One of the things I learned about the profound nature of the redemptive work of the gospel was something I learned from my father. And he taught me this when he once said, “God takes you from where you are, not from where you should have been.”
I was grateful for the opportunity to respond to the attack launched on us by The American Conservative, and in turn Rod Dreher was glad for certain aspects of my response. But for a handful of reasons he remains personally unconvinced. One of his reasons was the fact that I agreed to perform the wedding for Steven Sitler.
“And yet, 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 [what] I do not understand.”
So let me say a few more things about it. If you need a big picture review, you can look here. In this post, I am just addressing the questions related to performing the marriage.
First, I am a pastor and I base our counseling and pastoral care on the Bible. That is the realm where I operate. That is what I do. For those who think that this means all you have to do is say something like “sorry, oops, Jesus, God, Bible” and it is therefore “all good,” with the penitent getting back into the club in no time, they need to look again at the timeline I provided describing the care we provide to Steven. And for those who think that it means that we just do our little thing here in Bibleland, and it is necessarily antithetical to what treatment professionals might recommend, here is a scholarly article on sexual offenders and recidivism rates.
Rod Dreher was upset that we differed with the recommendation of the probation officer. But we agreed with the judge, who made the determination to let the marriage proceed. Judge Stegner approved the wedding, and he said that ‘an age-appropriate relationship with a member of the opposite sex from Mr. Sitler is one of the best things that can happen to him and to society” (emphasis added). In addition to this, we also were in agreement with the treatment professionals that Steven was seeing. His pastoral counselor agreed, his professional counselors agreed, the judge agreed. Now where is the scandal in this?
Now I can fully understand why someone might differ with this. Disagreeing over complicated subjects is to be expected. But there was nothing whatever scandalous about it.
As a pastor, I do not believe that a lawful sexual outlet through marriage is an automatic fix for anything. There are too many miserable married people for anybody to think that. But I do believe that an age-appropriate sexual relationship that is set apart and blessed by God (and His people) can be a major part of a possible restoration. In a caring community, with close friends, careful accountability demonstrated over years, and true responsibility for the offender, good things can happen. That is what we offered to Steven, and that is what Steven has received. God takes us from where we are, not from where we should have been.
And this leads to the next thing. What precisely would Rod have wanted me to do? Would he want me to refuse to conduct the wedding, or would he want me to simply prohibit the wedding flat out? If I just refused to officiate, and Steven got married by a justice of the peace, what then? Would I have to excommunicate him for marrying? There is no biblical case for that. If his wife is fully apprised of all the facts, and she was, and she wanted to marry him, should I excommunicate them both for marrying? Don’t I need a verse or something?
Many of the questions of this sort boil down to this: why didn’t you cover your butt better than that? And the only answer I know how to give is that covering your butt is not gospel ministry.
REAL men humble themselves and exhibit- live out- sacrificial leadership, sometimes that includes a humble heart and lack of bitterness. I’ve been reading about Saul, how “God gave him another heart” when the mantle of kingship was bestowed upon him. (I Sam. 10:9) One thing led to another, and Saul is all about Saul- his reputation, his authority, his rightness in all things and then, “the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and a distressing spirit from the Lord troubled Him.” (I Sam. 16:14) But God doesn’t whip the kingdom out from under him right there; because He is… Read more »
You’re trying to say something there…Why not just say it?
Because then it could be disputed. And we can’t have anything as macro-aggresiony as that.
“Many of the questions of this sort boil down to this: why didn’t you cover your butt better than that? And the only answer I know how to give is that covering your butt is not gospel ministry.” One of the interesting things that has come out of all this is observing other church leaders who seem to think it is a matter of covering your butt. Andrew Sandlin, for instance, in his recent post distancing himself from his previous endorsement of Pastor Wilson’s book on justice.
Going back to when these posts broke, starting with “The only kind of Gospel there is” on 10 September. My big takeaway is to see what is really meant when it is said that the Gospel is ‘Scandalous’. Which, I think, is another way of someone saying… “Do you really mean that?”
If i were a pastor i would long ago have distanced myself from anything Doug has ever said or done, in the name of prudence and common sense much less self preservation.
I think the refrain from your more reasonable critics has been why haven’t you done more to protect potential future victims. It has nothing to do with covering your butt. Also there has been the issue of how you treated the actual victim in the Jamin case and the inconsistencies between the account of multiple witnesses and your account. You have not addressed that or why Natalie’s appearance had anything to do with how you handled the case.
I understood the victim’s appearance to be relevant insofar as pedophilia was under consideration – if the victim didn’t *look* like a child, was pedophilia the best description of this criminal’s behavior? Am I reading that wrong?
The law distinguishes based upon age, not upon what the child looks like or whether they have experienced puberty. Likewise, the Bible condemns any offense against a child, regardless of their *looks*. Natalie’s appearance is utterly irrelevant to either a “legal” or a “lawful” (to use Doug Wilson’s term) view of the case.
I thought pedophilia was different from statutory rape (under age sex)? I don’t really know.
Statutory rape is the legal offense (as codified in state statute). Pedophilia is a psychological diagnosis.
I see. Isn’t pedophilia specifically related to the pre-pubescent?
Yes, as a diagnosis. But the law distinguishes only based upon physical age, not upon the onset of puberty.
Ok. Do you know below what age such perversion is legally considered pedophilia?
The diagnosis of “ebophilia” is given to those who are attracted to “late” adolescents, generally 15 and up. Attraction to early adolescents is still generally considered pedophilia, though the diagnostic lines are not as bright as the legal ones. Natalie Greenfield was just 13 when Jamin Wight expressed an attraction to her. Doug Wilson is simply wrong on all counts here.
Counselor guester, you must be ready to move to Moscow and beat Bill Thompson as Latah Prosecuting Attorney in the next election. Do you think that maybe there is a reason that the Prosecuting Attorney and the Judge took the course of action they took that perhaps is different from your typing?
