On August 15, 2017 a committee appointed by the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, which describes itself as a federation of churches, published its findings regarding the way that Doug Wilson handled two pastoral cases. The report was titled, “Presiding Ministers’ Report on the Sitler and Wight Sex Abuse Cases.” The committee members were Alan Burrow, Tim Bushing, Garrett Craw, Todd Davis, Duane Garner, Rich Lusk, and Jack Phelps. According to the report, Phelps served as “discussion moderator and spokesman as necessary.”

Selections from the report are presented without comment. Footnote references and hyperlinks have been removed in this presentation but are available via the original document.

Jamin 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 particular, the scalding review he was given by the elders of Ancient Hope Church (Los Angeles, CA; now defunct) in the summer of 2003 should have carried more weight in evaluating his qualifications for ministry. This report simply was not given the attention it deserved, and not everyone who should have seen it was given access to it. There were clear indicators in the Ancient Hope report that Wight had serious problems with authority and with treating women with proper respect (resulting in a terminated internship), but this report did not seem to be widely known among Christ Church leadership and was not fully factored into his ongoing training at Greyfriars (Mike Lawyer had no recollection of it, and the elders at Trinity Reformed were not given access to it after Wight transferred to their church). We never received an adequate explanation for this oversight. While Wight was required to make an apology to the elders at Ancient Hope, more should have been done to re-evaluate his fitness for ministry at that time.

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.” In our investigation, we determined that Pastor Wilson’s intention was to distinguish Wight’s conduct from Sitler’s, for Wight was being charged under the same statute — lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor (“L and L”), which covers a broad range of sexual conduct. Prosecutor Bill Thompson indicated that there were technical reasons why he charged Wight with “L and L,” instead of statutory rape, which would ordinarily be the more specific crime applicable to Wight. Pastor Wilson could not have known that, of course, and he mistakenly assumed Wight was being accused of being a pedophile.

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). 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. We recognize that ministers, following Jesus, often have the delicate task of ministering in multiple directions out of the same events — sometimes providing wisdom, sometimes comfort, sometimes correction. When a pastor finds it prudent (for the good of the person concerned) to suggest greater wisdom to a victim or a victim’s family member in the context of a criminal case, extreme care and sensitivity must be exercised in terms of timing, setting, and content. Such a conversation would likely be much better received if conducted after the criminal proceedings are over, in a personal setting, one-on-one, and face-to-face. Sex abuse victims, in this context, should be receiving Christian counseling by one specially trained in sex abuse treatment (as we point out elsewhere), and a suggestion of greater wisdom (if one is needed) should in all likelihood come from the specialized counselor; a pastor should ordinarily not undertake the matter apart from the advice of the counselor.

Steven Sittler

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. Sadly, as MinistrySafe has pointed out, churches in general do not have a good track record in promptly and adequately reporting sexual abuse allegations. Sitler was initially confronted and admitted his conduct in early March 2005. Sitler immediately left Moscow to reside with his parents in Colville, Washington. Pastor Wilson informed the session of Sitler’s crimes at the next weekly session meeting, and Sitler was expelled from New St. Andrews for (unspecified) “criminal activity.” In July 2005, Sitler pled guilty to one count of Lewd Conduct with a Minor (he privately confessed to molesting 15+ children across several states), and in September he was incarcerated for six months at Cottonwood for evaluation. He was subsequently sentenced to one year in the Latah County jail, and was ultimately released on supervised probation on May 4, 2007.

The session first officially notified the congregation of Sitler’s molestations at the Head of Household meeting of November 2005, while Sitler was confined at Cottonwood, which was almost eight months after church leadership became aware of his abuse. Even though Sitler was out of Moscow or confined during virtually all of that eight months, church leadership should have officially informed the congregation immediately, for there are other important concerns in play besides just removing the immediate threat. Immediate official notice is necessary to allow parents to determine if their own children have been exposed to the predator and subjected to abuse, as well as for getting victims help as soon as possible. This is an area where our churches need expert training, and it is one of the reasons we have consulted with MinistrySafe.

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. 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.” We are satisfied that what Pastor Wilson meant was, in light of all the circumstances, including Sitler’s self-disclosure and acceptance of responsibility, that the sentencing judge would not just put Sitler in prison and throw away the key. Nevertheless, a recommendation from a pastor for a “measured and limited” sentence for a serial child molester, whatever the intentions, is the kind of thing that can lead to a lot of heartache for victims and their families, and a lot of confusion by the public. It would have been wiser for Pastor Wilson to simply stick to communicating about the facts of the case as he was familiar with them, and let the judge do his job of determining an appropriate sentence under current law.

In the case of the Sitler/Travis wedding, several things could have been done with greater pastoral care and foresight by Christ Church leadership. While Katie Travis (now Katie Sitler) asserts she was fully informed about Sitler’s past crimes, it is not clear her family or home church elders were (the committee’s interviews with the concerned parties did not yield a clear answer to this question). Christ Church elder Ed Iverson, who introduced Travis and Sitler (with her father’s permission and in response to a request by Travis for help in finding a Christian husband), stated in our interview that he was unaware that Sitler had multiple underage victims. Again, this suggests a breakdown in communication of vital information. Among Christ Church’s leadership, everyone seemed to assume that someone else was dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s. Sincerity is not in question; the process is.

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.

With those principles in mind, we turn to Pastor Wilson’s blogging responses to critics regarding the Sitler and Wight cases. To begin with, we note that a number of posts and articles by critics of Pastor Wilson were factually inaccurate or else materially incomplete, and that others picked up the allegations and repeated them without fully delving into the complex facts. As a result, serious allegations were picked up and repeated uncritically. We are completely sympathetic with the sense of unfair play that this created.

All of that being true, it is also true, in our judgment, that Pastor Wilson’s blog posts did not always reflect the principles we have tried to enunciate, and as a result they helped inflame the controversy rather than calm it. In saying this, we are speaking about Pastor Wilson’s blogging with regard to the Sitler and Wight controversies, not his blogging in general.

Wit, jauntiness, playful mischievousness — these can make writing more interesting, fun, and memorable. This is no less true of Christian writing, as the works of G.K. Chesterton attest. Moreover, when one is contending with mockers of the faith or engaging a pointedly godless culture, as Pastor Wilson often has done, satire, ridicule, and sometimes even shocking rhetoric can be appropriate.

Pastor Wilson’s effectiveness as a contender for the faith has been noted by many, including Ross Douthat of the New York Times. That is all good. 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, it is 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.

• 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 heard (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.

RESOURCES

• It Can Be Difficult But We Need To Open Our Eyes And Pay Attention To The Facts
• 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
• 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