On the Moscow, ID sex scandal cover up

There is little new I can add to the ongoing train-wreck which is Doug Wilson’s ecclesiology.  I have no new court documents (sidenote:  Wilson’s defenders rarely engage those) and I am already late to the scandal.  So why write something?  Several reasons:

1. People sometimes ask me questions on Facebook or elsewhere on what I think about ____.  While my word isn’t that important, some think it is.  And if my meager post keeps some people from joining these CREC churches, then so be it.
2. I want to provide a snapshot of the key facts in the scandal.  Whenever the scandal is discussed, both sides immediately harp on the key Christian slang words, “Judgmental,” “grace,” “Jesus forgives,” Pharisee!”  What is immediately lost is “Did he actually do __?”  I grant that I am a Pharisees.  Fine.  Answer the question.
3. Rebut many assumptions behind Wilson’s deviant theology.   I was about to write “ecclesiology” or “family views,” then I realized for Canon Press they are basically the same thing. In short, and I know this is becoming cliche, his area is a cult.  Plain and simple.
4. Conclusion:  Since Wilson has been a vocal name in the War for Life and the War for the Family, often writing good stuff, this gives ammo to the secular crowd.  And it would be hard to argue with them, admittedly.  

History

(For the record.  Just because I link to a site does not mean I endorse the site.  I have long disliked the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Their“hustling” has gotten so bad that even Democrats are embarrassed.  Still.  Broken clock and all)

It appears about ten years ago S. Sitler came to Moscow, ID. Previously, he had molested a two year old.   Apparently Wilson kicked him out of school and informed the police.  If true, this clears Wilson of level-one police culpability.  (Most people--public servants, anyway--are required by law to inform the police of this stuff).  He is not out of the woods, yet.

Given that Wilson is a theonomist, what is his view on sexual crimes of this nature?  He writes in Fidelity (Canon Press, 1999),

"When we are dealing with young children who are abused by adults (pederasty, child porn, etc.), the penalty for those guilty of the crime should be death." (p. 75)

Sitler came back to Wilson.  Presumably having repented.  (I cannot know if his repentance was genuine.  Let’s say it was.  I am simply reporting the facts of the case and what both civil and biblical law require the actions to be in response).  

The facts against Sitler.  These are black-and-white.  In terms of justice and the civil public space, it is irrelevant if Sitler repented.  It is irrelevant if I am “casting the first stone” or am “mean” or “not being like Jesus or something.”  Just the facts:

1. He admits to having sexually abused children ranging in age from 2 to 12 across three states: Virginia, Washington, and Idaho. (Background court documents). Also see here. (Trigger warning: graphic!).  More documents.
2. Why cannot Sitler pass a lie detector test?  
3. Can the words “Sitler” and “sexual stimulation” and “his child” be used in the same sentence? Wilson’s followers say that isn’t true--only hearsay.  Maybe.  My source isn’t someone’s blog but an official penal site.  
4. (3) provides the context for (2).  Supposing it is just slander on Sitler, please address (2).  
5. Even supposing Sitler has a right to marry from a Christian point of view, he can never have a normal relationship with his child(ren!). Is “Dominionism” really worth screwing up lives?
6. What did Wilson say was the punishment for pedophiles?  
7. Wilson informed his church, true.  But by Wilson’s own words the session informed the church on 13 December 2005.  Here is the catch:  Was Sitler worshiping with the Christ Kirk community within this timeline in a way that Wilson knew of Sitler’s actions before he was sentenced?  Did the ChristKirk community know this before Sitler came?

That’s all I’m really going to say on the legal aspect.  There are supposed to be court cases this week.  

Canon Press Theology

If all that matters were simply the above (1)-(7), then we can let the matter stop.  If the legal system can’t take care of it, then the problems are too big anyway.  But that’s not all.  Others have commented on Wilson’s view of women in the church and home.

(P8) What is the role of women in the Canon Press community?  Stated differently, what is the active role of women in the Canon Press community apart from the leadership of the male?  

(P9) What is the role of single women in the Canon Press orbit?  

(P8) and (P9) set the stage for another problem.  Wilson tells everyone that he, in his defense, had no grounds for prohibiting a “lawful marriage.”  What this means is that he couldn’t find a chapter and verse saying he couldn’t.   This is biblicism run amok.  Wisdom literature teaches us that we don’t always have to have a proof-text.  Is it wise?  They didn’t ask this question.

(P10)  Is it the goal of the Christian life to get married and have babies?  This question is ambiguous.  We will rephrase it.