You don’t know what is going on and are making judgements without facts from either the legal or ecclesiastical areas. Thanks for beating all of us up.
You are most kindly welcome.
That is not completely true. There are different laws in different states related to how young the minor is. Some states make a legal distinction on people having sex with children under 12 versus children under 17 or 16. In Indaho you have to be 19 to be charged with statutory rape, for example.
I do acknowledge that the states differ in this regard. However, this should be no impediment to a Christian absolutely condemning a 24 year old man sneaking into the room of a 14 year old girl and molesting her.
Natalie Greenfield’s appearance continues to be utterly irrelevant to an appropriate Christian abhorrence at Jamin Wight’s ungodly and perverted actions.
I really am uncertain why we’re having this conversation at all.
Any judge will make a distinction between two year old victims and 14 year old victims.
Again you are arguing a distinction without a difference. Sexual abuse of either a two year old or a 14 year old is a crime. The crimes may have different statutory names, but they are both sexual abuse of children.
Without a difference? Not even a hint of a difference say, at sentencing?
Show me where Doug Wilson said that, because Jamin Wight was not a pedophile, he committed no crime. Then you will have a point.
Oh, that’s right — Wilson’s letter of record said exactly the opposite.
As I point out below, the definition of pedophilia extends to adolescent children.
No, the definition of pedophilia does not extend to adolescent children.
The definition of statutory rape does. Pedophilia is a medical term, not a legal one. Statutory rape is the term that describes any sexual contact with children below the age of consent.
I covered that below, Jane, including the acknowledgement that the diagnostic lines are not as bright as the legal ones. However, even the DSM states that pedophila generally covers up to age 13, which is the age at which Jamin Wight expressed an interest in Natalie Greenfield. What is your argument here?
guester, no one thinks that Jamin’s behaviour is acceptable. And everyone thinks that paedophila describes sexual attraction (and sexual behaviour) towards pre-pubescents such as 2 year-olds. The question is about whether paedophila is the right term to describe and label Jamin. Such is the hatred towards him (possibly not unreasonable by some) that it seems that they want to maximise all the law has to throw against him. But however much people are angry at him he is not guilty of murder. He is not guilty of theft. He is not guilty of treason. I do not think that a… Read more »
“If we say that sexual activity with a 14 year old developed girl or boy is paedophila then the schools are full of paedophile boys and girls”
The definition of pedophilia includes the differential between the ages of the child and the molesting adult. Jamin fits this definition.
I certainly wish people here were as concerned with how the victim is being viewed as how the perpetrator is being viewed.
I will say again that none of the discussion affects the abhorrence that the Christian should feel at Jamin Wight’s perverse and abusive behavior.
The definition of pedophilia includes the differential between the ages of the child and the molesting adult.
Why should it? Why should I accept that definition?
Accept whatever your want, bethyada. The discussion here has been about definitions. The differential is included in the DSM definition of pedophilia.
guester, you must not allow the world to define things as it wants.
Would you allow it to define paedophila as the attraction to any female under 20? What about the any female younger than a male whatever age?
The problem with paedophila is it is a deviant attraction.
I’ve made it clear that Jamin Wight’s behavior is abhorrent to the Christian, and there is no definition that makes it less so. Beyond that, bethyada, I’m not interested in parsing pedophilia any further. You’re on your own here.
q
It may be evil. But it is also deviant in the abnormal sexuality sense.
That is a variable in if statutory rape is involved, not pedophilic sex. In Idaho,you have to be 19 to be charged with statutory rape.. If the older one is 18 and the younger is eleven, it is not stat rape, but it is a felony. If an 18 year old has consensual sex with a 16 year old, it is not a crime. Not that I am recommending such behavior.
Wait a minute. Have we been unfair in calling priests pedophiles because they typically chose pre-teen and early teen boys as their victims?
You may have labelled them wrongly, but you are not unfair to them. They are rapists and sodomites and should be condemned in the strongest terms.
The desire to do church-house lawyering when confronted with documented abuse of children is worth being publicly disgusted by again and again.
retch
I agree, and when a 2 year old was involved it was reported the following day. I am not certain that a 14 year-old girl who “liked” the man, and whose parents initially (though not later) may have agreed to a potential future relationship falls into the same category.
If you had a 14 year old daughter being groomed for a sexual relationship with a manipulative 24 year old man, I think that you might feel differently. Natalie has spoken publicly about her infatuation with Jamin; it is irrelevant and textbook in these particular kind of abusive relationships. It is still an abuse of power, illegal and ethically sickening. For you to want to pull the threads on the distinction ostensibly to lessen Douglas’s responsibility here shows your own lack of empathy to the victims and lack of compassion. Given his own druthers, Douglas would have kept this out… Read more »
Undoubtably that would upset me, as would a 60 year-old targeting my 18 year old daughter; I would probably want to emasculate a player her lied to my 25 year old daughter to get her into bed. But as I have no theoretical problem with (post-pubescent) 14 year old females marrying I do not call this paedophila.
Well, thankfully the legal system sees it differently than you and your biblical wisdom.
That you cannot see how a mismatched power dynamic plays old concerns a developing child versus a 25 yr old or even 18 yr old is a problem.
a developing child
Interesting switch there. I have always said post-pubescent.
That you cannot see how a mismatched power dynamic
Nonsense. Of course there is a power differential. There is also a power differential between a wealthy, streetwise businessman and a naive, uneducated, adult orphan. But we don’t call that paedophilia.
I am of course claiming there is a power differential. But the distinction of power between adults vs adults and adults vs children matter.
Children. And yes, a 13-14 year is still a child. Again, if you cannot see how the sexual power dynamic is vastly different between an adult and a child versus your hypothetical 60 something adult and your 18 and 25 year old, you have a problem.
Let;s just call it rape then. You feel better?
I said a judge will make a distinction even though both are under age.
