Sunday, June 11, 2006

Open Letter To CREC Pastor Doug Wilson

Doug Wilson Confederation of Reformed Evangelical ChurchesDear Doug,

I've been an admirer of your writings (at least some of them) for some time. I've read a number of your books and found some merit in them, including:
  • Future Men
  • Federal Husband
  • Reforming Marriage
  • My Life For Yours: A Walk Through The Christian Home
  • Standing On The Promises : A Handbook Of Biblical Childrearing
In the past I've been blessed by your writing. Not that you've really taught me much of anything. Much of what you've said in these books are things that I've practiced for years anyway. It's just a blessing to find a writer who supports my own worldview (well, at least I used to think that maybe we had similar worldviews). I've been able to recommend your books to others as a means of recommending a worldview which is tragically lacking in the church today.

Sadly, I can no longer recommend your books. It's not that some of your books aren't good and useful. The big problem is one of "guilt by association." Recommending your books is too easily misconstrued as a recommendation of Doug Wilson himself, not just Doug Wilson the author, but also Doug Wilson the Pastor. From what I've been learning about you, you're one of the last men that I should be recommending as an example of godly Christian character. I'm even less able to recommend you as an example of a godly pastor. It's the same problem I now have in being able to recommend RC Sproul Jr's books. It's not that his books aren't good, it's that the man who wrote them isn't good. Like you he doesn't practice what he preaches.

I used to regularly read Credenda Agenda, until the "serrated edge" started slicing the wrong way. Furthermore, your "enemy theology" is the last kind of influence I need in my life when I sometimes already struggle with forgiveness. It's the same problem all over again with my not being able to continue recommending RC Sproul Jr's Highlands Study Center periodical, Every Thought Captive. RC Jr has tried to imitate you in his writing. He long ago acknowledged that he wanted ETC to emulate Credenda Agenda. Bad choice. Reading ETC is every bit as tedious and annoying as reading Credenda Agenda.

In some ways, Doug, you remind me of a man who enjoys petting a cat's fur in the wrong direction -- the cat know's she's being petted, and she knows she should enjoy being petted. But this isn't nice petting, it's malicious petting, so she doesn't enjoy it one bit. It's annoying.

It's come to the point, Doug, where you've become far less of a blessing and far more an annoyance. I can no longer read Credenda Agenda, and I haven't for at least two years. I've got the same problem with reading RC Jr's ETC and RC Jr's blog. I can't read your blog either, Doug. Your books I can understand because they're written in such a way that the brains of normal human beings can readily understand them. You must have a good book editor because all your other writing, especially your blog, causes me to wonder if you were smoking pot. My neurons just aren't wired in that Wilsonian alternate universe sort of way, so trying to comprehend your blog is just a further annoyance. Life is already so full of so much annoyance and noise pollution. You shouldn't be just further contributing to the insanity.

What little blessing that might come from reading your books is more than offset by the curse of your self-righteous, obnoxious, sarcastic, puerile Blog and MaBlog and Credenda Agenda articles masquerading as intellectual mysticism.

On the other hand, reading Blog and MaBlog (or as some call it "Blah and MoreBlah") has provided some folks (who must have better perception than me) with some valuable insight into Dougsworld. For example, Hammerman predicted an imminent sex scandal based on reading between the lines of one of your recent blog articles. Hammer's annoyance-tolerance must be a whole lot higher than mine if he can stomach regularly perusing your blog. Then Hammer's predictions were confirmed. Your eight month cover-up of the Christ Church/New Saint Andrews pedophilia tragedy quickly exploded into a scandal of legendary proportions. Your circle the wagons and play the victim strategy has ensured that this is a scandal that the community of Moscow, ID can't soon forget. You are a stumbling stone to the unsaved and an embarrassment to many in your local community who name the name of Jesus Christ.

That's not just one pedophile scandal, but two, two pedophiles molesting the children of your church members under your pastoral care over virtually the same period of time, and out of a tiny college with barely over 100 students. So what is it about your infrastructure, what is it about what you and your college teaches that serves as a magnet for perverts?

Has it happened in secular colleges? Probably, but we expect secular Christ-denying institutions to attract those sorts. Has it happened in other churches? Occasionally, but I can't say as I've ever heard of it happening twice at virtually the same time in the same Christian college and the same church. One has to wonder if you're actually teaching a biblical worldview at all, or just Dougview. Parents would have to be just plain ignorant or out of their minds to now entrust their kids to you and send them to New Saint Andrews College.

