The CREC Presiding Ministers’ Report on the Sitler and Wight Sex Abuse Cases (PMR) deconstructs into five basic points:
- Confirmations — Facts the Report Corroborated
- Omissions — Facts the Report Ignored
- Excuses & Falsehoods
- Winks, Suck Ups, and Groveling Admonishments
- Failures & Contradictions
Today we shall consider Confirmations — Facts the Report Corroborated.
Accordingly, the PMR confirmed every documented fact affirmed by MoscowID.net, as well as many non-documented facts. Further, the PMR offered no proof that denies one fact revealed by MoscowID.net. Certainly the PMR made assertions and gave opinions that deny the truths presented here, but the presiding ministers of the CREC furnished no documentation to support their assertions & opinions, which we shall demonstrate. For this essay, however, I want to isolate three critical facts that reveal the character and agenda of the men on the CREC Review Committee, as well as one bonus fact:
- Douglas Wilson Appointed the Review Committee
- Bonus Fact: Douglas Wilson Is the Session of Christ Church
- Randy Booth Bore False Witness
- The CREC Exists to Cover and/or Vindicate Doug Wilson’s Unethical Activities
1. Douglas Wilson Appointed the Review Committee
The PMR states:
“In this case, because Douglas Wilson is both Presiding Minister of the CREC and pastor of Christ Church, he recused himself and asked the Pro Tem Presiding Minister of the CREC, along with the Presiding Ministers of the seven CREC presbyteries, to serve as the review committee.” (CREC Presiding Ministers’ Report on the Sitler and Wight Sex Abuse Cases, page 3)
The subject of this sentence is “Douglas Wilson”; the predicate is “asked”; and the direct objects are “the Pro Tem Presiding Minister of the CREC, along with the Presiding Ministers of the seven CREC presbyteries”; thus:
“. . . Douglas Wilson . . . asked the Pro Tem Presiding Minister of the CREC, along with the Presiding Ministers of the seven CREC presbyteries, to serve as the review committee.”
This is consistent with the Review Committee’s first announcement, which states:
“. . . the session of Christ Church, Moscow, ID, has invited the presiding ministers of each presbytery to inquire into the pastoral care and counseling ministry of Christ Church. . .” (Inquiry into the Pastoral Ministry of Christ Church (Moscow, Idaho))
So the PMR confirms that Douglas Wilson chose the men who would review his unethical activities, a fact we observed here. Doug Wilson calling the shots is business as usual in the CREC, but this does not pass the smell test in the real world because it betrays the inherent bias of the committee. These were not independent presbyters appointed by an objective party. They were Douglas Wilson’s hand-picked vessels. Doug Wilson defined the scope of the review (see the original announcement) and Doug Wilson appointed the men who conducted the review. This fact is foundational to the process. Douglas Wilson controlled who sat on the Review Committee because he wanted to control the results.
2. Bonus Point: Douglas Wilson Is the Session of Christ Church
The first announcement attributed the appointment (or invitation) of the Review Committee to “the session of Christ Church”:
“. . . the session of Christ Church, Moscow, ID, has invited the presiding ministers of each presbytery to inquire into the pastoral care and counseling ministry of Christ Church. . .” (Ibid.)
But the PMR says that “Douglas Wilson” made the invitation:
“. . . Douglas Wilson . . . asked the Pro Tem Presiding Minister of the CREC, along with the Presiding Ministers of the seven CREC presbyteries, to serve as the review committee.” (PMR, page 3)
I know, details schmetails. But details matter. Either the session of Christ Church invited the review or Doug Wilson did. And in these two statements the presiding ministers collapse the distinction between “the session of Christ Church” and “Douglas Wilson.” The two became one. This matters because if the session of Christ Church had appointed the Review Committee, they would have created the appearance that Doug Wilson actually accounted to them, as would be the case with a legitimate session of elders. But the PMR disabuses readers of this notion. Therefore, we may logically infer that the words “session of Christ Church” really mean “Douglas Wilson” — at least to his hand-picked Review Committee in the CREC.
