Douglas Wilson & Serial Pedophile Steven Sitler



It is not my intent to start blogging again, at least not any time soon, certainly not of the kind necessitated in 2006. I have been writing two books since 2008, one of them a Memoir, and I have been able to do this largely in the comfortable privacy of my home, or, at the edge of the Pacific Ocean, minded by nothing more than a handful of seagulls. I plan to keep it this way. I find that this approach increases literary productivity. It also helps blunt the memories pastor Douglas Wilson has blessed me with. Please be assured that my last post was not an easy task.

However, I have been unable to put out of mind Douglas Wilson’s current bullying, shaming, threatening, and libeling of Natalie, a recent member of his flock. That alone I might have walked away from, but Wilson is offering all this as direct reprisal for Natalie’s public comments about the abuse she endured from one of his ministerial students – abuse that was just obliquely confirmed by a letter from Peter Leithart. So what to do?

I have decided to offer some of my experience with the other child rape scandal, involving pedophile Steven Sitler. In that case too, Wilson preached the protection of victims, while eagerly harming those victims most close at hand. Rob Dreher at The American Conservative gave Pastor Wilson a large space to respond to criticism regarding both instances of child rape, but regarding Sitler, Wilson’s response left Dreher confused,

Pastor Wilson married them, knowing that Steven Sitler, by the confession he made to the police at Wilson’s urging, was a serial pedophile. This is I do not understand. Nor do I understand the kind of church culture in which an elder of the church sets up a young woman who is anxious to get married with a convicted pedophile. And nothing Pastor Wilson wrote here makes it any more understandable.

The following events of summer, 2006, will certainly not offer a full explanation, but I think they will at least help make it all bit more understandable.

Simon [name changed] had been pursuing me for some time over a case of child rape.  Local critics of Doug Wilson were visiting the courthouse and building the best case they could, but molding Pooh was Simon’s most important work. He told me that Pooh’s Think was the best place for this news to first break. I explained that I wanted nothing to do with it. To this, Simon began his gentle bullying. Did I not understand the gravity of this?

To me, writing about this was not consistent with the purpose of Pooh’s Think. What I had accomplished was specific: I had remained a loyal member of Wilson’s community while protesting specific corruption from Wilson himself. And I protested the corruption primarily by defending those who Wilson was attacking – Brian McLaren, an X-elder, X-members – while simultaneously publicly defending Wilson and my fellow congregants where I thought public attacks were unjust or unsound.  I did not assume evil, but rather probed and investigated always in the hope that I had seen the extent of wrongdoing. The momentum building over this child rape case was different. It seemed to be little more than the search for anything capable of unleashing violent public sentiment. This was my explicit thinking at the time and the same reason I refused even a journalist student at the University in search of a story.

But Simon finally provided me an argument that grabbed my attention: This story was going to break no matter what, and if I broke the story, I would have more control over the backlash. Simon now had a draft of a public announcement that Evan Wilson, Doug Wilson’s brother, allegedly Okayed. Perhaps out of sheer exhaustion, I finally agreed to look at what Simon had written. After I read it, I was relieved to know that this huge headache could go away by simply posting a short Announcement that was actually meager in what it implied about Doug Wilson’s delinquency.

I forwarded the announcement to Wilson as soon as I posted it. Unexpectedly, Wilson began pelting my inbox with moral outrage and ridicule. I published this and my replies on Pooh’s Think as it proceeded, so our exchange amounted to a public debate. I promised Wilson I would immediately remove the Announcement and publicly apologize as soon as just one of the many gross errors he alleged were specifically pointed out, but Pastor Wilson refused to provide any specific information as the Announcement gained more traction on-line. It became obvious that Wilson wanted the Announcement up and he exited the debate only after he began the rhetorical attack he would maintain publically for months, years even: By posting this Announcement I had harmed the victims’ families. Precisely how I had harmed the victims’ families was never made clear, but as we will see, Wilson was determined to insure the victim’s families were harmed, even if he must accomplish this all on his own.

