|Joan Opyr, Cub Reporter
Topic: Moscow Diversity Cleansing
One of our local adversaries writes for New West, and she has given us a dog's breakfast of an article here. Rather than engage with her assertions and misinformation over all (i.e. the total effect), or with her ghoulish willingness to trample over victims and their families so long as it enables her to get a shot in at Christ Church, I will set myself a somewhat different task. The first comment on that blog article asks rhetorically and somewhat triumphantly -- "what factual error has Joan made?" And so I will simply content myself with a list of her factual errors (excluding any factual errors about other controversies, like the issue of zoning and boarding houses).
So here they are.
1. Joan says, "In April of 2005, two months before Steven's arrest, Sitler's home church in Colville, Washington, Emmanuel Presbyterian Church, informed Doug Wilson of their knowledge of Sitler's offenses." What actually happened was that as soon as I found out, I told Steven Sitler's parents that they need to inform their pastor, which they did. Immediately after this, I called their pastor, Jack Bradley, who is a friend of mine, to fill him in as well. So we did not find out from Steven's home church; it was the other way around. Joan's factual error number one. There are seven more.
2. Joan says, "Doug Wilson . . . claims on his blog that he notified a meeting of the Christ Church Heads of Households in November or December of 2005." What I actually did was notify them in writing at the parish level Heads of Households meeting in November, and then again at the church-wide Heads of Households meeting in December. This second verbal report is noted in the official minutes of that meeting. So I don't claim I did this "in November or December, gosh, I don't remember exactly." Rather, there is written documentation and proof that I reported on the situation in detail in both November and December.
3. Joan says that I wrote a letter to the judge "requesting leniency," followed by a selective quote which, had it been all I said, might have made her point. But for some mysterious reason, Joan did not quote the part of the letter that said, "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." Emphasis added so that Joan Opyr, cub reporter, might find it.
4. Joan said, "Doug Wilson seems to believe [he] should welcome the return of Steven Sitler not as a criminal; not as a serial pedophile; not as a dangerous man, but as a repentant sinner." False alternative, and she is attributing views to me which I repudiate. I believe that if Steven is returned to our community, he should be welcomed as a criminal and serial pedophile and a dangerous man, as well as a sinner who professes repentance. If there is no forgiveness of sin in Christ (including horrific sin like this), then I should give up the pastorate and get a useful job with UPS or something. When terrible sinners cry out for the grace of God found in Christ, it is not a minister's job to say "sorry, all out,"
5. Joan attributed a Lewiston Morning Tribune story to the Daily News. But David Johnson writes for the Trib.
6. Joan says, "Steven Sitler confessed his crimes to his pastor in Colville, and he confessed them to Doug Wilson. The Colville pastor chose to warn the members of his congregation immediately; the Moscow pastor did not." Might this have had something to do with the fact that Steven Sitler was there in Colville awaiting trial? The OPC there communicated effectively and well with their congregation, as did we, as it became necessary for each of us. And we worked together with the OPC throughout this troubling case. And it is important to note (again), that the legal authorities were involved in the whole thing immediately.
7. Joan says, "Doug Wilson allowed members of his church to find out about Steven and Jamin Wight in the worst possible way: through gossip, through rumor, through inaccuracy and innuendo." One is tempted to add, "that is to say, through reading New West." But although it would be cute, it would be inaccurate. This is because our congregation found out about this whole situation from us, at the November and December HOH meetings, 6-7 months before Joan and her friends started their public campaign to intimidate all future victims' families who might be hesitant about reporting a crime like this. "Just remember," they are saying in effect, "nothing so terrible can happen to your family that we would not be willing to turn it into a public controversy." Note to self. I need to make a run down to CostCo. I am almost out of cynicism about these people, and I had a big fifty pound bag too.
8. Joan asks, "Why no mention of Jamin Wight?" But there was mention of the Jamin Wight situation, noted in the minutes of the same December HOH meeting noted earlier. Factual error number 8.
Just one other thing. I have an article suggestion for Joan, one that should go over well at New West some time in the future. Why don't you write something on when you think the age of sexual consent should be, and why? Quote fulsomely from gay and lesbian literature. Integrate with the current and widespread views of ethical relativism, particularly sexual relativism. And good luck.Posted by Douglas Wilson - 6/14/2006 3:14:25 PM | Print this post
call me sheltered, but I've never read such vile propaganda as I just did on that link to the New West website. May our Lord be with you, Pastor Wilson. You seem to have attracted a bit of Satanic attention. Sadly enough, in some sense, a man's faithfulness to God can be measured by his enemies.
