As he is wont to do, Doug Wilson wrote and published to the general public a strongly-worded opinion piece regarding a matter of current controversy. I responded to him here, and Phil Johnson added several helpful points here. As an aside, I actually was not aware that Phil and Doug were friends. I say that only to highlight Phil’s fair-minded impartiality in posting my article, and to reiterate that my words are my own and should not be attributed to Phil or anyone else. Regardless, Wilson replied here, which is the occasion for this article. Like Wilson, I will not be addressing everything.

For all of Wilson’s protestations about “one-sided story-telling” and people being “free to accuse without consequences,” the reality is that my conclusions have been formed based on formal judicial actions and official public documents relating to the cases of Sitler and Wight, and as I mentioned in the comments to my previous article, CREC’s final 2017 Presiding Ministers’ Report about Wilson. So yes, that means a lot of sworn testimony and opportunities to cross-examine, which is also the case with a large portion of Denhollander’s March 1, 2018 summary about Sovereign Grace. In that light, my conscience does not impel me in the slightest to attempt to reinvent the wheel by interviewing or cross-examining witnesses who have already spoken on the record. In any event, putting to the side his many criticisms of GRACE and Tchvidjian, the organization that did conduct an investigation of the Sitler and Wight matters was Wilson’s own CREC denomination, and I phrase it that way because Wilson essentially formed the denomination, has previously been its Presiding Minister, and is its most well-known minister. Despite the potential for bias in an in-house investigation, it was interesting to note that the final Presiding Ministers’ Report contained numerous clear and at times rather searing corrections for Wilson, some of which the most concerning are excerpted below:

1. Evaluation and Support of Wight
   In the Jamin Wight case, Christ Church leadership should have been far more careful in evaluating his character and fitness for ministry, and could have done so at an earlier date… In short, the great damage caused by Wight could have been mitigated by more rigorous forms of evaluation and accountability… In dealing with the Jamin/[redacted] marriage situation, it seems that it might have been wiser for the Trinity and Christ Church counselors to have had more individual sessions with [redacted] separate from Jamin, since it appears that [redacted] was often intimidated by Jamin’s presence in the joint sessions. . . The committee also questions the wisdom of some of the language used to describe Wight and his crimes. In a letter to Officer Green, Pastor Wilson of Christ Church denied that Wight was a “sexual predator.”11. . . Weighing in on whether a defendant is a “sexual predator” or whether he is properly charged with a certain crime is almost certain to cause unintended harm. For example, it can easily suggest to victims, even as it did in both the Wight case and the Sitler case, that the crimes against them are being minimized by the church… Also, in a letter to Gary Greenfield, Pastor Wilson stated that the Christ Church session was “distressed over the way Jamin took sinful advantage of your daughter,” but “just as distressed at your extremely poor judgment as a father and protector” (emphasis added).12 This kind of language, especially in written form, is virtually sure to be received by victims and their families, as well as by many in the public, as blame-shifting from the criminal perpetrator onto those who are suffering the pain of the crime. As such, it is counterproductive. . .
2. Counseling and Pastoral Care of the Greenfields
   Christ Church should have done more to care for Natalie and her family after the abuse became known. Pastor Wilson appropriately has sought forgiveness for failing to press harder against Gary Greenfield’s objections in order to reach out to Natalie. We also believe the church could have provided better counseling services for Natalie (preferably a female counselor specifically trained to deal with sex abuse victims), as well as providing a wider and more sympathetic support network to help her deal with the shame, isolation, and trauma that follow such abuse. It would have been good for someone other than Pastor Wilson to be her primary counselor; she needed to be ministered to by someone with expertise in sexual trauma.
3. Communications about Sitler’s Molestations
   In the Sitler case, it was a serious mistake for Christ Church leadership not to formally inform the congregation (or, more specifically, all parents of young children in the congregation) of his pattern of serial molestations immediately after it came to light. . . There were other communication breakdowns regarding the Sitler case. For example, Christ Church elder Ed Iverson, who helped bring Katie Travis together with Sitler, was unaware of the full extent of Sitler’s sexual crimes (specifically, he was unaware that Sitler had molested multiple children).15 . . . Finally, with regard to Pastor Wilson’s letter to Sitler’s sentencing judge, we reiterate our previous cautions about pastors interacting with the legal system.16 In the letter, Pastor Wilson stated that he was “grateful” that Sitler would be “sentenced for his behavior” and that he wanted “hard consequences for him,” but at the same time urged that the sentence be “measured and limited.”. . .
4. Sitler/Travis Marriage Complications
   In the case of the Sitler/Travis wedding, several things could have been done with greater pastoral care and foresight by Christ Church leadership. . . Under the circumstances, we strongly question the wisdom of Christ Church leadership in supporting and solemnizing the Sitler/Travis marriage. Looking at the court record, everything seems to have been barreling down the tracks, with both the court and the church on their heels. The judge was brought in only ten days before the wedding, and regarding the child, the judge was not brought in at all until after the child was born. . . Unfortunately, in the Sitler situation, we see no evidence these questions were seriously explored, let alone answered. There did not seem to be time. But would not that fact alone be reason enough to withhold support for the marriage and childbearing, at least until these questions could be adequately addressed? . . .
5. Sitler’s Reintegration into the Congregation
   Churches should carefully consider whether it is feasible or wise to try to minister to a sex offender if the offender has victims in the congregation—even if the church has the victims’ consent. It is very difficult for churches to ensure that all of the inevitable distress, inconvenience, and awkwardness are borne by the offender, and none at all by the victims. This is not meant as punishment for the offender; it is simply part of accepting responsibility, which is the first step on the road to rehabilitation (as many sentencing judges have told defendants before them). Having offenders remain in the congregation can lead to victims leaving, as in fact happened in this case. . .