What kind of a shepherd are you, Doug? Shepherds protect sheep, and if a predator, like a wolf, attacks the sheep, the shepherd goes after the wolf and kills it. This point bears repeating, so I'll come back to it again later.

When I first heard about your pedophile scandal, Doug, I felt sorry for you. What an awful terrible thing for a pastor to have to deal with -- ministering to families whose lives have been shattered and forever changed by a pervert who preyed right in their church upon their most vulnerable -- their dear little ones. I'm not exactly sure what you've done to minister to those families. Few will probably ever know that. No one wants to know who those families are. They're entitled to their privacy and no one should encroach on that, and I seriously doubt anyone will.

But what we do know of is your "ministry" to NSA student and child molester Steven Sitler, a predatory pervert who molested multiple children over several years in several states, including in your own church. Your "ministry" to Steven Sitler included writing Judge John Stegner and asking the judge for a light sentence:

"I would urge that the civil penalties applied would be measured and limited. I have a good hope that Steven has genuinely repented, and that he will continue to deal with this to become a productive and contributing member of society."

What kind of humanistic claptrap is this, Doug? Who really cares if Sitler ever does "become a productive and contributing member of society" through what you have termed "secular therapy"? Show us where you got that vernacular from. Is it biblical? Freudianism? Skinnerism?

Oh, and let's not forget that you've equated Sitler's crimes to a mere violation of the 7th Commandment! Molesting 2-12 year old children is adultery? Are you really that stupid Doug, or are you obstructing justice by your perverse interpretation of Scripture? Molesting children isn't adultery, it's rape, and as you well know serial rapists warrant something a whole lot more onerous than a one year slap on the wrist in the Latah County Jail (commonly referred to as the "Latah Hilton"), say like the death penalty. You have in no way aided in the process of obtaining justice -- particularly biblical justice. All you've done is derail and pervert justice.

As if pleading to the judge for a light sentence on behalf of a confessed serial child molester weren't bad enough, you obtained for Steven Sitler's legal defense your NSA college's own attorney! What are you thinking, Doug? What possible personal interest could you have in defending Sitler and protecting him from what he biblically deserves? Why are you using Freudian psychobabble to get him off the hook?

What kind of a shepherd are you, Doug? Shepherds protect sheep, and if a predator, like a wolf, attacks the sheep, the shepherd goes after the wolf and kills it. At the very least a real shepherd doesn't plead for light jail sentences. Shepherds don't protect wolves. That's what hirelings do:
But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. John 10:12-13
You claim to be concerned for your sheep, Doug, concerned for the victims. But all you're doing is hiding behind them, using them as human shields, in a vain effort to dissuade your critics from a thorough examination of your dubious actions. Over and over again you and your toadies have cried, "Stop talking about it. Stop. Talking about it hurts the victims. It's just dragging up the past. They don't want anyone talking about it." I wish I could believe you, Doug, but I've seen more than enough evidence of your life to know how much you just use people for your own agenda.

I realize Doug, everyone realizes, that you'd much prefer it if everyone were to just stop talking about the fact that you had two child molesters preying on little children in your little college and church at the same time. Ordinarily you'd enjoy being the center of attention, but being under this kind of spotlight isn't pleasant, and you don't like being held accountable. This is a very volatile subject in Moscow Idaho. It doesn't get any more volative than child molestation. The only thing that could make it more volatile is if there were some appearance of a cover up (which there is). Whether you like it or not it will be talked about, and all your sanctimonious pontificating about how any talk will hurt the victims lacks credibility.

What's even more absurd is how you and your followers have claimed that any talk risks exposing the identities of the victims. Please Doug! Can't you do any better than that? Most of the court record is sealed specifically to protect the identities of the victims, and if anyone besides you were to know the identities of the victims why would they be so foolish as to disclose them? Tragically, if victim identities are known they were disclosed by Steven Sitler himself when he posted all those pictures of so many kids on his family's web site. Thankfully now that site has been password protected, but I have to wonder how many people were able to see it, or maybe even download all the pictures, before public access was blocked.

Doug, did you know that Sitler was operating a "trophy site" of his victims? Did you know that he had uploaded hundreds of photos of little children, many of which were uploaded after he had been arrested, after he had confessed to his crimes, and right before he had been sentenced? You've vouched for Sitler's character, Doug. You told the judge and you've told all of us that Sitler "repented." Yet, he was still uploading kiddie pictures to his trophy site after he'd "repented." Still standing by your story, Doug? Do you still "have a good hope that Steven has genuinely repented"? Are you still willing to go on the record that Silter will "become a productive and contributing member of society"?