Mark Calhoun - 6/14/2006 8:17:37 PM | Report Comment
I would love to know what makes a person an adversary or enemy of Douglas Wilson or Christ Church, Moscow? When does someone 'cross the line'?
Kevin D. Johnson - 6/14/2006 8:30:56 PM | Report Comment
Another question that all the recent posting and blogging that I've been mulling is how does Pastor Wilson extract himself from this mess, now that it's broken free and kinda running on its own power, so to speak? It doesn't matter what he says, MM immediately puts something up to "counter" it. But, someone writes something like the outrageous and slanderous piece in this post and DW is forced to go on V2020, reply on his own blog, spend valuable time dealing with the bleatings of everybody who doesn't like him, NSA, CC, GF and any other ministry that DW could be associated with. This is utter wickedness--these "intoleristas" use every avenue available to them to fight and fight and fight against a local unapologetic Christian presence. I just don't see an "easy exit strategy" here.
Dave Houf - 6/14/2006 9:12:49 PM | Report Comment
Well, at least she didn't say that you're preaching that sin may abound in order that grace may abound even more.
Oh wait. She did. Well, at least you're in good company, DW.
Frank Turk - 6/14/2006 9:57:12 PM | Report Comment
Mr Johnson, if I were in Pastor Wilson's position, I could not call this person a friend. One who would use a tragedy such as this one for political gain is obviously an enemy. A friend wouldn't write what has been written, and someone neutral wouldn't be so transparent in her attacks.
Mark Calhoun - 6/14/2006 11:22:45 PM | Report Comment
Mr. Johnson, the use of the word 'enemy' in the Christian lexicon is very broad. Satan, Joan Opyr, Michael Metzler, and John Robbins may all be called 'enemies' of Christ Church, but each in a different way. It is conceivable that a Christian could be having some kind of a serious conflict with another Christian involving money in a business deal that went sour, and it is possible that the parties could find themselves 'enemies' in a sense that is within the range of legitimate Christian usage, but yet again different from the above senses. There are situations in which it would be appropriate to literally take an enemy's life or to tell outright lies to him, and other situations where such behavior would constitute serious sin on our part. All of God's enemies are necessarily our personal enemies, but the reverse is not necessarily true. This is a generalization, but as Christians our primary concern is to confront God's enemies, and to commit our personal enemies to God. We stand up for God, and He stands up for us. All of this is a long-winded way of saying that there is no short, simple answer to your question. Of course, Rev. Wilson never appointed me his spokesman but I think this is pretty standard fare as Christian doctrine goes.
Christopher Witmer - 6/15/2006 12:12:24 AM | Report Comment
Main Entry: en�e�my
Inflected Form(s): plural -mies
Etymology: Middle English enemi, from Old French, from Latin inimicus, from in- 1in- + amicus friend -- more at AMIABLE
1 : one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent.
I think is what it takes to be an enemy of CC: to seek to overthrow or injure it. And it seems there are a few in this category.
Frank Turk - 6/15/2006 9:44:45 AM | Report Comment
(KJV) For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Pastor Wilson, I would suggest prayer may be more valuable than all the refutes.
Of course you are your own man..just a suggestion.
ragged edge - 6/15/2006 11:13:25 AM | Report Comment
Are you suggesting that Wilson is not already praying about this? I would imagine he is.
dave matre - 6/15/2006 11:25:29 AM | Report Comment
I want to thank everyone for chiming in about my question to Pastor Wilson. Of course, I would have preferred for *him* to answer the question...but it seems that there are many questions I ask of late that he isn't willing to answer for whatever reason. I don't really understand that.
In regards to "enemies" or "adversaries", I wasn't asking about any one person but just what makes a person an enemy or adversary of Christ Church or Douglas Wilson. I thought it was a very simple basic question.
