouse plenty of reason to suspect him. And Moscow residents in fact think so ill of him that he has to use a proxy to buy property! Yet he revels in all the controversy, enjoying every opportunity he has to insult and mock his “enemies”—but I repeat myself—which seems hardly to fit the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15-16.
Look at the articles I’ve linked above, and, if you’re of a mind to, look at the articles I link to in Part 2. Read carefully; it behooves us as followers of our Lord to be able to make a reasoned case, with integrity, for our stance on matters such as this. How much has to be said and written, how much dirt on the man has to be accumulated, before you will allow that maybe his detractors are right? These aren’t a bunch of angry feminists and “intoleristas” making a fuss and railing against the conservative complementarian Reformed pastor. Some of them, it’s true, are what he might call feminists (I would say he uses that word rather loosely), some are unabashedly egalitarian in their understanding of marriage and gender roles, and some are most definitely not fans of the institutional church, or at least of its “Reformed” expressions (it’s worth noting that in some cases the anti-male headship and anti-church mentalities are largely because of what they saw and experienced in communities led or influenced by Doug Wilson or others like him); but others still hold to the Ephesians 5 prescription for marriage and are faithful Calvinists besides. How many people from both sides of the various debates need to speak out before you start hearing them? How many ex-Christ Church members, or people disaffected with the denomination he founded, the CREC (Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches; or, as one critic said, tongue-in-cheek: Charlatans Rationalizing Egregious Carnality) need to tell their story before you listen?
How much has to be said before you see The Doug for what he is?
And again, if you’re still of a mind to dismiss the myriad of diverse voices raised against Wilson, I hope you can at least stop linking to his blog and recommending his books. Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) blogger Rachel Miller, after examining such things as his lack of academic credentials, his Federal Vision beliefs, his treatment of people who disagree with him, his views of women, his teachings on marriage, etc., put it well:
To all those Reformed, Presbyterians out there who are willing to look past the recent Wilson controversies, is it time to consider if what you like is worth defending? For anything that he’s written that you’ve appreciated, isn’t there someone else who has said something similar without all the baggage? Are the qualifiers worth it?
See Part 2 for additional resources about Doug Wilson.
1There are too many pages I could link here. I settled on the The Truth About Moscow because posts there tend to quote from or summarize, and link to, others which go into greater depth. I’d like to draw special attention to this one, though. It’s just too rich.
3I did not link to anything here because the sort of thing I’m referring to—indeed, some of the specific quotes I have in mind—will crop up if you check out all the pages I linked to. To keep up the tradition of linking to Katie Botkin’s blog in the footnotes, though, I’ll direct you to this relevant piece. Some of the quotes are in there.