Legally, they are different crimes. People tend to lump all six related crimes as one. That is partly why this conversation is happening. Some people don’t understand that there is a difference between the two situations. It is not just different statutory names, but different burdens of proof and different punishments.
I look forward to the SJW crusade to lock up statutory rapists for life. Seeing how they have been so consistent on that score.
Any day now …
Thanks for responding to Mr. Dreher’s article, Doug. In a web awash with howling orcs and slobbering trolls, it’s nice to see a few rational interactions taking place. What is it the mob wants DW to do anyway? Forbid marriage to anyone who doesn’t have a good sex record? How many women have married former (or current) porn addicts? Should DW begin advising that none of those men get married, ever? What about those with transgender or homosexual proclivities? Adulterers and fornicators? Do you think that men with those sin issues cannot also be deceptive, manipulative, and violent? NEWSFLASH –… Read more »
Those are the questions and when I ask people what we should with people that have committed sexual crimes I never get a straight answer. Always the “protect the kids” line, which of course, I agree with, but that doesn’t answer the question of what we should do with people who have sinned in this way? Is there no redemption, no second chance? We, as a society, give drunk drivers chance after chance after chance, even when fatalities are involved yet those guilty of sexual crimes get nothing other than to be ostracized and labeled “likely to offend again”. How… Read more »
There are a variety of ways to seek to minister to those who have committed sexual crimes. Many pastors who do so would stop short of Wilson’s actions of officiating the wedding of a serial pedophile who expressed his intent to have children of his own, however.
The two alternatives here are not “perform the weddings of pedophiles” or “ostracize those guilty of sexual crimes.” There are many legitimate points of ministry between those two poles.
Then I’d say it’s time for you and your pastor to create a document about how you see the Bible would direct you in a similar situation, post it somewhere, and leave it at that.
If you’d like to know how other pastors would handle the situation, Jon, you might have a look at the Bayly’s blog. They are friends of Doug’s, and yet state that they disagree with his decision to officiate Steven Sitler’s wedding.
I have read that blog post, and was very thankful for his frank and gracious disagreement.
Do you apply the same standard to every woman who has murdered her child through abortion, and any man who has encouraged the female to have one? Because the chance of repeat abortion is quite high, and the murder of a child is as great as the sexual abuse of a child.
guester, do you have an opinion on abortion cases?
I think we’ve unwittingly bought into the homosexual activist’s argument (which itself wasn’t original) that certain sexual desires are simply a part of a person forever. Once a drunk/gambler/homosexual/pedophile, always and forever the same…and since homosexuals *shouldn’t* have to repress their desires, pedophiles probably can’t. So goes the line of arguing that wants to make one minority’s pleasures acceptable by condemning everyone else.
Of course the fact that we draw these conclusions after the meager efforts of secular psychiatrists should make much of the world’s assumptions suspect.
You’re right, and the only thing that makes our visceral reactions against pedophiles any different than our reactions against sodomites, alcoholics, et al, is, you know…”fer th’ cheer’rins.”
But since this culture/nation doesn’t seem to care about the wholesale slaughter of children, how much longer will THAT capital last?
It won’t for long . . . all hands to battle stations.
I see zero movement in the direction of legitimizing pedophilia. If anything, we’re moving in the other direction. State legislatures trip all over themselves every session to see how they can find further ways to make miserable the lives of people on the sex offender registry. Children have all kinds of protections they didn’t used to have. When I was a child, I learned to swim, naked, at the YMCA pool with twenty other naked six year olds; there is no way that would happen today (and any adult who volunteered to supervise a swimming pool full of naked six… Read more »
I think it’s not as solid in the culture as you are saying. The lack of outrage over Salon’s two articles promoting pedophilia as an alternate orientation, rather than a disorder, indicates that part of the culture, at least, is attempting to normalize this kind of behavior.
Who reads Salon? Seriously. The lack of outrage stems more from the fact that those articles went mostly unnoticed than from agreement. I’m a progressive, and I was unaware of those articles until I read your post and then found them on google. Among mainstream progressives — every viewpoint has its lunatic fringe — the closest thing you are going to find to pro-pedophilia is that they can’t help themselves and should therefore be treated with compassion, but at the same time the children need to be protected. In other words, a snake can’t help being a snake, but that… Read more »
Salon seems to be linked quite a bit.
I’m glad to hear that many progressives view this kind of viewpoint as a lunatic fringe, but given that both conservative and progressive sites have been well known to pick up minor articles and blowing them up for outrage, this is the kind of thing I would hope more people from both sides would recognize and highlight as people going too far. Instead, it’s ignored.
Sodomite marriage was a lunatic fringe idea 20 years ago.
It still is.
Nah it’s a lunatic mainstream idea now.
But 20 years ago the culture was not moving from being pro-gay to being anti-gay, and that’s the difference. On the pedophilia issue, the culture is moving from being anti-pedophilia to being even more anti-pedophilia to having a raw hatred of pedophilia of a thousand suns. Becoming pro-pedophila would require not just a shift in attitudes, but the functional equivalent of the reversal of direction of the earth’s orbit. If it happens, it will take a heck of a lot longer than 20 years. 20 generations maybe.
Quick question: Are you including within the definition of “sodomite marriage” heterosexual couples who have oral or anal sex? If you are, then “sodomite marriage” has been with us for a very long time. If not, for the sake of clarity, there probably needs to be another term so that everyone knows you’re only talking about same-sex couples who commit sodomy and excluding heterosexual couples who do.
What a weird fringe position to stake out.
Right now we see the loud words and the quick reactionary fires, but I often wonder if it’s a) Because progressives need to carefully maintain certain disreputable sins as such while they’re shoring up their gains on homosexual desire; or b) out of embarrassment on the part of progressives that someone might guess where they’re headed. Much like they used to make such an evil of Hitler because he took the near-and-dear theories of eugenics, abortion, and genocide and actually practiced them openly, making them terribly unpopular for awhile.