Pastor Wilson’s Blogging Responses

. . . But when it comes to matters such as the Sitler and Wight cases, especially when victims are involved, an entirely different voice needs to be heard—one clad not in battle regalia, but in a humble linen tunic. Not only is this glorifying to God and the right thing to do, but it is also a kindness to victims, as well as to internet onlookers, who may already be confused by the allegations, and who will likely become even more confused by pastoral responses made with sword and mace. Had biblical humility and prudence been placed more to the fore—and that is what our suggestions are trying to express—we believe it would have placed Pastor Wilson and the entire controversy on a higher road.

In that regard, let us point out a few specifics we believe are inconsistent with the high road:

Engaging in online disputes with a person formerly under a pastor’s care, particularly when the person has been sexually abused in any way. It is not wise for a pastor to argue with a sex abuse victim in public over the details of her case. It would be better for the pastor to absorb any wrongful accusations rather than engage in this kind of argument (I Cor 6:7).

Discussing sensitive pastoral cases online. Such discussion can make others who need help more reluctant to seek it, for fear of having their cases turned into blog posts or Twitter fodder. It can also give the impression that a church is not a place where victims’ voices can be 2heard (and all too often victims’ voices have been suppressed in the church). While many in the general public may have no qualms about such discussions of personal matters, pastors should always take the high road.

Using unnecessarily provocative language, including derogatory or calloused language about women. Referring to certain women as “small breasted biddies” or “lumberjack dykes” is not likely to serve an edifying purpose in this context. We note that this language has caused a good deal of anguish among pastors and elders of CREC churches who would otherwise be supportive of Pastor Wilson’s ministry. Pastors should be careful not to give women reasons to avoid seeking help from the church. Instead, we should make it clear that the church is a place where all people are treated with honor and respect, and where victims can find grace.

In this particular case, Pastor Wilson’s rhetoric has, unfortunately, been found offensive and inappropriate even by many in his own denomination (including other pastors and elders). Pastor Wilson’s blog posts regarding these cases have proved to be quite divisive even amongst those who consider him a friend and ally. A more prudent and temperate use of language would be helpful. . .