As I recall, the only person responsible for bringing the words “victims” or “victim’s family” into the public discourse was Wilson. As others pointed out, this was a brazen use of ‘human shields’ to divert attention from his own failure to communicate the presence of a serial predator to the larger community. I hated what was happening. I did not want Wilson and the foundations of the beautiful world of our ‘Kirk’ to be little more than pure evil.

Wilson published his own counter-announcement two days after the Announcement at Pooh’s Think. The public claim – it was a bit more than an insinuation – was that I was just as bad as this serial predator who had raped countless young children in multiple states. I was a “sick” enemy, locked in a psychological prison for which there were “no visiting hours.” The serial predator, however, was now a forgiven friend. What had this rapist done to earn approval?  He submitted to Wilson. Simon’s 40 part series addressing Wilson’s response to the Announcement was eventually hacked and destroyed, along with my entire original blog, but even this did not cause Wilson to remove his counter-announcement, with its incessant mention of the victim’s families.

The actual reason why Wilson and my friend Roy, the President of New St. Andrews, did not notify the public or the student body of the predation is obvious and banal. But the faux reason Wilson and Roy provided curiously paralleled the way Wilson was now seeking to ignite his next war:  “[W]e didn’t want the victims, who were children, to suffer,” Wilson told a reporter.

Recently, during a quick fact check, I happened upon a newspaper report of Roy’s claim that the publicizing of the local child rape and the criticizing of Wilson’s response to it “is almost as reprehensible as the act.”  I think Christopher Hitchens captures the more appropriate sentiment, one I hope is shared by Roy in his less defensive moments:  “[If] I was suspected of raping a child . . . I might consider committing suicide . . . If I had actually committed the offense, I would welcome death in any form that it might take. This revulsion is innate in any healthy person, and does not need to be taught.”

Soon, the phone call came that would complete my investigation of the person and work of Douglas Wilson.  A woman spoke with shaky voice, an almost hysterical voice, and yet, with strange firmness.

“I wanted to call you and ask you why you are doing this, why you would do this to us.”

“I am not sure I know what you mean.”

“What you are doing on your blog. That you would use other members of the church like this.”

“I have tried to be very careful the last six months about what private information I released. No one knows who you are. But I would be happy to remove any reference from my blog for you. I am sorry this has upset you. Have you discussed this with anyone else, like your elders?”

“Yes, we met with Doug Wilson this afternoon,” she replied.

I did what I could to control my anger.

“Listen,” I began, still gently but firmer, “Nobody is discussing details about you or your particular case. Everyone is only thinking about their own children. But now that I realize your anguish over this, I would be happy to remove the public announcement. I will remove anything, everything . . .”

“No, you do not have to do that,” she interrupted.  She now spoke slowly.  She seemed disoriented and the anger was gone from her voice.

“Well, then would you be willing to tell me what you would like me to do different and what to change in what has been posted?  Anything you say.”

“I am not sure.  I would have to read it again.”

“Ok.  Please read it again and call me back anytime, and let me know.”

“Ok, I will do that” she said.  But these words seemed hollow; I did not anticipate I would hear from her again, and I did not, even though Wilson continued to publicly reference the new plight of the “victims’ families” living in Moscow because of what I was “doing.”

Wilson had this mother of some of the victims into his office not to comfort her, but to outrage her.  This was his sole argument he had committed himself to publicly.  The families of the victims were now on the public stage in so far as Wilson daily put them there, but now he needed to make sure they keenly felt it.

Wilson started writing to the local discussion board Vision 2020 again, and he publicly referenced this phone conversation. Wilson addresses me:

And you were then asked by someone directly harmed by your action to take them down, which you have not, as of five minutes ago. Michael, you are the emotional equivalent of a sucking chest wound . . .