Most progressives have the same opinion of pedophilia as everyone here. Don’t forget that progressivism includes feminism, and the feminists have a deep and abiding hostility toward anything they view as threatening to children. (NOTE: Before anyone brings up abortion, I understand that most people here consider abortion to be baby murder, but the larger culture does not, so there is no disconnect between protecting children who have been born while at the same time supporting abortion rights.) Why would you consider pedophilia to be something progressives would support? Progressivism has a long tradition of protecting the weak and powerless,… Read more »
Currently pedophilia is rejected because our culture largely believes in the innocence and incapability of children to consent to sex. But consider some of the other moves on the chess board: 1. Children are being indoctrinated into “feeling as reality” in terms of sexual desire and gender identity at progressively earlier ages 2. Children are assumed to be responsible enough to know their gender even to the extent of meriting abuse by hormone injections, applied by cheering parents and the same LGBTMNOP activists. It’s not unreasonable to predict that in the course of another generation they may claim that children… Read more »
But having a gender identity, and being encouraged (or allowed) to have sex, are far and away two different things. Every child has a gender identity, most likely from birth, and Christian conservatives acknowledge this by insisting that children act in conformity to that gender identity. The only real difference between you and one of those alphabet soup activists you mention is that they don’t think anatomy is determinitive of what that gender identity is. But they are no more encouraging children to be sexually active than you are. As far as Greece and Rome are concerned, don’t forget that… Read more »
As regarding abortion: But it IS a disconnect. The fact that they don’t realize it makes it even more so a disconnect – they pretend a love of children but sacrifice children on the altar of sexual freedom with barely a twinge of conscience.
Consciences so seared could easily commit other sins against children.
Certain sins have psychological consequences. Apart from Christ, a pedophile can not change. Period.furthermore, many of them start at fourteen.
It is funny watching the exact same defenses being deployed for pedophilia as where deployed for homosexuality. I give it 10 years before the heathen scum make it mandatory in their public school systems–for the children.
I’m missing Kevin’s connection here. What does “sex” have to do with “sin?” In any sort of unique way? Gay or straight? Twins – – or triplets – – on the trapeze over at Billy Crystal’s place (City Slickers, 1991)? “Covet” applies to more than your neighbor’s wife. Paul didn’t say “All have fallen short of the glory of God only in regards to sex.” Nor did he say, “All have especially fallen short in the area of sex.” Sin is sin. Does it matter which one? So, as long as there no sexual sins, we’re all OK? Of course… Read more »
My point was that there’s a theory among non-Christians that a person is stuck with a sexual desire – that for instance a homosexual will always be a homosexual and cannot change (thus the need to create a diversity of sexual categories, to explain those who frustratingly move about the “spectrum”). This nonsense is coupled with the claim that because some ought not to be turned from their desires (homosexuals) others ought not to be considered as capable of resisting either. A homosexual *must* be trapped in their desire in order to make it a civil right. In other words,… Read more »
Thanks for the long and thoughtful explanation. Lots for me to think about – – not sure I’m seeing the point yet but you’ve given me much more to consider.
I have to finish two things over the weekend but I will make time to give my reply the care your response deserves.
Thx again.
Here’s a preliminary, halfway-thinking-out-loud, partial answer. Nagged at me before lights out and still feel the same way this am. I’m going to leave the whole “gay from nature or nurture?” issue aside. Some birth defects mere surgery can fix. (With gays, the start of the dispute is whether it’s even a defect at all.) But, say, paranoia or retardation are not things a knife can cure. One of my in-laws has an IQ around 80. Nice man, wouldn’t harm a fly, but he’s borderline helpless. Came home from the hospital that way and – – absent a miracle –… Read more »
Thank you for your response! To the first half I would add that there are things unfixable and things fixable, but for instance retardation is not a sin issue – Sexual sin is a sin issue. Sometimes you [might possibly be] born with it, and it is not always possible to defeat it (e.g. some homosexuals simply have to commit to being celibate – they don’t end up marrying heterosexually and having children) but I think far more often than not it is manageable if not conquerable. I say this also of other “addictions” such as alcoholism. While it’s possible… Read more »
Read a book about alcoholism many years ago. Danish adoption study. Children of alcoholics turned out alcoholic no matter who raised them. But children of non-alcoholics weren’t, no matter who raised them. Ran some tests; decided what made an alcoholic was a missing gene; they could not make a certain enzyme. For them, alcohol was a poison which they – – literally – – could not be taught to manage. ONLY at this point did he believe morality (sin for us) came into play. Once a person learns that they cannot process a material, then ingesting it thereafter crosses a… Read more »
Not at all. The argument is that because the pedophile’s only expression of their desires would be to *force* a child into sexual activity (i.e., the pedophile is not attracted to those who can give consent), children must be protected. The pedophile must be restricted from expressing their desires (which inherently can occur only via force) in ways that those who can express their desires in a consenting relationship do not necessarily require.
Whatever argument you make, it should not equate sexual activity between consenting adults with sexual activity forced upon a child.
“Forbid marriage to anyone who doesn’t have a good sex record? How many women have married former (or current) porn addicts? Should DW begin advising that none of those men get married, ever? What about those with transgender or homosexual proclivities? Adulterers and fornicators?”
Your logic is flawed. You are conflating sexual acts between consenting adults with sexual acts forced upon an unconsenting child. They are not the same. Not in the law, and not in the Bible.
The fact that you cannot make the distinction between someone with a porn problems, homosexuals and a CHILD RAPISTS shows that you are not really to be taken seriously. Except perhaps as an example of the grade of the hill that those of us advocating for the real victims here are up against.
guess the common factor. hint, it rhymes with ‘tin’.
Dear Doug,
Do you need a verse to forbid an ex-pedophile from nursery duty?
(edit to clarify: this is a general question, not specific to Steven’s case; the ambiguity had not occured to me, my apologies)
Warmly,
Keith
Dear Keith,
What???