Interestingly, even after much clicking, I am unable to navigate to the report from the Christ Church home page. It does not appear to show up on the Christ Church domain, even after very specific Google searches, and when I go to the direct link, the report is contained within an odd and difficult-to-use document interface that prohibits copying and pasting and downloading.¹ Say it ain’t so, Joe, but it is almost as if Wilson is doing his level best to downplay or even bury the public report. I also note with great interest that neither Wilson in his reply article to me, nor his daughter-in-law in the links she kindly provided in the comments to my article, nor any of the other supporters of Wilson in those comments, either linked to or even mentioned this report.

Accordingly, it is deliciously ironic to see Wilson question whether or not I am to be “a trusted purveyor of information” and speculate about my “agenda” merely for declining to link in advance to some of his favorite defenses, particularly since Wilson himself is not a constant practitioner of this type of linking. My article was obviously an opinion piece opposing his position which made no claim to being comprehensive, and since my focus was on broader issues, I devoted just two sentences to Sitler and Wight.

In any event, it is true that no one will ever know the full or complete story, and that there could always be one last detail which could potentially turn the case. Here in the real world, we will always have limited capacity, imperfect information, and fallible minds. We are still called, however, to make discernments and judgments, particularly of people in the church per 1 Corinthians 5:12. Sometimes those judgments will happen in criminal or civil court (with the caveat that I certainly agree with Wilson that believers ought to heed 1 Corinthians 6:1–8), sometimes it will be an ecclesiastical body with authority over the subject, as was the case in the CREC report and Wilson.

Sometimes it will happen in the court of public opinion, both inside and outside the church. That is the plain reality of the concept that the Bible calls reputation, and we see it in places such as Ecclesiastes 7:1, Proverbs 22:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-7 (which I highlighted in my previous article), and 1 Peter 2:12. That last verse is particularly interesting, in that it calls us to make sure our conduct is so honorable that even when non-believers (wrongly) speak against us Christians as evildoers, our good works will serve as an even starker witness. So, when a watching world condemns us for holding a biblical view of marriage, they will also have no choice but to acknowledge begrudgingly that we have in fact loved and cared for all people regardless of their particular inclinations, and not, say, insulted them as “small breasted biddies” or “lumberjack dykes” in Wilson’s inimitable style.

To be clear, I stand against “mob justice” and “lynch mobs” right alongside Phil and Wilson. I also deplore the Twitter and mainstream media “rush to judgment” mobs, with the recent Nick Sandmann and Jussie Smollett cases giving us two prime examples why. As I stated in my previous article, I share Wilson’s views on the importance of the presumption of innocence and his concerns about the “woke” movement in the SBC and beyond. I have absolutely zero interest in defenestrating, detaining, deporting, or even denouncing Wilson, really. None of those factors are at issue here. What I am saying is that people make reputational judgments all the time, from Yelp reviews to dating decisions to job prospects to churches, and usually with far less information than months and years worth of public court documents and other hard evidence that we have seen in the Sitler, Wight, CREC, and Sovereign Grace situations. From that wealth of information, after careful consideration and not rushing to judgment, my utterly draconian proposals are that maybe Wilson should think twice before turning his rhetorical blowtorch up to eleven on the topic of abuse, and that Sovereign Grace should engage an independent investigation. Remember that the next time someone tries to tell you I am looking to jackhammer the foundations of Western Civilization.

This brings me to the matter of Wilson’s reputation, for he does indeed have one, given his high profile and his frequent and eager use of serrated blades on the Internet to propagate his own strong convictions and viewpoints. As a slightly more than casual observer for over a decade, I would say that Wilson has a reputation for being a brilliant writer with an acid pen. He preaches a generally sound gospel and promotes a generally biblical worldview, despite some minor to moderate concerns over matters such as paedocommunion, postmillennial theonomy, and Federal Vision (whether he is actually calling it that or not, these days). Obviously, he has a highly devoted flock of congregants, and I say that with genuine appreciation. He is Mr. No Quarter November, who hates giving even an inch if he can possibly avoid it.² I would close by saying he is more than a little bit brash and bold, so much so that he often comes off like a bull in a china shop. Wilson himself has acknowledged similar things in the past, but the thing I would sadly add is that, from my perception, it is true to such an extent that I honestly cringe at even the notion of him attempting to counsel and shepherd abuse survivors, particularly in light of the public record on the Sitler and Wight matters. Before he or anyone else accuses me of being uncharitable, I will simply repeat the findings of the final Presiding Ministers’ Report:

We note that this language has caused a good deal of anguish among pastors and elders of CREC churches who would otherwise be supportive of Pastor Wilson’s ministry. Pastors should be careful not to give women reasons to avoid seeking help from the church. Instead, we should make it clear that the church is a place where all people are treated with honor and respect, and where victims can find grace.