On a side note, it's encouraging to see that the Turkenstein actually knows how to use the dictionary. The next thing you know, he'll be able to start reading his Bible with understanding. After all, using a lexicon is the first step in understanding the plain and obvious meaning of the text! :)
Kevin D. Johnson - 6/15/2006 12:27:42 PM | Report Comment
Mr. Johnson, I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that Pastor Wilson may be just a little busy right now...and that when he doesn have time to blog or answer posts, he may, just may, not be able to get to all of them.
Dave Houf - 6/15/2006 12:37:06 PM | Report Comment
The thing I appreciate most deeply is that Wilson is primarily addressing Christian believers in all of this. It seems to be a difficult thing to derail Doug from this vision of Christ's kingdom that he has been shown. Every occasion is bent toward it--even these attacks. They become an opportunity to pass on lessons learned, strategies, and biblical wisdom for life--to train others in honorable paths.
Money can't buy this stuff.
Even if Doug should ever make a serious error of judgment in his dealings, and be caught in it by adversaries, I will already have known that Doug isn't perfect. I fully expect Doug to find repentance, and it still won't undo the hundreds of lessons learned from him when he was falsely accused.
So when I'm tempted to think that Doug should just ignore them all and get back to more peaceful, joyful doctrines (which I love), I am reminded that God is the one who put enmity between the two seeds. God is the one who calls for maturity in all areas, even in struggles, so we may be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.
The sort of adversaries that Doug has are the same sort that I would like to have one day, if God ever puts me over much.
katecho - 6/15/2006 12:43:44 PM | Report Comment
Kevin Johnson asks, "what makes a person an enemy or adversary of Christ Church or Douglas Wilson. I thought it was a very simple basic question."
It may seem like a simple question, but the process is actually quite complex and competitive. First you have to make it through the resume screening, and then the interview stage. Once this is achieved you must compete in several tryouts, and finally, you must complete the final obstacle course before certification.
In short, you have to dedicate a serious portion of your life to the task of being recognized as one of Doug's enemies. It's not something you can't just fall into by accident, in case anyone was concerned.
Many seem to think that this blog gives them a means to bypass the enemy qualificaton process, and jump immediately into the ring with Doug, but Doug simply doesn't have time for small fry.
Well, actually he seems more generous with enemy-wannabees than I would expect him to be, given the many other, more pleasant, things that he devotes himself to.
katecho - 6/15/2006 12:57:38 PM | Report Comment
I was not suggesting Pastor Wilson wasn't praying.
I was suggesting that the refutes simply seem to be keeping the water boiling.
ragged edge - 6/15/2006 7:15:39 PM | Report Comment
Mister Ragged, at it again, eh? I suggest you consider the ostrich--the bird, head in sand, ignorant of beasts seeking whom they will for filling their bellies. The longer he leaves his head buried, the more likely some creature will pop round and bite his bum clean off. is head will remain in the sand a long time......now, consider geese, who hold well together and, at any hint of trouble, raise a hue and cry that danger is afoot. Recall how this characteristic was used to great advantage by the Romans, who always kept them in their camps as watchmen. I recall at least one significant occasion when it was these fowl raising the alarum in dead of night that saved the army from certain destruction by a wiley enemy. And one more detail---the goose is unable to back up...must either turn aside or continue forward. So, which creature more closely approximates the behaviour of Doug Wilson? And which pattern of behaviour better serves the safety of the rest? And why do you criticize a man throwing himself, wearily into the fray in defence of not only truth, but his own people? Perhaps you could consider more closely the level of responsibility this man bears. He does not shirk his duty, even when some question it. Thankfully, he does not answer to YOU.
lewsta - 6/16/2006 4:34:57 AM | Report Comment
lewsta, I also thank God that Wilson does not answer to me.
Here are some Words from someone I do hope Wilson answers to.
(ISV) But I tell you not to resist an evildoer. On the contrary, whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well.
Now with this I am not claiming anyone on either side to be evil. I am simply looking for signs of obeying on one side or the other.
I had no idea when I signed on to read here what the Lord had in mind for me to see.
I came, I saw, I will now give it all to the Lord.
ragged edge - 6/16/2006 7:03:15 AM | Report Comment
What is Christ Churches political agenda? I see many references to this, but what is it?
Matt Weber - 6/16/2006 11:46:03 AM | Report Comment
To post a response on BLOG and MABLOG, you must be a valid user.
Please sign in, or
click here to create an
Forgot your password?