Was Sitler ever on nursery duty? Of course not.
Does the Bible forbid marriage to fornicators? To adulterers? To prostitutes? No. Check out Hosea.
I apologize for the ambiguity, it hadn’t occurred to me. Given recent history it should have, sorry about that. I’ve edited the above to clarify.
I ask to find the logical basis here. There are reductios going both ways: if you have a verse to forbid nursery duty (semi-public, intermittent access to children), then do you not have a verse to forbid childrearing (private, frequent access to children)? If you do not have a verse for the latter, do you have a verse for the former?
Keith, church nursery care involves a position of public leadership for which there are biblical criteria to be met.
Marriage also has biblical criteria. But those criteria are not the same.
In fact, God fobade us forbidding sexual union… The kind He knew could bring about the blessings of children.
There are no verses for either. There are also no verses limiting TV time, but it does not take a great deal of brains to figure out the wiser path. Similarly it does not take a great deal of brains to figure out that those with pedophilia temptations should not have unrestricted access to children. But protecting the children does not necessarily mean that a pedophile can never marry or never enter onto church property. Is it wise to marry someone with some sexual perversion in their past? I wouldn’t think so, but if we applied that caution across the… Read more »
“Does the Bible forbid marriage to fornicators? To adulterers? To prostitutes? No. Check out Hosea.”
You are equating sexual acts between consenting adults with sexual acts forced upon a child. They are not the same.
I am not equating the two, at least not as the basis for my argument. I stated that the Bible does not forbid marriage between two consenting adults of the opposite sex, even if one of those adults has a sex crime in their past (e.g. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, pedophilia, etc.). Apparently it is not clear yet that I am using the Bible as the SOLE standard for defining capital crimes. That being said, adultery is a death penalty offense, as are homosexual acts and rape (including child rape), so according to God’s standards adultery IS just as bad as… Read more »
Jesus pronounces a special and distinctive curse upon those who offend children in Matthew 18:6. He does not extend it to those who offend adults.
“whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”
If you consider Jesus’ special standard for crimes against children as originating from the “cesspool of humanistic thought” then we certainly will not agree.
God does not give anyone, even a church elder, the authority to forbid marriage between consenting adults, whatever their past sins may be. If they are both repentant, professing Christians, they may marry. It may be a stupid arrangement, but it is not a sinful one.
I will not repeat myself on this matter, unless you actually have a genuine counter-argument to make, which, if you have one, is in obvious need of a great deal of clarification.
There is another option, Bryan. Doug could simply have declined to officiate. That would not of course have “forbidden” the marriage, the couple could have simply gone down to the courthouse.
Another issue that you are not addressing, however, is that the meeting and courtship of the couple was facilitated by a Christ Church elder, who told Katie that Steven was a godly man.
Dear Bryan, > “If DW’s lynch mob wants to be…” For a moment, forget the lynch mob. They’ve dug their pit, and will fall into it. They’ve built their gallows, and will be hung upon it. God is not mocked, and sons of belial will reap what they sow. Yes, even the ones laughing now. We’re playing the long game here. God will not smash us for the sins of those outside the covenant. Our real danger is from our own sin. > “Apparently it is not clear yet that I am using the Bible as the SOLE standard for… Read more »
you are more patient than i am.
Keith, here are 11 verses about a lot of things that apply to all of us, about sex and impurity in particular. Goldy people are not supposed to put idolaters in any responsible position. So what should we do with ex-idolaters? You and me for example? If my former idolatry was drug abuse, it would easily be unwise, unfair and unlikely to put me in charge of the medicine cabinet. Although, if I got sick, I might still take some drugs. However it works out “live as children of light”. Any questions? Ephesians 5 1 Follow God’s example, therefore, as… Read more »
Do we need a verse to forbid ex-baby-murders (women with multiple abortions) from nursery duty? I’d venture a guess that there are more of them (repentant sinners like all Christians) serving in our churches than ex-pedophiles. Ever think that this war on Mr. Sitler and Pastor Wilson is simply an extension on our broader culture’s war on men? Imagine the church questionnaire for potential nursery workers and it has two questions that, if answered in the affirmative, would disqualify one from service: “Have you ever committed a sex crime against a child?” and “Have you ever aborted a baby?” Imagine… Read more »
and that’s where I’m done. y’all are on your own.
Naturally, this post isn’t going to make the haters stop hating.
By the way, did you know that Christian women, especially those in the Deep South, are particularly beautiful? And when their drawl slides off the tongue like so much warm honey, it really tingles the toes…but only if they’re Christians, because, you see, there’s nothing quite like a godly woman who can make sweet tea, grits, and pecan pie! Unless, of course, she can also quick-draw a .38 and hit a quarter in the air from 25 yards. Now THAT’s a beautiful sight!
Speaking my language.
Mal, easy there boy! I am not saying you are over the line, I just thought now would be a good time to reiterate the boundary. At least we have a clear one on this issue! ; – )
Any details on that pie?
Job 31:1
“I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a young woman.
Try this site:
http://www.southernliving.com/food/entertaining/10-pecan-pie-recipes
Mal, I “forgive ” you for rubbing it in. I am pretty far from Texas, please have another slice for me! ; – ) And give my compliments to the Mrs.
On second thought, “A” and “Nord” DO sound like they are familiar with the concept of “honey-covered granite.” I stand (self) corrected.
And if “honey covered granite” can make a great pecan pie, how great is that?!?!?!!
“Now where is the scandal in this?”
Most of us respond to pedophiles with knee jerk emotionalism, horror, fear, and perhaps that’s warranted, but I sure do like it when calmer heads prevail. I really like it when we do the hard things, the things scripture calls us to do.
Like this one?
“For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.”