If you were genuinely concerned for your sheep you wouldn't have concealed Sitler's actions for eight months. You wouldn't have just expelled Sitler from NSA for some unspecified "criminal" conduct. You would have exposed Sitler publicly as a serial pedophile and admonished parents to speak to their children. You would have been forthright in taking steps to determine if any other children had been molested, and the fact is that it's a very real possibility that others were molested. Instead, in true hireling fashion, you kept it all a secret, no doubt hoping the Sitler affair would never see the light of day.

Now your neighbors in the Moscow community in which you reside are outraged, and justifiably so. They're taking you to task, including on the community listserve Vision 2020, and what has been your response? You mock them as "Intoleristas" with you "serrated edge" sarcasm. You ridicule their just concerns over your negligence at best, or your cover up at worst. They make reasonable inquiries about what you knew and when you knew it and who you told when. Rather than being forthright your smart aleck responses only tend to confirm what appears to be a cover up. I have never witnessed a pastor who is so inept at community relations as you are Doug.

Your latest response is to justify your actions under the guise of "I am a pastor. And I cover up sins for a living." Unbelievable! And all the while you continue justifying your actions with your self-righteous Scripture-twisting subterfuge. You've just become too predictable, Doug.

You're a liar, Doug Wilson, a very big liar. You lie to your church members. You lie to the greater Moscow community. You're a dishonest, contentious, lying annoyance, and you're an embarrassment to those who name the name of Jesus Christ.

It's all starting to make sense now why you'd be so interested in "clearing the name" of a dishonest tyrannical defrocked tax cheat like RC Sproul Jr. You two are peas in a pod. Birds of a feather. You deserve each other, and now I'm actually quite pleased that RC Sproul Jr has found a home with you in your fly-by-night CREC "confederation." Since RC Jr refuses to take the hint of being defrocked and leave the pastoral profession for which he so obviously lacks any qualifications, let him be "considered ordained" in the one and only phony denomination where being defrocked means nothing. Let him carry the title "pastor" in an organization that has no pastoral standards and "considers" men to be "ordained" to the ministry who shouldn't be in the ministry -- men such as yourself, for example.

In spite of the few good and non-annoying books that you've written, I've recently come to much more deeply appreciate how a man's personal honesty and integrity, or a lack thereof, has a profound impact on his theology and doctrinal innovations, and thus, on what he espouses and writes. It's caused me to take a second and more critical look at your "Federal Vison." Though you claim to be "Reformed," though you claim to be a "Presbyterian," it's become all too apparent what a hoax your claims really are. A dishonest man is unlikely to expound honest theology.

For this I can thank you. Your dubious character has compelled me to return to the Bible and to the faith of my Reformed fathers. It's caused me to return to the Westminster Confession and the five solas -- pure and unadulterated by the perverse innovations of dishonest men like yourself.

Doug Wilson, repent of your sins and beg forgiveness of your congregation for having conducted yourself as a self-serving hireling, rather than a sacrificial shepherd.


At 8:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is completely off subject, but I read your profile and it said that you were in marketing and fund-raising. If so, I am in desperate need of finding someone with your talent. I am a Missionary and have set out to do a work that is IMPOSSIBLE. Anyway, if you are interested... is the e-mail.

At 5:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear RC2,

You should get all the facts before you launch off on a tirade such as this. You simply do not have all the facts. You are another hapless victim of poostink and others who are using this tragedy to bash Wilson. If I were you, I'd wipe that egg off my's dribbling on your chin now...and go get some real facts. You will soon discover that the reason those books you refer to above were edifying is because the man who wrote them is indeed a good man.

From someone with first hand knowledge in Moscow

At 5:58 PM, Blogger Austin Storm said...

So many of your facts are wrong that it's impossible to take you seriously.

At 5:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nicely done! It won't help, 'cause he doesn't listen to anyone (not even his own father or brothers) but still, very well thought out and argued. Thank you.


At 7:39 PM, Blogger RC 2.0 said...

silvercup, the industry profile stuff was intended as sarcasm and a statement about RC Sproul Jr's six-figure fundraising boondoggle to "fund" a "Study Center" that has no identifiable students. If that's the kind of help you need we'd suggest contacting RC Jr directly yourself.

At 7:52 PM, Blogger RC 2.0 said...

