Point / Counter-Point: “The larger problem of sexual abuse in evangelical circles"

“It seems to me that social media has given people the impression that the internet mob can and should sit in judgment of pastors and churches. However, Christ has given the tools to his church to govern itself. What are we to do when we feel that a church has called a pastor who is not qualified? I’m of a mind to believe that Christ can govern his own church and doesn’t need my help. So I might voice my opinion, but I recognize that I have neither the authority nor the right to sit in judgment of another congregation.”

On Facebook this morning, R. A. Gagnon (I believe that’s the name) criticized TGC for holding a conference dedicated to MLK, Jr this year. What is the point of Gagnon’s post? Or in discussing anything at all here on SI?

I can’t change the rules that Wilson’s presbytery / session / seminary / denomination run by, but I can (and should!) warn other people when he is going off the rails. I have many, many friends and acquaintances that cite Wilson as a great man, as a prophet in our time, or some other praiseworthy character. His articles are routinely shared on the Facebook pages of people I am friends with. Given what I have seen - which, admittedly isn’t everything, as Tyler noted - I am not in agreement with that decision. Nor do I want to see Wilson built up into some kind of hero of the faith when he has, at best, fumbled these two cases (for starters).
It also concerns me - as it should any Christian - then a pastor/elder decides to call himself “one of those grenade launching Protestants”. Isn’t that a fairly clear violation of the teaching than an overseer “must not be quarrelsome” (2 Timothy 2:22)? Isn’t one of the first fruits of the Spirit “peace” (Gal. 5:22)?

Wilson seems to delight in poking his fingers into hornet’s nests, and then making a heroic martyr of himself when he gets stung. For example, there is this excerpt from one of the aforementioned TAC articles:

Doug Wilson believes he has adequately answered the criticism of him in the Sitlercase; I disagree, and I’m not the only one. He apparently thinks that nobody should object to him being a smart-ass, e.g., this remark in his long, bird-flipping to those who criticize his actions in the Sitler case: (underlined is Wilson’s comment, bold added for emphasis)

6. This kind of controversy gives fuller meaning to the communion of opprobrium that faithful ministers of every age share. Jesus says that we are to rejoice when people revile us, in part because of the company it puts us in.

“Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you” (Matt. 5:11–12).

And Jesus doesn’t say we are to be a little bit glad. He says exceeding glad. He says that we are to go around the corner, get out of their sight, and do a little jig. In this case, Nancy — a Puritan jewel — celebrated by buying me a nice bottle of Laphroaig.

We are talking about an instance in which he presided over the wedding of a convicted pedophile to a young woman, in full knowledge of this man’s crimes. And now the state of Idaho has opened an investigation into the Sitler family, and a judge has decreed that it is too dangerous for Sitler to be alone in a room with his own baby son.

So to recap - TAC ran an article credibly charging Wilson with marrying a woman to a pedophile with the intent of procreation, it blew up, Wilson was taking heat for it at the time…and the solution is to recognize that Wilson is rightly sharing in the afflictions of Christ and should celebrate it with a bottle of Scotch???

I am stunned I even need to say that this is kind of a problem for the Lord’s redeemed, who are specifically commanded “to abstain from every appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22) and that some things “ought not even be named among us” (Ephesians 5:3).

This is a problem if we can the Bible seriously, which we should. Wilson ought to know better, and we ought to stop being duped by his childish antics and idiocy. Which is what I’m trying to do by pulling this mess into the light for observation and analysis.

Not that I am totally in defense of WIlson by any means, but it’s worth noting that Sitler’s wedding was approved by court officials and psychologists who noted that an “age appropriate” sexual relationship in marriage might be just the thing for Sitler. So Wilson does indeed have two lines of defense in this case. First, the court authorized it, not just him, and second, there is most likely no cut and dried “proper” approach to issues related to pederasty and pedophilia. So if we hold Wilson accountable for a decision going wrong, we must simultaneously hold the court and the psychologists/psychiatrists liable, as well as the police.

We also need to keep in mind that it was none other than Wilson who turned the perpetrator in to police, and none other than Wilson who also tried to counsel him about how to repent of his sin. And really, Chuck Phelps has about the same defense. He’s the one who, while screwing up some finer points of the law and details of the crime, brought the issue up to the police—who dropped the ball, sadly.

It is my hope and prayer that if such an accusation can ever be leveled against anyone at my church, that we do at least that well.

I get what you’re saying, Jay. My point is that it’s probably better to discuss these matters in the abstract, because we just don’t know the facts. However, the totality of the circumstances should give any thinking person pause. Wilson has attracted a great deal of sustained attention along these lines, and therefore any sane person should raise an eyebrow (or two) before endorsing him for anything.

But, on a micro-level, I’m just not willing to dive into the weeds of a situation I don’t understand (and will never understand) and venture opinions. I was reluctant to do it in the Maddi Runkles thread, and I’m reluctant to do it now. There is an ecclesiastical body responsible for regulating Wilson’s conduct, and we should hope that body performs it’s due diligence.

It is true that many bureaucracies, secular and ecclesiastical, are hesitant to put guardrails on a celebrity leader. The local leadership has to be tough, committed, Christ-like and realistic when it elevates men to join their ranks. Too often, in Christian circles, we trade leadership ability and integrity for “he’s a nice guy,” and the result can be a run-away celebrity leader who has no ecclesiastical checks and balances at all - because they’re too wimpy to stop anything.

You’ve seen this before. Think of the boss who’s an idiot, but he “knows somebody.” Think of the boss whose management style is organized chaos, because he’s too nice to enforce rules or run a tight shop. People are people, and there are plenty of ecclesiastical bureaucracies (Baptist or otherwise) which are in pathetic shape.

When it comes to Wilson, I think it’d be more profitable to take a “lessons learned” approach from this debacle, while we pray the local ecclesiastical bureaucracy does it’s part. The “church” isn’t a monolith; the rubber meets the road on a local level. We can’t speak of “the church” like we speak of Wal-Mart, where a CEO on high can implement organization-wide policy changes. All we can do, at the local level, is work to ensure this wickedness and madness doesn’t happen among us.

Not that I am totally in defense of WIlson by any means, but it’s worth noting that Sitler’s wedding was approved by court officials and psychologists who noted that an “age appropriate” sexual relationship in marriage might be just the thing for Sitler.

Bert, let’s be serious here. If it were you, and Sitler were OK‘d by the court to marry this woman, would you perform the wedding given the details of his case? Wouldn’t you push for more clarity and more time and more cautiousness at a minimum?

All I can find is the attack dogs on the case and a few legal docs, Jay. My gut is that I’d have to be persuaded, given Sitler’s history and range of offenses—apparently dozens in at least three states—but if Paul can tell the whore-mongers of Corinth to first flee fornication and then to marry to avoid burning, we cannot a priori assume that Wilson was wrong to perform this wedding after counseling Sitler and his wife. Not on the basis of the evidence we’ve seen.

Obviously there have been some hiccups in the matter, thankfully not including proven molestation, but I think it would be premature to use this as an argument that Wilson was wrong to perform the marriage. We may as well say that a pastor is derelict if anyone he marries divorces, or has domestic violence, or whatever—and Biblically speaking, I just cannot go there.