I Corinthians 5:12-13
Right, if someone falls into sin we must not try restore such a one? Galations 6:1
The reconciliation of these two passages lies in the acknowledgement that not all sinners come to repentance. I Corinthians 5 clearly provides an example in which a wicked man can, and must, be put out of the church.
Please define “wicked.” And are you talking about a repentant sinner, or a pastor which whom you disagree?
You could read the passage, Jon. The wicked man spoken of in I Corinthians 5 was condemned for the immorality of “having his father’s wife”.
So, you’re talking about a repentant sinner. OK, go on, please.
No, the wicked man of I Corinthians 5 is never said to be repentant.
OK, so … I’m trying to find the application.
ME spoke of the hard things that the church is called to do. I think one of those difficult things is to follow the instruction of I Corinthians in removing a wicked man from the church.
Oh, so that was agreement. Gotcha. Went right past me there.
Including those who repent? The whole point of excommunication is to “deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” (1 Cor 5:5).
Sitler and Wight were both at least suspended, I do not know if they got the full excommunication treatment or not before being restored to the table.
Sitler was never excommunicated because he repented and was restored. Christ Church has excommunicated others, though.
What has Christ Church excommunicated others for?
Adultery and deceitful business practice. Those are the ones I have heard of, but there might be other things, too.
Thanks, that is interesting. I wonder how these people were deemed ‘unrepentant’ when Steven Sitler was deemed ‘repentant’?
Those other people refused to stop the adultery and bad business practices. Sitler has not had a contact re-offence for 10 years.
He was declared repentant, however, after only six months.
The Christ Church elders must have been right, then, because he has not had another contact re-offence since.
not had another “contact re-offence”. What about non-contact re-offences, npf?
It was the court that made the statement about the non-contact re-offenses. They used that to deem Sitler well on the road to recovery. I think we can, too.
Guester has the evening off again I see. He really stirs the empty pot hoping for a choice morsel to go to the belly.
No evidence of Sitler’s repentance has been offered beyond Doug Wilson’s say-so. Should we accept Doug’s word on this? There are many facts in the record which I find problematic. Steven abused multiple children, in at least two states, over a period of years. Yet Doug declared Steven repentant after only six counseling sessions, and Christ Church readmitted him to the Lord’s Table a mere six months after he was charged. The “fruits of repentance” spoken of in the New Testament include restitution. Was six months adequate to make appropriate restitution to multiple victims and their families? Sitler was re-arrested… Read more »
Sitler has not been arrested since 2007, and a recent court document says that it doesn’t know of any allegations of contact re-offences in the past 10 years. That is a long clean stretch. Valley Treatment Services says, “Dr Wirt’s report and Dr Wilson’s (not Doug Wilson) affidavit are consistent with our impressions regarding Steven Sitler. In our opinion Mr Sitler should at present continue to parent his son in his home as he has done for the past four months.” Do you really think Doug Wilson does not know any of that information??
You are obviously more inclined to accept Doug’s word than I am, npf. On this we will continue to disagree.
Hello? I quoted from a court document, not Wilson.
gusti, everyone can have their own opinion and facts are facts regarding our perceptions of our own or anyone else’s repentance, however God knows who is repentant and who is not, regardless of what we think of others or ourselves. If someone actually does somethig wrong, like a crime, we can say so if we choose. If someone has not done any known wrongs or crimes in the present, negative speculations that they have should be supported by evidence, not speculation. Jeremiah 17 9 The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? 10 “I… Read more »
I hope all that is true and accurate, and I hope that he may continue not to reoffend. But I would not allow this unfortunate man any access to my young children. They would not be permitted to attend play dates at his house or to ride in his car. Do any of the defenders here feel differently? Would your faith in his repentance ever lead you to drop off your four year old for a play date even if a chaperone was somewhere in the house? And, if not, why is this man’s son not equally entitled to that… Read more »
Sitler, as you know, is on lifetime probation. I have read the conditions and found that he is on a very short leash. One of the conditions is that he is not allowed to be around anyone under 18 without a trained chaperone within line-of-sight of him (not just somewhere in the house). Of course that does not mean that other parents will allow their children to be around him, and I would assume that hardly any, if any, will allow it (I would not). Sitler works full time, so that gives other mothers and children plenty of opportunity for… Read more »
Serious question. What would it take to convince you of sincere repentance?
Good question. John the Baptist warned the Pharisees that they were to bring forth fruits of repentance (Matthew 3:8); which could be loosely translated as tangible, observable evidence of a changed mind. Though the fruits aren’t listed in that passage, or indeed explicitly in any other, other passages of Scripture point to the following. I’ll reply in four parts. 1. Acceptance of deserved punishment. The repentant thief on the cross asked to be with Jesus in paradise, not to be taken down, or his life spared (Luke 23:42). I don’t think that plea bargaining, or pleading to only one count… Read more »
2. Acceptance of the seriousness of the sin/crime. Understanding the heinous nature of the crime, and how much it has hurt others, is “Godly sorrow” (2 Corinthians 7:10). But we must be careful here, because practiced deceivers–particularly abusers–can manipulate the tears and language of repentance that Christians expect. I have found that things to watch for are (a) any language that minimizes the sin or its effects (it was *just* lewd conduct, it wasn’t a big deal) or (b) any language that attempts to spread the blame (the parents were neglectful, too, she had a crush on me) or (c)… Read more »
3. Reconciliation/Restitution in an unforced process that places the welfare of others above their own. Victimization violates the law of love, and a repentant sinner should show his change of mind by demonstrably placing his victims needs *above* his own. This should include both past victims, and potential future ones if the offender has demonstrated a pattern of life that could continue to bring harm (note the negative example of Sitler’s insistence on having his own children, despite his history of pedophilia). If apologies/reconciliation are appropriate, they should be conducted at a time, place, and in a way of the… Read more »
So Sitler confessed to other crimes at the request of the church. I thought I read that each of these episodes were told to the police/ courts so that they could progress them.
