Doug Wilson Says ‘Our Ministry’ to Convicted Ped*phile Has Not Put ‘Any Children In Our Church Community’ at ‘Risk’

No children at risk

“Our ministry to Steven, in other words, has not been conducted at the expense of any children in our church community, or in a way that puts any of them at risk.”¹ — Doug Wilson

OPINION: Doug often tries to control the narrative, but this statement is at best, misleading, and at worst, patently false (see post regarding deception). This quote is from an article Doug wrote amidst a renewed controversy regarding Steven Sitler, a convicted pedophile² who had regularly attended Doug’s church and had studied at New Saint Andrews, Doug’s college. Days before Doug published this article, the local news reported that Steven had been removed from his own home for the safety of his infant son.³ Court documentation shows Steven had lied on a polygraph test⁴ and it was revealed that he “had contact with his child that resulted in actual sexual stimulation.”⁵ I contacted the prosecutor in the case and he directed me to the publicly available audio recording of the proceedings,⁶ and it is clear from the statements made by the prosecuting attorney that Sitler was the one sexually stimulated, not his son.⁷ Many in the Christ Church community, including Doug, have sought to minimize the serious nature of Steven’s offense because the child was not specifically stimulated. However, according to experts, “Child sexual abuse includes any contact between an adult and a child…for the purposes of sexual stimulation of either the child or the adult or older child, and that results in sexual gratification for the older person.” When an adult male is sexually stimulated through “contact” with a child, such contact is incredibly damaging to the child, regardless if the child is stimulated.⁸ The prosecutor in the case, Bill Thompson, said in the hearing of Steven: “He has multiple victims, all of them young—some so young that they would not be in any position to protect themselves. The risk to society is substantial here. The risk to his own child—despite the best wishes and hopes of everybody in this courtroom—is substantial. The actions that he has engaged in that he has disclosed to this point are a compelling basis that he cannot have anything close to a normal parental relationship with this child—certainly at this point in time.”⁹ In a later interview, Thompson stated, “I have never had a case like that and I’ve been practicing law here since 1980 and prosecuting since 1992…We’ve had much more egregious conduct, but the victims were limited in number. The combination of the number of disclosed victims, the youth of Mr. Sitler as all this was developing, the span of time over which the offending occurred and frankly the evaluation of him as far as the risk that he poses, is that untreated and unsupervised he shows a huge risk to the community.”¹⁰

So why am I bringing this up? Because Doug Wilson said, “Our ministry to Steven, in other words, has not been conducted at the expense of any children in our church community, or in a way that puts any of them at risk.”¹¹ But that is not the truth. Steven’s own son was severely endangered. Doug Wilson was part of the cause. He officiated Steven’s wedding following his release on lifetime probation (and wrote in 2022, that he hasn’t “lost a moment’s sleep over it” and would do it again).¹² How could Doug forget the risk to Steven’s own child? When Doug wrote this post, state authorities had removed Steven from his own home for the protection of his young child. Yet, Doug failed to see that his ministry to Steven had inadvertently placed at least one child at great risk, Steven’s son.¹³ Doug’s own denomination had also previously admitted that: “There was one situation we discovered in which Sitler was at a church event when he should not have been, but the situation was quickly corrected and not repeated, to our knowledge.”¹⁴ Once again,¹⁵ Doug seems to show more concern for the perpetrator and focuses on defending himself rather than the victims. He does not seem to comprehend the enormously devastating consequences of childhood abuse.¹⁶

Sadly, many of his followers have seemingly adopted his lack of concern regarding pedophilia and other forms of sexual abuse. We have personally encountered multiple followers of Doug Wilson trying to convince us that Steven’s offense against his son was not serious. Additionally, our own children were put at risk in an educational setting because a critical staff member was not informed of Sitler’s history. This minimization of Sitler’s heinous sin and Doug’s subsequent support and defense of him (see Doug’s previous defense here), is incredibly alarming to us and reflects a religious environment that fosters abuse. The former COO of New Saint Andrews College (NSA), Tony Baker reported that in July 2022, Ben Merkle, president of NSA and Doug’s son-in-law stated, “Is it really that big of a deal?”¹⁷ regarding an alleged case of a father sexually abusing his children (because the girl in question was the last one living at home). This minimization of horrific sin is deeply concerning.

Throughout Scripture, God declares himself to be on the side of the oppressed, the side of the weak. He is not on the side of the oppressor. “‘Because of the devastation of the afflicted, because of the groaning of the needy, Now I will arise,’ says the Lord; ‘I will set him in the safety for which he longs.’” (Psalm 12:5, NASB95). Jesus takes the harming of children very seriously saying that “it would be better for him [the person causing harm] to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6, NASB95). This does not mean that there is no hope for the oppressor, or that grace and forgiveness should not be extended, but it does mean we ought to give special care to those who are abused and oppressed. If someone is receiving less care, let it be the one who perpetrated the abuse.

Contrary to Doug’s claim, he has put children at risk because of his “ministry” to a convicted pedophile, both through his example of minimizing sin and directly, through his mishandling of the case. As a minister of the Gospel, Doug should speak the truth about his actions and culpability in placing children in harm’s way. To do otherwise is to bring shame on the name of Christ. His insistence on minimizing certain sins (such as pedophilia) and maximizing others (such as writing negative comments about him) is counter to God’s Word. I believe Doug is disqualified from ministry on multiple counts, as he falls short on many of the Scriptural requirements for a pastor. If anything, he presents as exactly the opposite. When one thinks of Doug Wilson, one does not think of the following attributes: “above reproach,” “respectable,” “gentle,” and “not contentious” (1 Timothy 3:1–7, NET). And specifically pertinent to this current topic, elders “must be well thought of by those outside the faith, so that he may not fall into disgrace and be caught by the devil’s trap.” (1 Timothy 3:7, NET). Doug Wilson and Christ Church have a bad reputation among believers and unbelievers alike here in Moscow, partly due to his mishandling of this case.¹⁸

My prayer is that Doug would recognize how he has actively contributed to creating an environment that fosters abuse and that through making light of sexual sin, he has done great harm, not only to his own church community but also to the community at large. I pray that he would publicly humble himself, seek forgiveness, and endeavor to make right the harm he has caused.