Austin, thanks for your brilliant insights and for doing such a thorough job of assisting me with getting my facts straight. I am honored and awestruck to have had this privilege of being corrected by someone of such obviously superior mental faculties. Thank you. Thank you.

At 9:05 PM, Blogger RC 2.0 said...

Thank you Anonymous #2. Your statements are every bit as brilliant and insightful as Austin's. For the sake of argument let's assume you're a Wilson toadie, shall we? Your comments certainly seem to indicate as much.

"Get all the facts. You don't have all the facts," in Dougspeak roughly translates, "Since you don't know 100% of the entire story you're not allowed to express an opinion about it at all."

Your logic is defective Anonymous #2, and you're every bit the hypocrite that Wilson is for saying it. It's rare in life that any of us ever has 100% of the facts of what we express opinions about. Doug Wilson himself is a grand example of this. Doug Wilson is one of the most opinionated people on the planet. Yet he also often speaks where his knowledge of the subject may only include, say, 50% of the facts (yes, I know I'm being generous with 50%).

"Get your facts straight" in Dougspeak also means "I know more than you do, and I'm not going to tell you what I know, I'm just going to criticize you for not knowing everything I know, and I'll make fun of you too (nah-nah, nah-nah, nah-nah)." So we won't be looking for you to come back and fill us in with that vast storehouse of facts that you possess.

At 9:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like he anonymous posters are taking the template for Kirker responses:
1. You don't know all the facts.
2. Doug Wilson knows all the facts.
3. Doug Wilson told me he's a good guy.
4. You must be wrong.
My advice to your Kirkers: take a look at the evidence and you may take some issue with number 3.

At 9:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok. I'll bite. You say:
As if pleading to the judge for a light sentence on behalf of a confessed serial child molester weren't bad enough, you obtained for Steven Sitler's legal defense your NSA college's own attorney! What are you thinking, Doug? What possible personal interest could you have in defending Sitler and protecting him from what he biblically deserves? Why are you using Freudian psychobabble to get him off the hook?
My reply: Sitler's family hired a local Christian attorney. This was not paid for by NSA, etc. They needed an attorney to represent their son. There's no conspiracy here...

You say:If you were genuinely concerned for your sheep you wouldn't have concealed Sitler's actions for eight months. You wouldn't have just expelled Sitler from NSA for some unspecified "criminal" conduct. You would have exposed Sitler publicly as a serial pedophile and admonished parents to speak to their children. You would have been forthright in taking steps to determine if any other children had been molested, and the fact is that it's a very real possibility that others were molested. Instead, in true hireling fashion, you kept it all a secret, no doubt hoping the Sitler affair would never see the light of day.
My reply: Sitler was sent off to jail. Prior to his incarceration he was under the equivalent of house arrest in WA. When he was about to potentially be released and possibly return to Moscow, Doug and the elders briefed the heads of households about the situation. It was not covered up.
These are just two examples of how you spin is inaccurate. Hope this helps.

From someone in Moscow with firsthand knowledge

At 8:20 PM, Blogger RC 2.0 said...

Would all of you Wilsonites at least extend the common courtesy of using a name? Even if you just make something up like Ralph or Ted or something? There's now four different people all posting as "Anonymous." Any more like that and I'll just hit "delete."

Now, in response to Anonymous #4:

I never said that Wilson or NSA "paid for" Sitler's attorney. Nor did I use the dreaded "C" word. I do mean to say however that I think it's a major conflict of interest for the school's attorney to be defending in a criminal action one of its own students. So go ahead and tell us Anonymous #4 that Wilson didn't have something to do with arranging that.

"Prior to his incarceration he was under the equivalent of house arrest in WA." Well that sure sounds like a secure place for a serial pedophile to be incarcerated! And so next you're going to tell us that mommy and daddy grounded little Stevie and took away his car keys and locked him in his bedroom so he couldn't molest any more children? I bet the neighbors felt real safe! Was it from his bedroom that he continued uploading pictures of little children to his trophy site?

"When he was about to potentially be released and possibly return to Moscow, Doug and the elders briefed the heads of households about the situation. It was not covered up." Yes it was covered up. For 10 months it was covered up. Parents should have been informed immediately, not ten months later. How could Wilson have known with certainty that Sitler hadn't molested any other children? The only way to have found that out is for every family in the church to have been given a picture of Steven Sitler, and then told, "We'd recommend you sit your children down, show them this picture, and then ask your kids, 'Honey, have you ever been with this man?', and if they have then start in with the more awkward questions next." For ten months that didn't happen, and even today we're not sure that it EVER happened. At the very least that's grossly irresponsible, and at worst it's a cover up, and based upon what I've seen so far I'm leaning toward a cover up -- at the very least a 10 month cover up.