(P10’) Is the “fallen” (defined as someone who committed a terrible sin but has repented) Christian guaranteed equal access to the marriage/family life?  

Many “Wilsonistas” say it yes.  They assert it but never argue it.  This doesn’t appear to be the Apostle Paul’s position.  The Wilsonistas say, “If you can, and why can’t you?, by all means get married.”  Paul said if you aren’t married now, then you might not need to get married (1 Cor. 7:7-8, 26-28).   We can now conclude premise 10:

(P10*) There are many good reasons for staying single.

(P10a*) The church is not obligated to provide you for disregarding (P10*)

The Wilsonistas will say that married sex provides a legitimate outlet for sexual passion.  That is true in normal cases.  But psychology and counseling have shown that men/women who are addicted to porn do not become unaddicted because they get married.  The problem is still there, even if there is an “outlet” for it.  And the outlet does not solve the problem.

This is also true if the spouse is a convicted pedophile.  Where is the wisdom in his “outlet” providing him with more victims?   Wilsonistas will respond, “Would you deny him the opportunity for a family?”

Yes.

There are alternatives.  None of them fun, but they are noble and workable.  He can join a monastery in the desert and spend the next 30 years denying himself.  Surround himself with a handful of elderly, cantankerous men who do not put up with nonsense.  And who knows, he might be able to find peace and stillness in a way that he wouldn’t in Moscow, ID.

Moving to another note:

(P11) I have only rarely (I think twice) seen Wilson say, “Yeah, I was wrong.”  Whenever he is criticized he, a) plays the victim and b) ridicules the actual victim.  He (and by extension, his disciples) cannot take criticism.

I think his inability to take criticism is tied with his church’s irregular court structure.  Technically speaking, it (the CREC) isn’t a real denomination.  In fact, I don’t think it claims to be.

A Bastard Ecclesiology

T. J. Harris argues, cogently I believe, that the CREC cannot address the issue of ordination succession because the CREC isn’t a properly ordained denomination.  Harris points out that if you make “baptism everything as a gateway” yet only require baptism be “in the Name,” then your ecclesiology will self-destruct.  He notes the following situation:

Now if some guys get together in a friend’s kitchen and baptize his infant, there are only four possible ways to combine the concept of baptism and church in describing what happened:
1. The guys standing around in the kitchen constitute the visible church2. The visible church is a purely formal concept, without any actuality let alone visibility3. The ritual they perform is not in fact a baptism4. Baptism is not sufficient to gain entry into the visible church

On a related note:

(P12) On what grounds and by whom was Wilson ordained to the ministry?  I checked his website under “Autobiographical Fragments” and didn’t find anything.  The best scenario I can reconstruct is this:

(P12a) He was a guitar player for churches who got cornered into preaching.

(P12b) He is a Baptist pastor that becomes a Paedobaptist pastor.  Yet no word of “lawful ordination.”

I didn’t see anything about a lawful ordination.   Which church with established church courts ordained Wilson?  I’m not arguing for apostolic succession (though my EO and RCC friends are probably chuckling right now) but basic Presbyterianism.  Fair enough, Wilson didn’t start out as a Presbyterian.  I am trying to think of ways he could have a retroactive ordination

(P12c) Someone like Steve Wilkins (already ordained in the PCA) ordain him.  I don’t think this happened.

Someone can say I am making a big deal and this is like asking for Obama’s birth certificate.  Perhaps.  All he has to do (or one of his minions) is to produce the credentials.  The larger point is he did not become a minister through established channels.  There is nothing magical about said channels, but they do have a discipline with (theoretical, in the PCA anyway) checks and balances.

Conclusion

I write this so people will be warned of entering the CREC.  It is a denomination born in sin.  Well, it’s not even a denomination but a confederation.  Not everyone in the CREC is a Wilsonista, but Wilson is the de facto Pope.  He’s too powerful to challenge.  Please note that if you enter this “confederation” you will enter a group that did provide cover for pedophiles, marries pedophiles to their women, encourages babies-victims from said union, and is beyond any church court of appeal.

And they travel at conferences.  Which means some might come to your home town.

On the prolife/profamily front:  I grant that Wilson has penned some good stuff.  It is plutonium now.  You can’t touch it.  

Notes on the Faerie Queene, Book 2

Here is the allegory of Temperance. It follows the standard medieval warrior pilgrimage. Sumpter has done a fine job of modernizing the spelling while retaining the exalted style. However, there are a few flaws with Sumpter's approach (I am not criticizing his work. It is literally one of a kind and preciously needed). Sumpter ignores (or doesn't notice) Spenser's Neo-Platonism. Without understanding Spenser's commitment to Neo-Platonism, parts of the story are incoherent. Here are some themes that will guide the reader.



