On Tim Bushong and the CREC Review Committee

Business as usual

“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” 2 Timothy 3:13

Meanwhile the CREC Review Committee continues to prepare its vindication of Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, in the matter of two sex-abuse scandals. I remind you of this because one of the commissioners who sits on the committee left an affirmative comment on the Bayly Blog post that accused Rachel Miller of countless sins — albeit without evidence (NB: assertions are not evidence even when modified by shrill adjectives).

His name is Tim Bushong; he sits on the CREC Review Committee; and he left this comment in the Bayly Blog combox:

“Failing to do so, her session joins Ms. Miller in her scandal and sin.”
Bingo. Isn’t it sad that, for so much of this type of online critique and bluster, it ends up being a shepherding issue at the foundational level.

A simple google search demonstrates that Tim Bushong frequents the land of Gog and apparently agrees with the arguments advanced there. So it’s important to remember that the CREC has not changed and likely will not change. Doug Wilson has populated it with sycophants & acolytes, such as Tim Bushong, who do his bidding. More specifically, the CREC is still a denominational front that provides cover for Mr. Wilson’s unethical activities, such as

  • Editing fraudulent textbooks to sell to unsuspecting homeschool families
  • Presiding over the marriage of a serial pedophile to a naïve graduate of New St. Andrews College (NSA)
  • Rationalizing the sexual abuse of a 14-year-old girl because of her height and a “secret courtship”1
  • Blackmailing rape victims into silence.

Douglas Wilson commits these crimes and the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches exists to give him their religious stamp of approval.

Readers should also recall Randy Booth’s caution, when he wrote, “It is important to note that this committee does not have authority over individual pastors or elders.”

Despite the plain English, Mr. Booth’s words mean something altogether different than what they say. Mr. Booth really means that when the CREC exonerates Mr. Wilson, he (Mr. Wilson) will pretend that the Review Committee actually had presbyterian authority over him when in fact these men have no more power to discipline him than they have to arrest the Queen of England. They are ecclesiastical impotentates who pretend they’re presbyterians.

One last thought: When Rachel Miller discovered that Doug Wilson and his co-author stole large amounts of body text for their book A Justice Primer, a legitimate denomination with legitimate ecclesiastical authority would have appointed honest men to investigate, to determine how many more acts of fraud their fellow ministers had perpetrated. But the CREC cut Mr. Booth loose and pushed forward, as though this was business as usual.

And that’s because it is business as usual, as Rachel Miller has demonstrated.


1 Mr. Wilson’s unstated argument with the so-called “secret courtship” is that “courtship,” whether public or secret, justifies “sexual behavior.” Mr. Wilson implies this for men such as Tim Bushong to run with.

4 Comments

  1. It might as well be Doug looking in a mirror and declaring “Not guilty! The committee has spoken.”

  2. “this type of online critique and bluster” . . . Yet when some of us appealed to the committee that Doug’s blog posts showed clearly how inappropriate his attitude was and how he did not take their inquiry seriously, Randy Booth told us it had nothing to do with them and they weren’t going to concern themselves with it.

  3. “Ecclesiastical impotentates” — I bow to your #wordsmithy craftsmanship, sir.

    I wonder how it feels to know you’re spiritually emasculated and yet have to pretend to be a man (or the Kirk’s idea of one) for the sake of appearance? A mixture of fear and loathing with a chaser of anger? The life of a soft man pretending to be hard must be exhausting.

    1. I don’t think sociopaths expend that much energy reconciling cognitive dissonances.

Comments are closed.