The CREC Presiding Ministers’ Report: The Guessing Game Is Over

“For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed. . . .” Titus 1:7

Sequence of Events

For the last month Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, has festered at the CREC Presiding Ministers’ Report on the Sitler & Wight Sex Abuse Cases, or PMR. The day before he published it, he telegraphed his displeasure with the Review Committee for their disloyalty:

One of the things that modern Christians have a hard time doing right is loyalty. We don’t know how loyalty is supposed to work. We don’t understand the spiritual requirement of personal allegiance to your church and its leadership, and in addition we have a very poor understanding of what disloyalty actually smells like. Not a few Christians think they are contending for the peace and purity of the church, just like it said in their membership vows, when they are actually stinking up the sanctuary. We think that if a letter begins it is with grief in my heart, the letter that follows cannot be disloyal. (Blog & Mablog, Church Membership and Disloyalty, August 14, 2017, emphasis original)

The next day Doug Wilson released the PMR for the general public to read. But he did not announce the report on Twitter or Mablog, and the Kirk does not link the report on their website (no menu buttons). He blocked search engines from seeing it and he made it very difficult for readers to navigate. These facts suggest that he uploaded the PMR against his will. He did the bare minimum.

Subsequently, we know that the CREC Review Committee wrote at least one thing that injured his narcissism (self-love), which likely accounts for his petulance. In particular, Mr. Wilson identified this genteel admonishment in the PMR as intolerable:

In that regard, let us point out a few specifics we believe are inconsistent with the high road. . . .

  • Using unnecessarily provocative language, including derogatory or calloused language about women. Referring to certain women as “small breasted biddies” or “lumberjack dykes” is not likely to serve an edifying purpose in this context. We note that this language has caused a good deal of anguish among pastors and elders of CREC churches who would otherwise be supportive of Pastor Wilson’s ministry. Pastors should be careful not to give women reasons to avoid seeking help from the church. Instead, we should make it clear that the church is a place where all people are treated with honor and respect, and where victims can find grace. (PMR, page 18, emphasis original)

One month later (three days ago), Douglas Wilson answered the Presiding Ministers:

So if someone with a long enough face to be a dowager from Human Resources tells me that I am no longer permitted, as a cis-white-male, to make any observations or comparisons, metaphorical or otherwise, about any aspect of the female anatomy, guess what I am going to do? Guess what my next blog post is going to be about?

Go on, guess. (Blog & Mablog, A Tether Ball in a Tornado, September 18, 2017)

Then he reposted three quotes full of belittling & degrading descriptions of women from the Mablog archive, including a specific quotation that the Review Committee tagged as “not likely . . . edifying”:

Small-Breasted Biddies: A Reprise. . . .
“So feminism — smash the patriarchy feminism — wants us to be ruled by harridans, termagants, harpies and crones. That sets the tone, and the pestering is then made complete by small-breasted biddies who want to make sure nobody is using too much hot water in the shower, and that we are all getting plenty of fiber. . . . A fading beauty in Beverly Hills walks into an upscale bistro, her skin stretched out with botox, her breasts as fine a pair as DuPont could make them. . . . and the clueless women . . . who are themselves pushy broads, twinkies in tight tops, or waifs with manga eyes”. . . . (ibid., bold original)

Believe His Explanation

Readers should believe Douglas Wilson’s explanation for his behavior. He usually blame-shifts responsibility for his sins onto those he sins against; however in this case he owned responsibility with remarkable candor. Mr. Wilson stated that the only reason he doubled down on the despicable language toward women is because the Presiding Ministers of the CREC “no longer permitted” him “to make any observations or comparisons . . . about any aspect of the female anatomy.”1 Therefore, he concluded, “guess what I am going to do? . . . . Go on, guess.”

This is his explanation and we should believe him, for this is the sum total of the man Douglas Wilson. He despises all authority — legitimate & illegitimate. He despises all authority — including his own, which he arrogated (he’s self-ordained). He holds the CREC Presiding Ministers in contempt, and he holds his own teaching in contempt just to prove his contempt for the Presiding Ministers.

