Doug Wilson Says Pedophiles Should Be Put to ‘Death’ But The Penalty For The Pedophile In My Church Should Be ‘Measured and Limited’

“But 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.”¹ — Doug Wilson

“I am grateful Steven was caught, and am grateful he has been brought to account for these actions so early in his life. I am grateful that he will be sentenced for his behavior, and that there will be hard consequences for him in real time. At the same time, I would urge that the civil penalties applied would be measured and limited. I have a good hope that Steven has genuinely repented, and that he will continue to deal with this to become a productive and contributing member of society.”² — Doug Wilson in letter to judge regarding now convicted pedophile Steven Sitler

OPINION: The controversy regarding the convicted pedophile, Steven Silter, has been well-documented over the years.³ Even Doug’s own denomination has questioned his wisdom concerning his involvement and counsel in this case.⁴ Doug wrote that he believes the penalty for convicted pedophiles “should be death”⁵ and yet, when involved in a case where a man who attended his church and was enrolled at his college (New Saint Andrews) was convicted of pedophilia,⁶ he wrote a letter to the judge seemingly asking for leniency. Doug has attempted multiple times to explain that “measured and limited” does not mean “trivial, light or lenient.”⁷ But given the context, and the contrast between “hard consequences” and “measured and limited,” I do not believe that his words can be interpreted as anything other than Doug asking for leniency from the judge.⁸ But even if we accept Doug’s definitions, it still shows a contradiction. If Doug were being consistent with his belief—that pedophiles should be put to death—a letter to the judge would have asked for the highest penalty possible under the law. But instead, he asked for a “measured and limited” penalty. Such a request, quoting Doug’s own denomination “…is the kind of thing that can lead to a lot of heartache for victims and their families.”⁹ Yet Doug continues to defend himself. Even while accepting responsibility for any “friends” who “missed” his meaning, his posture is one of innocence rather than culpability.¹⁰ He fails to acknowledge the greater sins: the harm he caused to the victims by his apparent support of their abuser, and the damage done to the name of Christ among unbelievers due to his actions.

The mishandling of this abuse case, along with Doug’s refusal to humble himself and admit his failure, is one reason he has such a poor reputation in the community here in Moscow.¹¹ I believe it is also another reason he does not meet the biblical qualifications for an elder (1 Timothy 3:7). His actions are those of someone who is two-faced, calling for the death penalty on the one hand, but when a man who attends his church and is enrolled at one of his schools is charged, appeals for leniency¹² from the judge, hoping that he would not “lose his temper”¹³ and “put Sitler in prison and throw away the key.”¹⁴

What of the victims? What of justice? Wouldn’t it have been right for Steven to accept the highest penalty under the law in order to show that he understands his sin, the heinous nature of it, as well as seek to show true sorrow over his sins to his victims? As the thief on the cross confessed: “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” (Luke 23:40–41, NASB95). But instead, it seems clear that Doug minimized Steven’s sin at the expense of the victims, and by doing so, heaped more hurt on them as well as damaged his own testimony in his local community. Such a stance also harmed Steven, for by minimizing his sin, it interfered with his own repentance toward God and those he harmed. Years later, Steven would be back in court because there were major concerns over the safety of his son (he had married and had a son by this time), and Doug’s actions in the controversy were again decried locally.¹⁵

This seems to be a pattern with Doug: minimizing the sin of the perpetrator while often ignoring the needs of the victims.¹⁶ This is contrary to God’s character, who is the defender of the weak and oppressed: “‘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). And “Administer justice every morning; And deliver the person who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor, That My wrath may not go forth like fire And burn with none to extinguish it, Because of the evil of their deeds.” (Jeremiah 21:12, NASB95).

Is there forgiveness in Christ for pedophiles? Yes! But repentance doesn’t mean trying to make less of your sin and seeking an easy way out, as it seems Steven did—making a plea deal with a judge by disclosing his other victims with the promise that the state would not charge him “with any other crimes of a similar nature to Lewd Conduct with a Minor Under Sixteen Years of Age based on facts he discloses in connection with this case.”¹⁷ And there were many victims according to Bill Thompson, the prosecutor on Sitler’s case: “He is a serial child sexual abuser to the point where Your Honor has imposed a life sentence and required that he be under supervision for the rest of his natural life. He has multiple victims, all of them young, some so young that they would not be in any position to protect themselves.”¹⁸

My prayer is that rather than continue to defend himself, Doug would humbly and clearly admit that he was wrong to protect and minimize the sin of Steven, at the expense of the victims and their families. That he would acknowledge how his actions have caused the name of Christ to be defamed here locally, and that he would humbly seek forgiveness of the victims and their families, of Steven, and the local community.

NOTE: Abuse within churches is sadly a common occurrence, and is often mishandled by church leaders. This is not unique to Doug. The main difference between Doug and his church, Christ Church, and other churches within the CREC, is that when the abuse is discovered, Doug and his church tend to side more strongly with the perpetrator (usually a man)—in the courtroom, in letters asking for reduced sentencing, in speaking excessively of forgiveness toward the offender—but then accusing the victim of bitterness, gossip, slander and lies, thus retraumatizing the victim (usually a woman) over and over again. This is particularly harmful, as the victim is being attacked by those claiming to have God’s authority, and therefore the spiritual abuse, in addition to the other abuses, is often catastrophic. This devastating pattern has been confirmed by many witnesses.¹⁹

Want More Context?

Here are some links to other blogs dealing with this issue in more depth:

A 499-page report by an ex-CREC member, Rachel L. Shubin on two specific cases, including Sitler’s: https://web.archive.org/web/20230507061929/https://www.moscowid.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Analyzing-DWs-Response-to-Sitler-and-Wight-Cases.pdf

https://heidelblog.net/2023/07/hohn-cho-on-missing-the-point-of-sexual-abuse/

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/scandal-in-moscow/

https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2015/09/04/pastor-doug-wilson-a-serial-pedophile-and-the-real-victims/

https://web.archive.org/web/20240127125210/https://www.christkirk.com/crec-presiding-ministers-report-2017/

https://bredenhof.ca/2023/07/03/doug-wilson-the-bad/

https://bredenhof.ca/2023/07/10/doug-wilson-the-ugly/

Footnotes