At 2:21 AM, Anonymous Or Somebody said...

That 8 month gap between when Wilson found out Sitler had molested children in Christchurch and when Wilson let other people know is what bothers me the most.
And my fellow anonymous posters- it doesn't matter where Sitler was in all that time or what he was doing.
Wilson was basically relying on SITLER to tell him which, if any, other children he'd abused. Relying on the word of a pediophile to protect the sheep was criminally negligent on Wilson's part. He gave Sitler 8 months of grace,whereby any small children he'd molested could get confused and foggy on the details of what happened to them. He abused children as young as two years of age. Eight months is a long time for the parents of all the two year olds in your church not to be told they might have been exposed to a molester.

It's not his fault Sitler was a creep. It's not his fault that Sitler put himself in a position where he had access to children- that's what predators of his type do. It's not his fault that kids were molested.
But it is his fault that he didn't make that information available immediately to his flock so that they could check with their children and make sure no harm had been done. If there are any children Sitler molested (or young girls that other man tampered with) that Wilson didn't know about because he trusted Sitler's word, then Wilson is responsible for the eight month period those children have been left alone with the pain and horror they experienced, with nobody to treat them, to help them, to reassure them because Wilson decided his church did not need to know a child molester had been with them until the sentencing.
It is inexcusable not to let the flock in on this until eight months have gone by and the ability of the smallest victims to recount what happened to them completely lost. It was inexcusable to take Sitler's word for it that he'd told Wilson everything. Accountability alone would demand that he would check up on Sitler's story as best he could, and basic concern for the children would require that he let parents know asap so that they could make sure their children hadn't been injured.

The parents in your church should have known within days of the confession, Mr. Firsthand, not within days of the sentencing.

And now we know that Sitler was still posting pictures of children from Christchurch on his family's website up until the day he was sentenced- and Wilson says he didn't know about that. Maybe Sitler wasn't as reliable as Wilson thought- and it's not Wilson paying for that, it's any other children he molested that he didn't tell Wilson about.
If Wilson was concerned about that possibility, he'd have let his flock know 8 months sooner than he did, but it looks to me like the only concerns he had were to protect himself- maybe he just didn't want fresh accusations coming out against Sitler. After all, NSA's lawyer had the supposedly 'repentant' Sitler plea bargain down to pleading guilty to only count, even though he had confessed to others.

And that members of his flock can defend him for keeping this vital information to himself for all those months is just totally disturbing. What's WRONG with you sycophants?

If my pastor told me "Eight months ago a man accustomed to visiting our church confessed to abusing some children, and he's going to be sentenced tthis month, so you should all know about it now," I would be furious.

At 11:28 AM, Anonymous Moscow mom said...

I am not a Christ Church member. I follow V2020 quietly. I wonder...for how long do we continue to argue about this? Can we not just agree that you have the right to follow Doug Wilson or not? Can we agree that NOBODY has ALL the facts? I have to say that I am tired of the people who claim to be religious and God loving in some form being so full of hate. You are hurting people. Take your blinders off and you might see. There is nothing left to say so quit posting just to "hear" yourself speak.

At 12:09 PM, Blogger RC 2.0 said...

Thanks Moscow Mom. Obviously though we're doing a lot more than just posting to hear ourselves speak. Not only have you read it but our web stats show that an awful lot of other people are reading too, including a lot of people from right within your own community of Moscow both inside and outside the Kirk.

We don't "hate" Wilson or RC Jr or anyone else Moscow Mom, including you. We're just tired of cultic ecclesiastical tyrants masquerading as shepherds and pastors. They need to take off the robes and go find honest jobs where they can't hurt anyone else.

Moscow Mom your allegation that we're hurting people by what we're posting is eerily Wilsonian. It sounds a lot like Wilson's claim that if people talk about the Sitler scandal and ask Wilson any questions it'll hurt the victims. Just like Wilson's assertion yours is equally foolish and illogical.

At 2:12 PM, Anonymous Moscow Mom said...

You do not know if the victim is being hurt of not. You are closedminded to automatically disregard the possibilty. Calling people foolish is rude and simply incorrect. I think we know who is foolish. Those who tell people to get new jobs because we disagree with their work. You are not a member of the church therefor Pastor Wilson's employment does not concern you. Perhaps you should focus on issues in your own community. Just a thought.