He Knows Better

Consider this from Doug Wilson’s book Future Men:

A two-year-old boy should be taught to respect his baby sister because she is a girl. A five-year-old boy should be required to say “yes, ma’am” to his mother simply because she is a woman. Young boys need to be taught to hold open doors for women. They should seat their mother at the dinner table. These are not arbitrary or random cultural practices which have no meaning. They are a constant daily reminder to males — whose lusts when unmortified always degrade women — that women must not be degraded, but rather honored. Manners are therefore a form of sexual discipleship; they are sexual discipline. . . . Boys must grow up to be the kind of men who will be honorable in bed with their wives. They cannot do this in particular if they are unfamiliar with honor generally. They cannot do this with one woman if they don’t know what it is to honor women generally. . . The cultural discipline of honoring women is very important. . . . Refusal to teach boys to honor girls and women will certainly result in grief, but grief too late. (Future Men [Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001], 134, emphasis original)

Consider this from Mablog:

The fact that some men fail to respect women is no reason to abandon our teaching that men should respect women. (Blog & Mablog, False, False, and False, June 6, 20062)

Or this:

Jesus says that out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks (Matt. 12:34). Is your speech a fresh water spring or a sewage pipe? When you speak, are you respectful of the presence of women? Does that kind of thing matter to you at all? Are you aware of the difference between not speaking like a gentleman all alone, which is bad enough, and when you are with others not speaking like a gentleman in such a way as to insult a lady? When you speak, is it for the edification of the hearer, or is it to get a laugh for your own glory? Do you speak for them or for you? . . . As we finish, consider the explicit teaching of the apostle Paul on the subject. “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers” (Eph. 4:29). (Blog & Mablog, Understanding Bad Words, April 1, 2011, emphasis original)

Douglas Wilson affirms that Scripture requires men to respect women — which is the point. He knows the Bible teaches it and he teaches it — yet he violates both Scripture and his oft-repeated instruction. Yes, this means he’s a hypocrite, but it means more. He’s not a hypocrite for the sake of it. His hypocrisy takes a back seat to his repulsion of authority, which drives him. He relishes defiance; he glories in it. Therefore he declared to the CREC and to the world:

So if someone . . . tells me that I am no longer permitted . . . to make any observations or comparisons . . . about any aspect of the female anatomy, guess what I am going to do? Guess what my next blog post is going to be about?

Go on, guess. (A Tether Ball in a Tornado)

Doug Wilson supplied the hermeneutic we need to interpret his behavior. He will do something precisely because someone said he can’t do it. This explains the filth, rebellion, and corruption in Moscow. It explains Doug Wilson. He consistently does the wrong thing not to be a hypocrite but to defy authority.

Prove the Rule

Prove the rule by changing the sin. Instead of demeaning women for their physical anatomy, change the subject to a serial pedophile facing life in prison:

“So if someone . . . tells me that I am no longer permitted . . . to [ask the judge to go easy on a serial pedophile] guess what I am going to do?”

Or change it to Steven Sitler’s marriage:

“So if someone . . . tells me that I am no longer permitted . . . to [preside over the marriage of a serial pedophile to a graduate of New Saint Andrews College] guess what I am going to do?”

Change it to Steven Sitler’s child:

“So if someone . . . tells me that I am no longer permitted . . . to [support a pedophile who wants 24-7 access to a child] guess what I am going to do?”

Change it to Natalie’s court-sealed diary:

“So if someone . . . tells me that I am no longer permitted . . . to [publish the court-sealed diary of a 14-year-old rape victim] guess what I am going to do?”

Change it to Jamin Wight:

“So if someone . . . tells me that I am no longer permitted . . . to [allow a confessed child molester in the ministry] guess what I am going to do?”

Change it to criminal fraud:

“So if someone . . . tells me that I am no longer permitted . . . to [commit criminal fraud] guess what I am going to do?”

Change it to perjury:

“So if someone . . . tells me that I am no longer permitted . . . to [lie under oath] guess what I am going to do?”

Change it to plagiarism:

“So if someone . . . tells me that I am no longer permitted . . . to [plagiarize] guess what I am going to do?”

Change it to racism:

“So if someone . . . tells me that I am no longer permitted . . . to [teach that the Son of God used racist slurs] guess what I am going to do?”

Change it to retaliation:

“So if someone . . . tells me that I am no longer permitted . . . to [retaliate] guess what I am going to do?”

Change it to his own ministry:

“So if someone . . . tells me that I am no longer permitted . . . to [violate my own teaching] guess what I am going to do?”

Scripture prohibited him in each of these — but he did it. Page through the archives of this website. The list is endless. He feels no restraint. He esteems his will, or autonomy, greater than any biblical precept he claims to believe. Therefore, the Presiding Minister of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches ridicules women just to defy the Presiding Ministers of the CREC. And they can’t do anything about it.