In another post to all “Visionaries,” Wilson revealed, accidently it seems, what his intentions were in meeting with this woman. He wanted to inform her about what I had “done.”  “When I talked to the victims’ parents about what Michael Metzler had done on his blog, and what was being done here, do you think the response from them was more like, ‘Oh, good,’ or ‘Oh, no’?” (my emphasis). Again, I was the one privileged to know the immediate result of the pastoral care this woman received during that meeting.

Curious details started to surface, such as Wilson’s letter to the judge requesting the judgment be measured and limited. The Southern Poverty Law Center would later take this up, noting the monstrous incoherence of wishing the death penalty for adulterers and homosexuals but asking for a limited ruling based on already very limited non-Mosaic laws regarding serial child rape.  A parent of one of the victims, whether local or from one of the other states where this rapist preyed I do not know, wrote the Judge about what was really causing them ‘harm’:

. . . she was only two years old . . . It was painful enough to be told of the perversion that [he] committed against [our daughter] yet now we have watched for the last six months as an admitted child molester has been living in the comforts of his parent’s home, whiling away the days that should be spent in jail.

Wilson never notified the larger community or the student body of New St. Andrews of the predation, but it was also confirmed that the insufficient communication to the Kirk congregations – I, a father with young children, was not informed – was itself postponed for eight months. But for me, Wilson’s chosen response to the Announcement was the real scandal. He was not only willing, but eager, to trample underfoot the weakest within his care for only a small amount of his own political gain.

A few years later, the Kirk encouraged and facilitated the courtship and eventual marriage (permitted by the Judge after debate) between this paroled serial predator and a young woman connected to the Kirk.  When visiting Leithart’s church during our visit to Moscow in 2011, we witnessed an elder, Patch, standing before the congregation, beseeching God to bless this new happy union. Walking down the aisle later, Patch darted a snarling glance at me.

I will not offer here an analysis of Wilson’s intentions and motivations, or the social-psychological mechanisms that he co-opted with astounding success – this was when the majority of the Kirk community was finally steered to fear and abhor me. But I will at least give you a clue, or that is to say, pass along the same clue Wilson provided me offline: Girard. “It is all in Girard.”

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • StumbleUpon

Dr. Peter J. Leithart Buries Sapphira



A couple people have asked for my thoughts on Pastor Douglas Wilson’s latest platform-building success. The current buzz regards Jamin Wight’s and Steven Sitler’s inclination to rape young children in Pastor Wilson’s care. One of the victims, Natalie, has taken a remarkable public stand about the care she received from Pastor Wilson after the abuse was revealed. In 2006, I refused to mention Natalie’s story on Pooh’s Think, and I have so far left Natalie and her abuser Mr. Wight out of my Memoir altogether. After all, Pastor Wilson might have had a point about Natalie the Seductress – as her pastor, he would know – and not too much blame can be given a young man allegedly thrown a-top a virgin by her own parents. I had my doubts about this narrative, but I was too embattled and too weak to investigate and risk further reprisal from Pastor Wilson.

Natalie was Sapphira, dead and buried, forgotten by the world, and I was one of the many fools that helped shovel the dirt. But somehow, Natalie managed to resurrect herself, taking on the pain and the remembering, demanding the world to listen. As of two days ago, my wife having mentioned this post of Natalie’s, I am finally listening too.

I will never fully understand the perverse, meaningless horror that Natalie had to endure, but thankfully, Natalie has, as necessary, worked to give her readers at least a glimpse. Her story is about surviving the long-term physical and psychological torture of a predator, but it is also a story about her community’s response to the revelation of that abuse. She was refused normal empathy and in fact shamed for tempting the rapist – the rapist, in turn, received exorbitant defense – and even now, her very own pastor, Douglas Wilson, is publicly lying about her in the hopes to trivialize her suffering and silence her dissent. Still, I do not think anyone in this discussion has so far considered how deep the roots of this social violence go. This was evidenced by the approval Dr. Peter J. Leithart has just procured by his one-time participation in the public conversation. Leithart moved one commenter “to tears” by his “honesty, sincerity, and humility.” Even Natalie and her parents have apparently accepted Leithart’s ‘apology.’ In what follows, I ask you to take a second look at Leithart’s short letter.

