I recommend you keep track of Doug Wilson’s twitter conversations. Fascinating things may develop.
Recommend that you read this alongside this post.
Let’s get some straight answers, shall we?
I recommend you keep track of Doug Wilson’s twitter conversations. Fascinating things may develop.
Recommend that you read this alongside this post.
Let’s get some straight answers, shall we?
Besides the messages of self-defense coming out of Moscow, CREC leadership, its pastors and elders, have remained conspicuously silent on the questions of abuse that have been raised in the past couple weeks. Some things may be going on behind closed doors, but out in the open, it’s very quiet. Unfortunately, silence communicates a message to victims.
It may seem unfair to be judged for what you’re not doing, but I remember a voice from my childhood, Keith Green, emphatically stating to his audience “the only difference between the sheep and the goats, according to the Scriptures, is what they did and didn’t do!” Christ’s message is shocking, “inasmuch as you’ve not done it, to the very least of my brethren, you’ve not done it unto me.”
Dear church, you have the weak and hurting and abused, bruised reeds and smoldering wicks, in your midst. They need your support. They need your voices. When someone who has been grievously abused speaks up, she deserves your attention. When someone else tells you how their church leadership silenced and hurt them, they need your support.
Your silence may be for many reasons. Perhaps you’re reluctant to be involved in discussions of such tricky issues in public forums. Perhaps you’re not sure what good speaking can do. I can tell you what harm not speaking can do.
Not speaking communicates to victims that you won’t take up their cause. That you aren’t going to support them. That you are willing to abide alongside these abuses. This silence is why many who speak up eventually sink back down into silence. No one will go with them or advocate for them.
Whatever conversations may happen now in private, whatever steps you may take to prevent these things from happening in the future, your silence is still a part of the problem. The next time someone wants to stand up and ask questions or appeal against unjust measures taken against them, your silence will be on record.
One of the issues which has arisen as we try to address abuse within the CREC is that some feel that we are “painting everyone with the same brush.” I do not believe this is true (many have held out hope for Peter Leithart, believing him to be a humble and godly man, and there was great rejoicing when he published his public apology for his participation in the Wight debacle), but I can see why it might appear this way.
The problem is that we’re not just trying to address certain abusive individuals. Yes, many stories begin with an abusive individual (frequently either allowed to proceed unhindered or sometimes even abetted by church leadership) or with the bullying or spiritual abuse of an actual church leader. We find a good example of this in Doug’s letter to Gary Greenfield. The issue is not just that Doug threatened to bar Gary from the table. It’s that Doug wrote a letter insinuating that if Gary didn’t follow his advice, Gary would be a failure as a father. Given that Gary was already deeply hurting over what Wight did to his daughter, this was an especially cruel way to control Gary.
While all this is very concerning, we also have to address the culture of silence which we experienced. This is key to the abuses which go on. It is considered unChristian and bitter to try to speak to others about abuses, and when we speak to elders and church leadership about them, we either go around in circles or get shut down entirely.
Some of my friends are being asked to privately discuss their difficulties rather than put them out in the open as they have chosen to do at this time. The problem is, trying to handle things behind closed doors is part of what has brought us here. There are no appeals, no way to verify information given by/to different parties, and no real pressure to resolve issues and get them right.
Amber’s story is a good example of the kind of silencing that goes on. In the name of not gossiping, she was not permitted to share the pain and hurt she experienced, not able to benefit from what others knew about her fiance, and he was allowed to save face and remain in an influential position in the church. This is a frequent issue. Really strange stuff goes down behind the scenes and then the hurt party must pretend it was just a falling out among friends. Others may even see them as unforgiving because they are not aware of the extent of the damage that was done.
I think there are other elements to CREC culture which contribute to these issues, and I hope I can begin to address them in an edifying way in the days and weeks to follow. But I would like for some to begin to ponder on this issue.
One final note is that the degree of silencing and how intentional it is varies from person to person and church to church. I think for the most part this culture is perpetuated by people with really good intentions. All the more reason to bring this all into the open and allow everyone to see what has been happening.
The following is a letter I wrote to a gentleman who encountered my interactions with Doug Wilson and those discussing the Steven Sitler and Jamin Wight abuse cases and wrote to ask me a couple of questions.