At 2:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You don't have all the facts, and you're hurting the victims. Please pull this website immediately and stop hurting the victims. Besides, you don't have all the facts, and you don't know what you're talking about. And you're hurting the victims. Did I mention that you don't have all the facts?

At 2:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

this is a bit off topic and I am sure does not have much meaning but sexual abuse is much more common then people think. Also covering it up is also very common as is trashing the "victims". many times the victim is trashed in a faith community so the offender is protected. It is getting better, becuase the secular courts have forced the church, kicking and screaming to deal with this issue.
Being on the recieving end of such activities, it sticks with you. I do remember seeking mercy for the situation I was in, that is one mistake I will never make again.

At 11:20 AM, Blogger RC 2.0 said...

"You do not know if the victim is being hurt of not." Well at least you're being somewhat less dishonest than Doug Wilson has been with his "your wounding the victim" defense. At least in your case you're doing a bit better by not claiming that you know that we're allegedly hurting someone.

And by the way that's "victims," of which there are many. And do you know if any of Sitler's many victims are being hurt by the scandal that Wilson has made of this? If you do then feel free to bring forward the evidence. But I won't cease writing on this on the mere speculation that someone somewhere might be hurt by it. Your speculations are further rendered so much foolishness by the fact that no one, and certainly not me, has or will disclose the names of victims. So how is anyone to be hurt? We don't know the names of any of the victims. That part of the court record is sealed, and even if it weren't sealed we're not so crass as to disclose victim identities.

Your ploy is straight out of Wilson's play book -- don't anyone talk about it. The only one who get's to talk about it is Doug because only Doug has all the facts, and if you don't have all the facts you don't get to talk about it, and you'll never have all the facts because Doug isn't talking about it either, at least until he's criticized for being negligent and incompetent at best, and crooked at worst. Then he talks -- a lot, because what really counts is preserving his reputation.

Please, Moscow Mom, don't insult our intelligence with all this talk of protecting victims. We're not that stupid. It's more than obvious what really counts is preserving Doug's reputation, and if he has to hide behind victims and use them as human shields, so be it. Doug will stoop to anything to save his own fat butt.

"You are not a member of the church therefor Pastor Wilson's employment does not concern you." Wait a minute there Moscow Mom! You also said, "I am not a Christ Church member." So it's none of your concern either, right? So since it's none of your concern why are you so concerned that you're expending your valuable time telling me that it's none of my concern? Aren't you being a hypocrite?

At 12:59 PM, Blogger RC 2.0 said...

"Also covering it up is also very common as is trashing the "victims". many times the victim is trashed in a faith community so the offender is protected."

Sigh! I guess it's not going to do a bit of good to ask again for commenters to pick a name (even a fake one). Under "Choose an identity" select the "Other" button and type a name, please. So, Anonymous #6 (is everyone thoroughly confused by now?), let me respond to your comments.

Yours is one possible response scenario to pedophiles in a church community. But there are obviously other possible responses. We're now witnessing one from Doug Wilson. It's called use the victims as human shields, which is somewhat different from blaming them for being sexually abused. But in either case they get used by the religious leaders whose agenda is to cover up and shift responsibility away from themselves.

You also mentioned protecting the offender, which in all the high profile church cases thus far has been a priest. Obviously this case has different perps. Jamin Wight however was a seminary student and a ministerial candidate, whereas Steven Sitler was just your basic run of the mill college student pervert. Sitler does appear to be getting some preferential treatment by Wilson, whereas Wight didn't get anything. Something about all that smells real bad, and it does appear as though Wilson is protecting Sitler.

Between the two of them Sitler is clearly the worse offender, molesting multiple children in several states. Yet his punishment was a mere slap on the wrist sentence of 1 year at the Latah County "Hilton." It wasn't that long ago in our history that Jamin Wight, rather than going to jail, would have been forced to marry his 14 year old "victim," who from all appearances was a very willing sex partner, rather than spend 5 years in jail.

Five years for Wight, one year for Sitler. Yes, it sure looks like Sitler is being protected, and it also looks like Wilson was involved in an 8 month cover up. So what's Wilson's personal interest in Steven Sitler? Only time will tell.

At 12:29 PM, Blogger RC 2.0 said...

Thanks Clarence for:

1. Your brilliant and insightful psychoanalysis.
2. Your stereotyping.
3. Not being able to discredit the message, so shoot the messenger.