3. Randy Booth Bore False Witness
As noted above, the CREC confirmed that Douglas Wilson appointed who would serve on the Review Committee. However, after the first announcement (which attributed the appointment to “the session of Christ Church”), MoscowID.net interpreted this to mean that Doug Wilson made the appointment. Randy Booth, who at that time chaired the Review Committee, released a statement that claimed he appointed the Review Committee:
Because the Review Committee was to be tasked with reviewing the practices of the church where Rev. Wilson is pastor, he immediately recused himself from participating in the selection and appointment of and any direct involvement in the proposed committee. Under established CREC procedures, the responsibility for leadership of the committee defaulted to Rev. Booth, as Assistant Presiding Minister of Council. Pastor Booth then appointed seven men to the Review Committee.
To ensure that the committee would be balanced and truly representative of the denomination at large, Rev. Booth appointed the Presiding Ministers of each of the CREC’s regional presbyteries to serve on the Review Committee. Each of these men is a pastor in a CREC church who has been duly elected by his respective presbytery to serve a three year term. They are, therefore, truly representative of the churches in their presbyteries. In the case of Tyndale Presbytery, the Presiding Minister was not available to serve, so the Assistant Presiding Minister of Tyndale was appointed in his stead. (CREC Review Committee Mission Statement)
If we believe the PMR, then Mr. Booth’s statement is not true. Again, details schmetails — but either Douglas Wilson appointed the committee or Randy Booth did. And since the PMR confirms that Doug Wilson appointed the committee, the question arises, why did Randy Booth tell such a transparent lie? There could be many answers but Occam’s Razor cuts to the most obvious: Randy Booth lied about who appointed the committee because his first and only job as chairman was to protect Douglas Wilson. And in this case he sought to protect Mr. Wilson from the charge that he hand-picked his own Review Committee.
This demonstrates how much deception the CREC tolerates in its leadership. Both Randy Booth and the Review Committee knew that he bore false witness in his public announcement, yet everyone on the committee played along. They understood their role. And if they winked at Randy Booth’s lies, how much more would they wink at Doug Wilson’s lies? The answer to this question is apparent to anyone who read the report.
4. The CREC Exists to Cover and/or Vindicate Doug Wilson’s Unethical Activities
Let’s keep this report in its proper context: Right now a 2 ½-year-old boy in Moscow, Idaho, lives in the same home as a serial pedophile. The child molester requires 24-7 direct line-of-sight monitoring from state-approved chaperones when he is in the presence of the child. He admitted under polygraph that he fantasizes about molesting the little one. And only one man — Douglas Wilson — orchestrated this nightmare. Despite the falsehoods in the report, Doug Wilson could have iced the marriage at any time, including the hour he spent standing at the altar, because it’s never too late to do the right thing (“barreling down the tracks” my foot). Yet for all the grief & abuse this innocent has suffered and will suffer because of his sick father, the Presiding Ministers of the CREC alluded to his welfare only once:
“. . . we are thankful that the Sitler family remains under the pastoral care of Christ Church. . .” (PMR page 12)
The Presiding Ministers of the CREC are thankful that that little child is “under the pastoral care” of the monster who created this unthinkable circumstance. This says everything we need to know about the report and the men who wrote it. They live to defend Douglas Wilson at any cost, no matter who gets hurt or how they get hurt. And for his part, Doug Wilson feels no sorrow or remorse for his role in this crime:
“That said, I officiated at the wedding and was glad to do so.” (Blog & Mablog, An Open Letter from Christ Church on Steven Sitler, September 5, 2015)
“Would I do that wedding again? Yes, I would.” (Blog & Mablog, I Don’t Think So, Scooter, September 9, 2015
“Yes, and just so — to be really clear about this — I conducted the wedding and would do so again next week. So this is not one of those things where I wish I hadn’t done that.” (Christ Church HOH Meeting, October 27, 2015)
Douglas Wilson “encouraged” the elders of Christ Church to “support” Steven Sitler when he petitioned the court to allow him to live in the same home as his child:
“Pastoral Issues: Csaba updated the session regarding the results of a recent court appearance for Steven Sitler. The next court appointment is set for 2 pm on September 1. The session was encouraged to pray for Steven and Katie and to be prepared to attend this session in support of Steven.”(Kirk Elders’ Minutes, Christ Church Timeline on the Sitler Case, page 4)
And the Presiding Ministers of the CREC are “thankful” that that little Sitler child is “under the pastoral care” of this psychopath.