1 Doug Wilson misrepresented the CREC Review Committee. They did not “no longer permit” this. He never conferred such authority on them. They recommended that he drop the gratuitous language because it “caused a good deal of anguish among pastors and elders of CREC churches who would otherwise be supportive of Pastor Wilson’s ministry.” Specifically, they wrote, “A more prudent and temperate use of language would be helpful” (PMR 18). This is reasonable counsel. Nevertheless, to him “the commandment came and sin revived” (Rom. 7:9). It worked all manner of contempt in him, which he heaped on the Presiding Ministers.
2 Please note the context of this 2006 blog post entitled False, False, and False.

8 Comments

  1. -“Therefore, the Presiding Minister of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches ridicules women just to defy the Presiding Ministers of the CREC. And they can’t do anything about it.”-

    They can. The CREC has had countless opportunities to step in whenever Dapper Doug has opened his mouth or typed up a blog entry that rubbed all of Christianity the wrong way. Being a pastor is one of those rare 24/7 jobs. When you are one, you are all the time. There is no off time for your calling or position. Even while on sabbatical or genuine vacation, a pastor is expected not only by their faith community to act and speak in a professional manner, it is also expected in society in general. Dapper Dougs “personal” blogs come into question here, as he often fixates his posts on church matters. A personal blog is no place to air out issues with church members or policies while in a pastoral position.
    With this, along with days or even weeks of worth of articles to read, interviews, court records, and online posts with a staggering amount of information to make the CREC squat in a corner over proven complaints and other allegations made against the presiding minister of the CREC…. The CREC could step in and fix this up quick, I expect. Clean sweep, even. Wouldn’t take more than a vote of CREC board members.
    It’s not that the CREC can’t. They won’t.
    Too bad CREC likes money and stability more than truth and justice for those who are wronged by a faith community and “pastor” they came to trust.

    1. Hi Mr. Alan — Douglas Wilson wrote the CREC Constitution, and he wrote it in such a way to give himself complete cover from accountability while creating the appearance of a presbytery. There is no CREC board. They have the equivalent of delegates who vote at the annual big jamboree, and these men are powerless unless someone musters the courage to motion to remove Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, from the club. They cannot remove Wilson. They cannot discipline him either. They can only remove the Kirk from their rank and file, and I believe they require a supermajority (67%, possibly greater). He would not have written this blog post unless he knew that they didn’t have the votes, which they don’t. Therefore, they have to eat it or leave. And I’ll bet that more eat it than leave because he’s probably blackmailing them into staying. He has already emailed every pastor who may be tempted to say, “I’ve had enough,” and reminded them of the dirt he has on them, and that if they leave he will inform the congregation of this sin or that, which would put that pastor in the unemployment line.

      Nope, they can’t do a thing about it.

      1. I apologize for ranting about a subject on which I clearly did not do enough research.
        The Kirk can stay or go, all or nothing….
        I can work in those parameters. 😉

      2. If it is like other situations with which I am more familiar, there is probably financial ties too, book publishing rights, and other stuff. People like Doug Wilson like to get people tied to them tangibly so that they can control them in the future.

      3. @Steve — You are exactly right. Wilson has strings on everyone — either financial or dirt that he uses to manipulate them. He compromises everyone, to corrupt them.

  2. As a member of the CREC, I sent the committee a letter a few days ago. Guess if I got a response. Go on, guess. When the committee was formed, my son was just beginning grad school at Penn State. In the midst of the report not getting done, my son graduated from Penn State with a master’s in Materials Science Engineering, thus the quote from Penn State (and my daughter graduated with a PhD in molecular bioscience). In part I said:

    “A former athlete from Penn state, an advocate addressing the abuse and coverup of Sandusky said, “When you love a place like we love Penn, you fight to make it better, to own our problems, and fix them. You don’t pretend that everything’s okay. That’s not loyalty or love; that’s fear.”

    Fear is finishing a report — that you are well aware people have been waiting two years to read — and it is printed in font so small as to be unreadable and further is buried in some obscure location where no one can find it. Fear is making no mention in any public arena of the report’s completion. Fear is staying silent. Fear is giving it to the man who was “investigated” for him to do with it what he’d like. Fear is walking away.

    “When the (CREC) or any organization mandates that it’s more important to protect the reputation of the system and those in power, than it is to protect the basic human dignity of the individuals who serve that system or who are served by that system, you can be certain that shame is systemic, money is driving ethics and accountability is all but dead.” (Brené Brown — Braving the Wilderness)

    Douglas Wilson will be accountable to no one and the response from leadership continues to be silence at best. Worse, it has protected, coddled and congratulated Wilson for aberrant behavior.”

  3. In all seriousness, the only reasonable solution to all of this is for some random well-meaning person to take to Doug Wilson’s head like a tire iron to an overripe melon. Really. I’d like to kick that man so hard in the balls that he chokes to death on one of his own testicles.

Comments are closed.