In this particular case, Pastor Wilson’s rhetoric has, unfortunately, been found offensive and inappropriate even by many in his own denomination (including other pastors and elders). Pastor Wilson’s blog posts regarding these cases have proved to be quite divisive even amongst those who consider him a friend and ally. A more prudent and temperate use of language would be helpful. . .

Despite all of this, Wilson still considers himself to be well-positioned to speak on these issues, apparently because he is a long-suffering martyr who is used to false accusations. In light of the CREC report and the court filings, however, I cannot help but think that adopting a course of discreet humility would be far better than the risk of harm and disaster that comes from speaking out of a potentially misplaced self-righteousness.

Anyway, Wilson is a big boy who gives far better than he gets, while I am merely “a gent named Hohn Cho.” I have great confidence that this series of exchanges will have no lasting impact on his feelings, reputation, or honor. My far larger concern, and the reason I was even moved to say anything in the first place, is for the feelings, reputations, and honor of the victims of Sitler and Wight, for Denhollander and Mohler, and for survivors and their honorable advocates. They are inevitably the ones who are harmed by careless and unprofitable words, as I believe many of Wilson’s have been, as CREC wisely pointed out. But again, I am of no real account here, and so I do not have any expectation whatsoever that Wilson will heed what I say.

I do pray, however, that as a minister called to the biblical standards and qualifications of an elder, and as a man under authority of his denomination, he will ultimately heed the wise counsel of his own denomination’s Presiding Ministers’ Report.

Editor’s Note: This was first published in 2019 and appears here by permission of the author.

---

Notes

1. The Website That Shall Not Be Named, for the benefit of Wilson’s supporters, has conveniently provided a fully searchable document with added hyperlinks to other referenced documents. As far as I could tell, the text otherwise appears identical to the version on Christ Church’s website, but I will patiently await accusations that it is somehow a fraud. Editor’s Note: a link to the CREC Presiding Ministers’ Report 2017 can now be found on the denominational website. 
2. I stand by my perception that Wilson is known for doubling down far more than for apologies, but I acknowledge with thanks his link to point #7 of his Controversy Library, which I had never seen before. It contains links to two apologies from 2005 and 2015 for what I would call negligence relating to co-authors’ apparently unintentional plagiarism (the latter of which happens to relate to A Justice Primer, the very book he cited in his original article that I responded to), an apology to friends for a certain paragraph order Wilson used in the Sitler matter in 2015, and what I think is an apology relating to any offense from his “race” conversations with Thabiti Anyabwile in 2013. Whether the form and substance of these statements constitute “material” apologies I will leave to the reader, but having now been informed, I am more than willing to stop saying that I cannot recall any apologies by Wilson.

---

RESOURCES

• Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• What Must A Christian Believe?
• Heidelblog Contributors
• It Can Be Difficult But We Need To Open Our Eyes And Pay Attention To The Facts
• Resources On Spiritual, Physical, and Sexual Abuse In the Church
• On Missing The Point Of Sexual Abuse
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

---

Post authored by:

• Hohn Cho

  

  Hohn Cho has been an attorney practicing in Southern California for 28 years, with an emphasis on corporate law. He was radically converted in 2004 while working as a lawyer in the entertainment industry, and has ministered to Christians in contexts including singles, college and career, married couples, and church plants and revitalizations. He has a passion for issues such as the protection of women and children, biblical (as distinct from “social”) justice, Christian liberty and legalism, and matters of conscience. He was an elder at a large church for approximately seven-and-a-half years. Currently, he is a congregant at Christ Bible Church, pastored by Patrick Carmichael. He married his wonderful wife, Heather, in 2012, and they have four delightful children.

  More by Hohn Cho ›