You asked about my interest in this mess, and I think that’s actually an excellent place to start. My doubts and issues with Doug Wilson started with a personal experience. My friend’s mother has been emotionally and physically abusive to her her whole life. None of us had any idea about it until things started getting crazy a few months before she got married. As the situation escalated, she sought help from a few different pastors who generally ignored or minimized the serious issues.
Since that time I have researched abuse in the church (and discovered in the process that child abusers and abusive spouses demonstrate very similar patterns and mindsets). Initially I researched the topic to come to understand the bewildering and overwhelming events of that summer, but as I studied I became increasingly concerned about how churches and pastors tended to respond. There are patterns which emerge again and again, many of them having to do with pastors being unequipped to deal with abusive personalities (these people tend to be very good at manipulative techniques, especially “gas-lighting” which can cause victims and others involved to doubt their own experiences/knowledge of the situation. We experienced a great deal of this with my friend’s parents; they nearly succeeded in convincing us that my friend was exaggerating, and making things up; this, despite the fact that her mother displayed very erratic and inexcusable behavior including physical assault of my friend and her fiance).
I highly recommend exploring the blog posts at http://cryingoutforjustice.com/ if you want to read in-depth treatments of domestic abuse and of church mis-handlings of the same (if you would like to compare patterns of abuse with those of a child sexual abuser, Clara’s account of her life married to a serial pedophile provides many examples of a manipulative personality at work http://www.findingahealingplace.com/ ). Boz Tchividjian’s material http://boz.religionnews.com/ is very informative as well; he has a great deal of expertise in dealing with child sexual abuse in a court setting and now as a consultant.
To sum up, I essentially discovered two things: 1) abusers follow certain recognizable patterns in behavior and speech; 2) churches follow recognizable patterns in mishandling them.
At some point during this journey, I rediscovered the stories of Steven Sitler and Jamin Wight. I had heard something about them before, but I was previously disposed to simply trust Doug Wilson’s assessment that his enemies in Moscow passed on false and distorted information about him out of malice and to think no more of it. Now, with a different perspective on issues of sexual abuse, I chose to reexamine these matters.
I don’t remember where I found the information on Sitler, probably on a website which expressed strong enough views against Wilson that most CREC individuals would dismiss it out of hand, but I read the Jamin Wight story on the blog of his victim http://natalierose-livewithpassion.blogspot.com/ and I found the story very familiar and having every appearance of truth and legitimacy.
It is actually with this discovery that I began the journey that eventually led me to leave the CREC entirely (I call an Anglican church home now, and am grateful God has given me such a community of believers to participate in as I wrestle to come to terms with very difficult issues). Doug Wilson’s fault in the Jamin Wight case seems very plain to me: he offered support to the abuser rather than to the victim, and he blamed her at least in part for the very grievous sin committed against her (I think in part motivated by an overly strict reading of OT law concerning rape, and the duty of the victim to “cry out.” Presumably he understood it in much the same way here as he did in his treatment of the Doug Philips sexual abuse case. He does not seem to be familiar with or concerned about the way sexual abusers groom their victims or to have an understanding of the effects of sexual abuse on the psyche of the victim).
Although the Sitler case is of a somewhat different nature, I believe there is enough similarity between the two to see the same patterns at work and the same mistakes being made. Wilson appears to be extremely ignorant (at this point willfully so) of how sexual abusers operate. This is what causes me to believe he is an unfit judge of a serial abuser’s “repentance.” He doesn’t understand the sin in its fullness, how could he possibly assess repentance?
Although I cannot see Steven Sitler’s heart, of course, I do find it troubling that he chose to marry and have children. This does not appear to be the action of a man who understands the grievousness of what he did to those children; at best it is self-delusion of a potentially disastrous kind (if Steven fails to fight off temptation, even once, he could cause his child immeasurable damage), at worst it is something too terrible for words. Boz Tchividjian put it well in this quote from G.R.A.C.E.’s Facebook page: “Only God knows the heart of the one who claims to be repentant. However, one who is repentant knows the darkness of their own heart more than anyone else and should be the first one to acknowledge that he is capable of recommiting such dark offenses. The church demonstrates love by knowing this and taking steps to insure such abuse never happens again.”