Clarence, please don't insult my intelligence by feigning Christian compassion and concern for me. Whether your interest is genuine or not it's misplaced.

My personal motives are irrelevant to the veracity of my arguments, and they only become relevant to those who can't find any valid basis to reject the facts presented here.

At 6:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, yeah, I like your pic of RC, but if I were at his party, I would tell him to choose the Crown over the bourbon. I'm an ARP like RC Jr. used to be when he joined the Tennesee presbytery (in a kilt no less). Cheers.

At 9:57 PM, Blogger Lindon said...

I would think the victims would feel worse if this is brushed under the rug and their pastor was protecting the perp! Talk about a double whammy. You are molested then the pastor (and his followers) want everyone to forget it.

The little kids need to see the bad man humiliated and thrown in jail so he cannot hurt them again.

There are some very questionable things going on with both Sproul and Wilson that their followers refuse to see. (Don't drink any kool aid they offer you)

At 7:23 PM, Anonymous Jeanette said...

It looks like you're taking a lot of heat for exposing Doug Wilson. That's to be expected. His "church" members (some here call them cult members) are very devoted and I've seen evidence that he's got a lot of fans around the country. It's amazing how devoted some people are to the guy including a lot of people who've never even met him and have no idea what a terribly bad pastor he really is.

At 10:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

AAArrrrrgggghhhh! This stuff is frustrating, but refreshing at the same time. Frustrating because i'm sick of Doug Wilson and all associated with him. I used to go to a CREC church and they all act and talk the same and seem unable to reason. It's like the movie "The Village." Refreshing, because although there are some followers of this idiot (and yes, argumentum ad ridiculum is legitimate when it comes to defending the gospel, and he and the whole CREC denomination teach a false gospel for "covenant" members), there are a lot of people who have caught onto his nonsense and others like him. Read my post from my blog: under the baptism article. Presby's will disagree with some of the article, but most of it they will agree with. Much of it adresses this federal vision heresy. Later.

At 12:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hate what Wilson has done in subverting Lewis writings for his own misguided purposes.

Problem is that there is something wrong with the Federal Vision -- it is that power corrupts -- and any time someone sets themselves up as having unchecked power delegated by God himself -- those who are ostensibly ordered by God to submit to them had better watch out.

At 5:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This can be addressed to Clarence.
I have an idea why RC2 is angry.
Its because sin makes a Christian angry, and it should.

I have been able to make little sense of these people here who so want to defend a man who can already well defend himself. Oh, yes, but the children were not defended, as they are already defenseless. Had my child been hurt, I would say to the poor soul who hurt my child, 50 years of jail is sufficient for you, maybe 60. I would not recommend a lower sentence. How can anyone want anything less? Is not a child's life of value? Where are the protectors? I saw no bashing of Wilson here. I see a statement that Wilson made that is stupid, unfeeling, and it protects the wrong person. Pedophile guy made a mistake. So let him pay the consequences. Those children will certainly have to live with his mistakes, he should too. RC2 should be angry. I have enough information to make an informed decision about whether or not I can be angry.

At 7:06 PM, Anonymous Nora said...

Can you please verify whether or not this comment I found on another blog is true or not? "From this photo archive we know that Sitler spent the summer of 2003 at R. C. Sproul Jr.’s Highlands Study Center, where he violated more children."

At 11:31 PM, Blogger RC 2.0 said...

Stephen Sitler was a "student" at the Highlands Study Center the summer of 2003. This was just prior to his moving to Moscow Idaho to join Doug Wilson's Christ Church and NSA. Most have assumed that Sitler first started molesting children in Idaho, but it actually started before that in Virginia, and prior to that in his native Washington.

As "Or Somebody" pointed out Stephen Sitler posted many pictures of young children, boys and girls, on his web site. Some have referred to Sitler's photo site as a "pedophile trophy site" because all appear to be between the ages of 2-12, boys and girls, which fits Sitler's M.O. of the children he targeted for molestation.

Court records are sealed in the Sitler case, but there are some important details we do know. Steven Sitler molested many children, perhaps over a hundred, in at least three states. As part of his plea deal with the Latah County Idaho Prosecutor Sitler had to write letters of apology to the parents of all the children he'd molested. But that was all based on his confession and what he could remember, so there's likely children (and families) he forgot about, perhaps even in states he never mentioned. We're told one of those letters was addressed to RC Jr.