Even limiting ourselves to the evidence internal to the letter, we have good reason to think that Leithart is offering little more than preemptive defense, not an expression of genuine contrition:  He didn’t know about the abuse when it happened; he did not really ‘side’ with the rapist; it was his ‘duty’ to sit with the rapist in court (instead of the victim); he did not ignore or excuse anything; and it was good that the rapist remained a “member in good standing.” At the end of the letter, when Leithart finally gets to his own wrongdoing, he confesses only “misjudgment,” specifically, the sin of believing the best of a repentant sinner, a sin that looks awfully similar to saintly behavior. “I thought he was a godly young man who had fallen into sin. That was wrong.” No, it wasn’t wrong, not according to the context Leithart provides.  Leithart has given us no reason to think he actually did anything wrong here – we all have untrue (‘wrong’) beliefs we are not culpable for. Perhaps the praise Leithart procured is not too surprising. That was the point of writing the letter, was it not? I think we’ll know when Leithart is ready to tell the truth when his words have at least the potential to damage his ability to make money as a spiritual guide. Leithart is on record saying false things in the rapist’s defense, and for that, he says he is “ashamed,” but given his complicity in his community’s violence towards dissenters, coupled with pathological protection of submissive pedophiles, I do not believe him. I think ‘embarrassed’ and ‘worried’ are probably more apt.

Leithart also offers sweeping concern about our ability to publicly discuss the evil done to little children. He emphasizes his reluctance to say anything online – his friends had to tell him to do this – since his words could give “fuel” to irresponsible people, presumably those who falsely attack religious leader Douglas Wilson, with whom Leithart is still politically aligned. Implied is that all current debate on this is “overheated.”  “The internet” is probably not a good place to “expose evil,” since using the internet leaves those most damaged without a voice – an absurd claim. If Leithart’s claims were true, then he has simply given us reason to think that Natalie is simply wrong to take her story to the internet in the first place. In fact, Leithart followed up elsewhere with the argument that all such matters should be adjudicated by church leadership and never by broader society, a quite perverse stance to take after the global child rape scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. And when Leithart does get around to forthrightly defending the integrity of another person, other than himself, it is not the victim, and certainly not the victim’s right to have a voice. Leithart defends the victim’s abusive pastor, Douglas Wilson.

The primary problem here is the abuse from Leithart’s and Wilson’s community in Moscow towards Natalie after the rape was finally revealed, especially from those in social power (i.e. leadership).  Leithart saves this for the end: “I disbelieved the victim’s parents.” He does not admit that this positive action from him caused anyone further harm. Just the opposite, since he had “no direct contact with the victim.” He further adds, in a way sure to mislead anyone not very familiar with his religious community in Moscow, that the victim was the member of a different congregation. Actually, so I claim, Leithart was at that time helping Pastor Wilson silence and harm Natalie’s father while keeping control of his crucial Main Street business, Bucer’s Coffee House and Pub.

I still have a few questions. Was not Leithart at the court proceedings? Did he not hear any testimony, see any evidence? And why does he say he disbelieved only the parents? They were not witnesses to the crimes. Is not it Natalie he disbelieved?

A little over a year ago, I finally asked Leithart to consider the harm he did to me during that same 2005/2006 period. He refused to listen, and the irresponsible internet had nothing to do with it: I approached him off-line, and to my current knowledge, what you are reading here is the first time I have ever posted something critical of him – a painful thing to do since I love him.

(On this general topic of abusing the victim after the abuse, please see my post here. And I would recommend some pages in Liar’s Club as a way to further communicate a young girl’s experience of oral rape.)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • StumbleUpon