For me, an awareness of the horror of my actions and the willingness to remove myself from temptation–even if that removal came with sacrifice and even devastating loss. If, in a fit of vicious temper, I injured a child, I would have to be willing to accept that I was not a fit person to parent that child. If, as a nurse, I found myself stealing morphine from suffering patients, I would have to be willing to find work somewhere far from pharmaceuticals.
It seems to be that the hard things that Scripture calls us to do is care for the victims. That is so Scriptural and shouldn’t be so hard. Yet that is not the focus of this conversation. Then , and only after that is done should the focus be on restoring the perp/culprit/sinner. I really do not understand why doing the right thing is so hard
Leslie, scripture calls for ministering both. When both are offered help at the Lord’s Table and one turns away and one stays which is helped?
It is this doublespeak that I don’t understand.kind of Orwellian. Or maybe I understand it all too well
Leslie it is not doublespeak. Consider two individuals are offered help by the church. One individual says “maybe” and never comes back. The other individual says “help me” and stays.
Which one gets the help?
Maybe your church is not a safe place
How could Christ Church not be a safe place?
The reason that Christ Church is not a safe place is because Doug Wilson’s continued justification of his behavior in the Jamin Wight case and Steven Sitler cases is a clear signal that he would behave exactly the same way again . So given the opportunity, Doug would write letters to judges and arresting officers on behalf of the molester of your child and sit on their side in court. Your daughter would sit alone, without pastoral support. Doug would write you a letter equating the “neglect” he has deemed you to have displayed with the sexual violation of your… Read more »
I know of many women who have moved across the country to Christ Church because it is such a healthy and safe place for women. They will tell you that in no uncertain terms. Wilson has never justified Wight’s or Sitler’s behavior. That has been pointed out so many times and in so many ways, that for you to keep insisting that it is so makes you look foolish or worse. A pastor has to minister to both the victim and the perps. Pastors have to handle a lot of sin, as it’s what they do, and not everyone will… Read more »
Wilson has justified *his own* behavior. So he’d do it again. My discussion above is of Wilson’s own behavior, which could be toward my daughter just as well as it was toward Natalie or Katie.
I wouldn’t want my daughter to be treated like Doug and Christ Church treated Natalie and Katie. So Christ Church is not a safe place for me or my family.
You flat don’t know how the elders of Christ Church treated Natalie. You have the words of an unrepentant malcontent and very few words from the other side. What ever happened to hearing both sides before passing judgement? Are you aware that Natalie’s mother is still a member of Christ Church? Does that give you any hint about what she thinks of how her daughter was treated? Where has Mrs Sitler said that she doesn’t like how she was treated? It’s really weird that you insist that Mrs Sitler has been mistreated when she thinks she is a-ok.
Are you saying Natalie is lying? Her testimony is supported by that of her own father. Again, they provide the two witness accounts spoken of in Scripture.
I have said nothing about Mrs. Sitler, except that I would not want my own daughter to be introduced to a serial pedophile by church elders, told he was a godly man by church elders, or married to him by the church pastor. So again, Christ Church is not a safe place for my family.
I trust that you will allow me this judgment as what you call a “head of household”.
Do you know Natalie and her father? How do you know what sort of witnesses they are? Have you heard from Natalie’s mother? Doesn’t she count for anything? You don’t know the people involved, and you have not heard from enough people to make a judgement.
Natalie and her father have made public statements regarding their treatment by Doug Wilson and Christ Church. Their testimonies agree, and count as first-hand witness accounts according to Scripture. I believe them. If Natalie’s mother were to speak, I would certainly consider her testimony as well.
“Everything he says is intended to distract his audience from the only legal question of any importance in the Jamin Wight case: whether Jamin was a sexual predator when he abused 14-year-old Natalie Greenfield, and whether he should have been taken to trial for justice instead of plea bargaining out based on Doug’s faulty legal understanding and subsequent meddling in the court case.”
http://kbotkin.com/2015/10/01/obvious-lies-and-gratuitous-spins/
“Doug’s reasoning for encouraging the Greenfields not to take this case to trial and his current refusal to apologize for these actions, according to Doug:
1. By saying Jamin wasn’t a sexual predator, Doug just meant Jamin wasn’t abusing two-year-olds like Steven Sitler was.
Why this is a lie: Doug’s letter to the investigating officer says nothing to this effect whatsoever; this is the spin put on the thing in light of the Sitler case, ten years later. The reason Doug actually gave the court in writing the letter: implied consent based on a “foolish relationship” encouraged by Natalie’s parents.”
2. The “foolish relationship encouraged by Natalie’s parents” legitimately shifted part of the blame away from Jamin and made him not a pedophile. Why this is a lie: Natalie herself has spoken at length about her “infatuation” and about Jamin’s expressed interest in her (a classic abuse scenario, by the way) and has stressed that her parents allowed no such relationship. In fact, when her Dad noticed Jamin taking unhealthy interest in her, he kicked Jamin out. Natalie writes more about these allegations here and here — pointing out that Doug was witness to nothing that went on in her… Read more »
3. Natalie was significantly bigger than Jamin (implied in this statement: the fact that she should have been able to resist him). Why this is a lie: Doug claims that Natalie was 8″ taller than Jamin. Natalie, full grown, is 6’1″ and even if she had been that height at age 14, Jamin is approximately 5’9″ … Not 5’5.” Either way, height has no bearing on someone’s ability to resist the emotional manipulation of a serial abuser. However, rounding up a few inches difference to eight inches difference should tell people just how concerned Doug Wilson is with the accuracy… Read more »
Thanks for this. A timely reminder that repentant sinners don’t plea bargain; they accept the full punishment of their crimes.
At the end of the day, the decision was the prosecutors.. That is legal fact. Wilson did not give sworn testimony, did he? No? Everything else is finger pointing.