Those already familiar with the layout of the so-called "Highlands Study Center" know it's located in RC Jr's basement. It's also where he boards the "students." It's also where two of RC's children slept in separate bedrooms, one boy, one girl, and both of which were perfect matches to Sitler's M.O. RC and his wife slept in their bedroom upstairs and would have been oblivious to any crimes taking place in their basement. As far as we know RC did nothing to vet Stephen Sitler prior to inviting him into his home for the summer. He trusted a complete stranger with the well being of his own children and gave Sitler free and easy access to them. So while we're grieved for his children we're also disgusted at RC for having been so reckless in not guarding his children responsibly. His reckless actions stand in sharp contrast to the "family values" he espouses.

At 4:10 PM, Anonymous Nora said...

I was afraid this was the case. You say you're disgusted by R. C. Sproul Jr? That word only begins to cover it for me. I would've assumed that after hearing all the inspiring things he's said about family, fathers protecting their wives and kids, blah blah blah, that he'd actually do something to protect his kids, not just make them easy targets for pedophiles.

When did R. C. Sproul Jr. find out Sitler molested his children? Did he only discover it when Sitler wrote him a apology letter? Did Sitler molest any other children at St. Peter Presbyterian Church? Did R. C. Sproul Jr. pursue criminal charges? Child molesting is such a horrific crime it'd be hard for me to imagine that he wouldn't. But if he had why didn't we ever hear about it? Sitler's plea deal only covered the criminal case in Idaho, so it wouldn't have prevented him from filing criminal charges in Virginia where his crimes there happened, right? Was it some sort of statute of limitations thing because he found out too late?

At 7:21 PM, Blogger RC 2.0 said...

Nora, no one other than RC Sproul Jr is absolutely certain about when he found out that Stephen Sitler was a serial pedophile. It’s possible he became aware while Sitler was still a "student" at the Highlands Study Center (his stay there appears to have been cut short). If this is true then it’s astonishing that Sproul didn’t warn his friend Doug Wilson that a pedophile was on his way to his church and college. However, it's also possible he only became aware when Sitler wrote RC Jr the "apology" letter, naming his victims in Virginia, as he was required to do as a condition of his criminal plea bargain in Idaho. Either way, much like Doug Wilson, RC Jr concealed it from his church. Unlike Wilson, however, who did ultimately inform his church after a number of months, it’s clear that RC Jr had no intentions of ever disclosing it to his church.

Shortly after RC Jr’s defrocking in early 2006, a former member of St. Peter Presbyterian Church upon discovering the dreadful facts confronted RC Jr in writing and demanded that RC Jr immediately notify everyone who'd been attending St. Peter's during the summer of 2003, and who had children who fit Sitler's M.O. (boys and girls 2-12) to determine if there had been any additional child victims and, if so, to get them the professional help they would need. RC Jr refused to comply and so the former member notified in writing any such St. Peter parents he could identify. Needless to say that letter caused quite a stir and resulted in some members leaving St. Peter.

“Did R. C. Sproul Jr. pursue criminal charges?” No, he did not. In our view he should have, and he certainly could have. As of the time Sitler wrote him about it the statute of limitations had not expired. The Latah County, Idaho Prosecutor attempted on several occasions to contact RC Sproul Jr about the case but RC Jr evaded responding. At no time did RC Jr contact the legal authorities in Virginia either.

“Sitler's plea deal only covered the criminal case in Idaho, so it wouldn't have prevented him from filing criminal charges in Virginia where his crimes there happened, right?” Correct. Sitler’s plea deal in Idaho only covered those crimes he committed in Idaho. RC Jr had the option of filing criminal charges and having Sitler extradited to stand trial in Virginia. Instead he swept it all under the carpet, and in the process he permitted Sitler to skate by with only a one-year jail sentence in Idaho. The obvious question is why? Why would he have so little regard for his own children’s wellbeing that he wouldn’t want to see the perpetrator of such horrendous crimes brought to justice?

As you appear to be aware (your having already commented about this matter on another blog) there is speculation that Doug Wilson may have arranged some hush money from Sitler’s family to buy RC Jr’s silence. The Sitler family is known to be quite wealthy and was a significant benefactor to Wilson’s NSA. Such speculation seems not unreasonable. Certainly, it escaped no one’s attention in Moscow that Sitler received every possible courtesy Wilson could extend, whereas Jamin Wight received no such favors, although Wight’s crimes paled in comparison to Sitler’s.


Post a Comment

<< Home