Douglas Wilson chose not only to accept Sitler’s repentance as genuine, but to ask for leniency (even though repentance does not necessarily figure into the administration of justice, especially in a case of such a heinous crime), and further, to bless the marriage of a serial pedophile who wishes to have children. This is not what a pastor who understood child sexual abuse and took it seriously would do.
He has been called to account on his treatment of the Sitler case once before and has refused to hear the counsel of other or reconsider his choices. I do not believe Wilson is in the habit of admitting fault.
Since I first familiarized myself with the Jamin Wight and Steven Sitler cases, I have come to know a number of people who have left the CREC for various reasons, and their stories have confirmed to me that 1) the CREC frequently fosters environments in which abuse can thrive and 2) Doug Wilson particularly frequently engages in very arrogant and manipulative behaviors. I know this may seem flippant, but I can do nothing better at this time than to direct you to the CREC Memes website https://crecmemes.wordpress.com/tag/i-shit-you-not/ as a number of these stories are available in bite-size form (and I am not at liberty to tell other people’s stories as that could damage their relationships with others within the CREC). I assure you that what you find there is truthful, and though the humor is biting and dark at times, it reflects people who are trying to heal from and come to grips with serious wrongs which have taken place.
And FINALLY I can answer your first question: what caused me to join the fray at the time and in the way that I chose to?
1) I believe it is an opportune time. More eyes are on Wilson, looking for answers on these questions than ever before. After a long time of waiting, those of us with concerns can finally press for answers.
This also explains, a little, my urgency in questioning him and “making a big stink.” I could not forgive myself for being silent if there were even a chance that a) Wilson would repent and apologize for his mishandling and arrogance or b) others would come to see the harm that his choices cause and choose themselves to stop supporting his errors.
2) Honestly, I’m engaging now because I am ready. I have had my reservations for a long time, but haven’t been prepared to deal with the repercussions of speaking out. I’m not all the way prepared now, but I know my own mind, and believe that I am standing for what is right. My confidence is increased by taking counsel with other friends who have left the CREC or similar church environments and by the fact that Boz Tchividjian, who knows much more than I will ever have to about abuse in Christian environments, shares the same concerns (not to mention Julie Anne Smith, Dee Parsons, and Rachel Miller; all are very informed on abuse; I do not agree with all of them theologically, sometimes on very important points, but I do trust the combined wisdom of these sources when it comes to their areas of expertise).
Your second question about what would be beneficial for “on-the-fence” CRECers is quite difficult. As I mentioned, I have chosen to leave the CREC for a number of reasons, some directly related to the issues mentioned here and some fairly removed from those reasons. This makes it a little difficult to advise those who remain, on the whole, fairly loyal CREC members.
But I think I do have one major piece of advice that I would give to anyone concerned about this ugly mess. I think it is of great importance to come to understand the sins and behaviors involved, both those of abusers and those which churches commit when they attempt to respond to abusers. No one should ignore the counsel of those who specialize in these topics. That doesn’t mean accepting the conclusions of “experts” uncritically; we must all make up our own minds, but it is wisdom to admit that you do not understand certain things and to learn from those who do.
I would also ask those in the CREC who are seriously concerned about these issues to press forward and deal with them. Ask the difficult questions, don’t just hope that this will blow over. When dealing with abuse, it is important to remember that there are victims who may not be able to speak for themselves for any number of reasons, and it is the duty of every one of their brothers and sisters to take their cause up and advocate for them. Don’t simply accept what is handed down from on high; sometimes the guys at the top make the biggest mistakes. Abuse and manipulation thrive on silence. When we give victims voices, God can do wonderful things.
Brother, thank you for writing to me. May the God of all peace give you peace.
I’m reading about feminism for the first time. I keep my eye on some general feminist blogs as well as blogs specifically related to Christian Patriarchy and Complementarianism. Now I really want to read de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex. If nothing else, that’s a brilliant title for a book: woman is always conceived as the “other” compared and contrasted to man. It’s enough to make you wonder. Hence Sayers’ question “Are women human?” I haven’t had the privilege to read that yet either, but I read another blogger’s review which I found very helpful.