Neo-Platonic Themes

Reason masters passions: “Yet with strong reason mastered passions frail” (VI.40). But this isn’t standard Neo-Platonism of the monkish sort. Passions aren’t bad. They just need to be guided by reason.

*Mediating Spirits. Neo-Platonism of its various forms sees a chain of being connecting all of reality. The material is suspended by the spiritual. Transcendence, therefore, can be found in the lowest link of the chain. Along this chain are mediating spirits (powers, angels, fairies).

*Because of his Neo-Platonism, Spenser sees a greater role for angels than we do today (VIII:1-2). Angels actively engage and empower man and thwart the enemy.

*It seems that Spenser identifies “Temperance” as a “god” (IX.1). Granted, he isn’t using god in the crude polytheistic sense. Rather, temperance seems to be a “power” or even “Archetype.” True, this could be merely poetic license, but given Spenser’s Neo-Platonism, it fits neatly.

*In the Bower of Bliss the heroes (Guyon and Palmer) come across a “false Genius.” If we accept that these characters (Genius et al) are Archetypes, we can then add the standard (neo)Platonic insight that the Archetypes and Forms have causal power. But we have a problem. The “Genius” here is a false Genius, as Spenser clearly argues (XII.47). So clearly this Genius isn’t the real genius, but a shadow one.

EXCURSUS: ALMA'S CASTLE

Alma's Castle in Book X illustrates how thoroughly committed to Neo-Platonism (and how familiar with the occult) Spenser was.  Sumpter isn't aware of these connections.

Sumpter misses the implication that Memory has hermetic overtones (Yates 2014).  Memory mediates a society’s passing down of Absolute Spirit (Magee 87).
Speculative Philosophy holds up a mirror (speculum) to the Idea itself: it allows the Idea to comprehend itself (88).  In fact, following the Kabbalist tradition, the “mirror” allows one to behold the deeper essence of Spirit (120).

This brings us back to the Hermetic Art of Memory.  “Imagination” is to evoke from memory the Perennial Philosophy.  In other words, to echo Jung, it draws out from within the unconscious.

This is rather speculative.  Is this what Spenser really had in mind? I think so.  Dame Frances Yates argues that Spenser “inherited much more than Neo-Platonism” (Yates 2001, 112). Spenser describes the man (representing memory) as “of infinite remembrance” (IX.52). Man is finite, not infinite--unless man himself was drawing upon a universal subsconcious.  I suggest this is what Spenser had in mind.  (Interestingly, Yates comments specifically on this very Canto; 114).

Yates further argues that the structure Spenser gives suggests that Man is a Microcosm of the universe.   In Canto 22 we read of a “circle” and a “triangle” with a “quadrate” (cube) in between.  The four-sided cube represents the four elements of the world, which is proportioned equally by “seven and nine.”  Seven is the number of the planets and nine is the angelic hierarchy.  If the cube is between seven and nine, then it is an eight, or an octave.  This could also represent the Temple of Solomon.


Conclusion:

Spenser’s work is literally the standard by which all other poetry is compared. Even though (or perhaps because of!) he is a Neo-Platonist, Spenser floods the senses (and the soul) with beauty and creates in the reader a desire not only for the good, but for the Beautiful, for the Heroic--indeed, for the Temperate.

This isn’t accidental. If what we have said about Forms/Archetypes’ having causal power, then then we can expect “pullings” upon our soul when reading Spenser.


Spenser’s most memorable creation is the Bower of Bliss (as Lewis said, no prude can read Spenser). Guyon’s actions represent a neat twist in Neo-Platonism. The most temperate action is to go into a frenzy and destroy the Bower. This isn’t what we expect from a Neo-Platonist. Spenser doesn’t negate the passions--he calls them into Reasons’s service, but all the while they remain very, very passional. Spenser may have just squared the circle: he may have just redeemed Neo-Platonism.  Guyon isn't an Anchorite who tries to transcend the realm of passions.

What about Sumpter’s annotations? They are a mixed bag. When Sumpter is explaining ethics, theology, or literary symbolism, his annotations are amazing. When he tries to be funny they are worse than awful. Remember the Ron Swanson style of humor? If you have to try hard to be funny, you aren’t. Hilarity should flow from your very being. You shouldn’t have to strain to be funny. I say that because some of the wannabe funny footnotes seriously distract from the story.