Now is not the time for silence

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.


Letter to a Brother in Christ

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.

Dear Brother,

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 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 ). Boz Tchividjian’s material 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 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 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.

In Him,


What Happens to the Daughters?

I grew up in a very conservative Christian home. My parents encouraged me and my sister to wear skirts. I remember some talk about raising your daughters to be “keepers at home,” and I’m pretty sure they read at least one book on courtship. I’m not sure that they went much further than that with trying to make us proper daughters. I did, though. In high school, I read a number of blogs on things like “Beautiful Womanhood” and daughters of Virtue and whatever else you want to call it.

I’m not going to lie: there were some benefits. I got a lot of encouragement on making a good use of my time, and loving my family, and many other very good things. So far so good. Still, I don’t go in for such reading much anymore.

What’s bothering me?

What happens when your expectation is that adult daughters stay at home until they are married? That depends on the family, but it opens up the possibility of some very bad things happening.

Some people enjoy controlling other people, and when you tell them it is their duty to take charge of their adult daughters, bad things may happen. Even worse if the daughters don’t believe they have any other legitimate options.

Parents don’t just take charge of minor decisions: they may feel free to decide where (and if) their daughter can work, whether she can go to school, and, of course, who she can marry. This is done in the name of protecting daughters. It may work out that way sometimes.

Imagine, though, that your parents decide everything about what you can do and where you can go and your only hope of escape is marriage. If that’s not bad enough, your parents get to decide who you marry.

Sure, maybe for a lot of people all that is is veto-power. Maybe they won’t make you marry someone (although, I won’t say I haven’t heard of it happening. Or at least of a lot of parental pressure being applied to convince the young lady to marry the approved suitor. How true these stories are . . . I can’t be the judge.), but they certainly can tell you who not to marry. This means if you want to get out from under Mommy and Daddy’s control, good luck. Maybe you can find a reasonable guy whom they will approve, but he better mind his p’s and q’s during your courtship and engagement, or it all will be for naught, and you’ll have to put up with Mommy and Daddy for a while longer until you can find a suitable replacement.

Okay. So appeal to someone. Surely somebody else can talk reason into them?

Maybe. But if all of your friends run in the same circles, they won’t be eager to do anything. They’re going to agree in principle about parental authority and therefore probably are not inclined to look at the situation to see if maybe something is not kosher. Expectations are such that the issue could easily be framed as the daughter being rebellious, no matter how unreasonable the parents may actually be. Many defenses of keeping daughters at home and the courtship model have been written already. Mom and Dad can retreat behind those and may never have to argue their own case themselves. The daughter now gets to choose whether she will submit or be labeled a rebel by everyone she knows. Things are not looking good.

Loving the Victim

What is abuse?

Have you given this question much thought? I hadn’t, I really hadn’t, until about a year and a half ago. Obviously we all have some concept of what “abuse” is, and we probably separate it into different categories: “Sexual abuse,” “physical abuse,” and maybe “mental/emotional abuse.”

Great. So you have some categories. Maybe you could write a definition. But would you know it when you saw it?

I don’t know about you. I don’t have a good answer for that. I think that I would be more likely to recognize abuse than I was a couple of years ago. I think I have a better idea of how abusers and manipulators behave than I used to. I’ve met a few and read about more. Still, there’s room to learn more.

Here’s a hypothetical for you: What would you do if a friend’s daughter came to you and told you her parents were abusing her? How would you respond?

Would you be inclined to take it more seriously if it was one form of abuse than another?

I’m going to assume that many would take very seriously accusations of sexual and physical abuse (although that is by no means a given; you can find many stories of pastors and Christian friends ignoring kids’ complaints of these kinds of abuse, too). But what if the complaint was harder to evaluate?

How would you respond if she said her parents’ abuse was mainly in the form of emotional abuse? Maybe her parents frequently yell at her and berate her and use guilt and manipulation tactics to control her. Would you think that was serious?

Maybe, but maybe not. It seems that a common response is to tell girls* to suck it up. Some sympathy might be forthcoming, but it’s quite possible that the friend or authority figure being appealed to would encourage the girl to simply look on this as her cross to bear.

Of course, there is some legitimacy to this. We can’t all run away from difficult family situations. Everyone has to put up with some unpleasantness at home. There will be sin in every family. We’re all human.

But not every family situation is alike. There is a difference between a loving family environment with some strife and a family environment characterized by strife and misery.

It is possible for someone to live in fear, to feel trapped and alone, without being physically harmed. This being the case, thoughtful Christians have a duty to educate themselves on this kind of abuse and learn how to respond with wisdom and love when someone is in need of help. I’m not entirely sure what all this may entail, but I intend to figure it out. What about you?



*I say girls, because in the uber-conservative circles I run in girls tend to stay at home longer and to be much more controlled and restricted by their parents; this is not to deny that boys might not find themselves in a similar situation.