I grew up hearing about the evils of feminism: the attack on traditional marriage, man-hating, crazy sexual liberation, etc. Feminism was bad news. Now I’m realizing how important it is to hear women’s voices on women’s issues. Feminism means a lot of different things to different people. Some feminists wouldn’t consider me one of their ranks because I’m anti-abortion (but I am fascinated by reproductive rights and I do recognize that this issue is crucial to women’s freedom. Our biology is both the source of our power [the ability to create a tiny human is pretty incredible] and a source of weakness [there’s a reason barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen is a trope.]). But regardless of all the variances, all the missteps (and both are to be expected in every field of human discovery), the thing is, it’s more than time to hear women’s voices. Continue reading
Edit: My comment was too long by about 200 words for First Things. Below is the full text, but I will edit my comment to make it fit.
A writer at First Things weighed in on the Duggar scandal. Finding her approach unhelpful, I offered a response in a comment. The comment was subsequently removed. I have inquired with First Things as to why they chose to remove it. That comment is pasted below.
I appreciate some of the perspectives you are attempting to offer in this piece. You are correct that there are number of unhelpful or imbalanced responses surfacing at this time, and I understand why you might feel the need to respond. I think we both agree that all involved ought to be treated with compassion, love, respect, and understanding.
Unfortunately, I don’t believe your response is characterized by a fair attempt to understand and interact critically with those with whom you disagree. For instance, your characterization of some of these writers as “roaring blogresses” is both unnecessarily disparaging and, frankly, sexist (you invented a word to carry on your unflattering portrait and unnecessarily and irrelevantly identify their gender). While I do believe that there are correct uses of polemics, your dismissive attitude here reads less like a well-reasoned criticism and more like a lazy dismissal of your opponents. You are an academic; I know you are capable of better.
Furthermore, the way in which you attribute motives to your opponents is both unChristian and unprofessional. The supposition that “some of us seem to want the ghastly percentages to go as high as possible,” and that rape culture is “a handy thing for feminists to talk about,” is not an assertion you support; instead you assume it. Certainly, you can trust many of your readers to agree because of the fear which we conservative Christians often have towards feminism and its supposed assault on the traditional family. You are in this way neglecting your duty to your readers: rather than challenging them to think more deeply and critically, you capitalize on their fears to make your point. While I know how these beliefs about feminism arise, and I believe that some of them are at least partially grounded in reality, I think largely many of these criticisms are caused by misunderstanding and miscommunication as well as attribution of motives on both sides.
Finally, I implore you to reconsider your flippant attitude regarding the Duggars “version” of Patriarchy. I don’t know your personal history, but many women raised in patriarchal environments (whether they are as strict as Bill Gothard’s organization, of which Jim Bob and Michelle are still very much a part, or more lenient in the style of John Piper) do not have the option to pursue higher education like you are doing. This is rarely because they are outright forbidden to do so, but their choices are so constrained that they believe they prefer the “better” choice of homemaking and eschew other areas of personal growth and fulfillment. I experienced this myself. Despite having supportive family and friends, it was still extremely difficult for me to choose to pursue graduate level Biblical Studies, but I’m so glad now that I did. As a woman in academics, I think you should be able to understand how potentially damaging patriarchy can be to women who have more gifts and abilities than homemaking. I realize this may appear tangential, but your casual attitude about the effects and problems of patriarchy in your article suggests that you do not perhaps understand well the dynamics of a patriarchal home like the Duggars’.
As a Christian, as a woman, as an academic, and as a former enthusiastic advocate of Patriarchy, I ask you to reconsider your approach.”
The Bible has much to say about the power of words.
Why do you boast of evil, O mighty man?
The steadfast love of God endures all the day.
Your tongue plots destruction,
like a sharp razor, you worker of deceit.
You love evil more than good,
and lying more than speaking what is right. Selah
You love all words that devour,
O deceitful tongue.
But God will break you down forever;
he will snatch and tear you from your tent;
he will uproot you from the land of the living. Selah
Death and life are in the power of the tongue,
and those who love it will eat its fruits.
Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. If we put bits into the mouths of horses so that they obey us, we guide their whole bodies as well. Look at the ships also: though they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things.
How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell. For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water.
Think about this. The Bible tells us that death and life are in our speech. The tongue is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. That’s serious business. Words are powerful. We often don’t recognize this; to us they are merely tools for communication, but the Bible backs this up. Words can be deadly. Continue reading