And who are you calling an “unrepentant malcontent”, npf? Are you applying those words to Natalie? By what evidence are you judging her “unrepentant”? Of what sins must she repent?
unrepentant malcontent is classic code for “that person we screwed over and then laughed at and lied about who no longer tithes.”
It gives me the strong impression that she has fallen prey to an unfortunate case of severe brain washing and spiritual abuse. She will be the last one to recognize it. Thats really interesting about “many women moving across the country” to the “safety” of christ church. Really. interesting.
I’m assuming I know you, since it sounds like you live here and go to Christ Church. Am I the unrepentant malcontent? Thanks for the good laugh, anyway.
I like the “very few words from the other side” as well! Hilarious!
I’m just a father with daughters around your age, and I would never want them treated as I’ve seen Rev Wilson treat you just in the last few weeks. Nor would I like to be treated as he has done your Dad– but I’m just selfish on that one. I, for one, believe you.
No, I do not know how the Christ Church elders treated you and neither does the one I responded to.
this is satire. i know this is satire.
It was a question.
How was Doug offering Natalie help when he wrote to the officer in her case that “I do not believe that this situation in any way paints Jamin as a sexual predator”? How was that helping the victim?
Guester, have you reviewed all the elder notes, court documents or only the juicy ones and the gossip on the web? There is more that isn’t posted on the web that you don’t have a clue about and all you do is gossip. There are fine points in Idaho law that the Prosecuting Attorney, the Defense Attorney, the Judge and Wilson were presenting that you don’t understand. You keep trying to start fire with river rocks for fuel and that doesn’t work. How is your harping on certain points you don’t agree with Wilson on helping any of the Greenfields… Read more »
I’m simply quoting Doug’s exact words, Dave. Are you suggesting that he doesn’t have to answer for them?
Guester, how about answering the questions instead of dancing around?
Actually, because I am on down time because I am recovering from surgery, I have had time to fo review all the documents if which you speak. Also, having been an Elder/deacon for 49 years my wife and I have counseled numerous people who were in legal and spiritual violations. We
ALWAYS took care of the victims first. Then dealt with the person who did wrong. One man went to jail. He totLky relented of his sin and turned himself in, even though he had a wife and 3 kids, I could tell you story after story of Gid’s Recemption, but it was real. Not covered over and excused. That us what Cheustianity is all about. A real change if heart
The elders of Christ Church have never excused sin, despite what the lynch mob would have everyone believe. If you are accusing these particular elders of not taking care of the victims first then you are misinformed. So many of you all have made this situation your personal business when it is not your business and when you know nothing about the WHOLE story.
I believe Natalie’s first-hand testimony, confirmed by her father, that she was not cared for by the elders of Christ Church, and by Doug Wilson in particular. They provide the account of two witnesses spoken of in Scripture.
If Christ Church didn’t want people to comment on the situation, they should not post about it on the internet. If Doug Wilson doesn’t want to engage with people on the internet, perhaps he should shut down his blog and his twitter feed? He can’t have it both ways.
AMEN
I think Douglas is frankly jazzed by the attention. I think he is a bit of a narcissist and likes all the rattle. His glib initial responses spoke volumes.
Definitely agree. He’s of the no publicity is bad publicity sort. And he can use it to sell books!
I agree. I think he us an attention addict. He may be getting some attention he doesn’t want
Apparently, RandMan, guester and Leslie are desperate to give Wilson the attention they claim he craves. It’s almost like they are addicted to giving him attention.
The scripture requires all sides to be heard from for justice to be obtained, not just two people from one side.
Then maybe there needs to be an impartial mediator, chosen by a reputable denominational church to oversee this matter
That would be a great approach, but Doug doesn’t work well with denominational oversight. He’s already been censured by more than one denominational body, and so he just started his own denomination!
You can see details of the censures here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060715193504/http://terrymorin.com/censures.html
I’m sure Doug and his supporters won’t mind me posting them. I think they take a certain pride in being censured.
He did not start his own denomination and I think you know that. Are you with the Vision2020 lynch mob?
I have never heard of Vision2020. Who have they lynched?
LOL
I think the best approach would be to ask Boz tchvidijian(spelling) to come and moderate this whole thing, From what I can tell Boz is very respected in this field. He is a trusted authority and should be able to get sort out this mess and get things going in the right direction.
He is indeed very respected in the field. Sadly, Doug has already publicly slammed him for trying to weigh in. You can read it here:
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/dont-think-so-scooter.html
Sad, because I think Boz could really help.
His most recent post is excellent. Boz’s that is.
Link?
Pretty on target:
http://boz.religionnews.com/2015/10/02/caught-in-the-spotlight-christian-leaders-who-mishandle-sexual-abuse-disclosures/
Wow, great article, thanks. And it has 1265 facebook shares! “An all too convenient tactic is to demonize those who express support for the victim. Their motives are questioned and their behaviors are labeled as “ungodly”, all the while the leader claims to be unfairly persecuted. This is done with the hope that the focus will shift from the mishandling of a sexual abuse disclosure to the persecution of Christians. Supporters aren’t the only ones who find themselves maligned by leaders desperate to push away the penetrating spotlight. I recently learned of a pastor who actually blamed unsuspecting and devastated… Read more »
This one is great too: http://boz.religionnews.com/2015/09/18/glimpses-of-jesus-in-the-darkness-of-abuse/ A welcome antidote to Doug Wilson. “If Jesus is the head of the Church, shouldn’t His church be the greatest protector and supporter for the vulnerable and the hurting? Where is Jesus when churches fail to respond wisely to sexual abuse and then refuse to take responsibility or repent for such colossal failures? Where is Jesus when churches make expedient decisions that affirm offenders, rather than making difficult decisions in the best interests of children and abuse survivors? Where is Jesus when churches go out of the way to advocate for offenders, while hurting… Read more »
Well,that is very telling. In fact it says a lot about Doug Wilson.
If you have been a church officer for 49 years, why have you not learned that it’s not wise to run off with an internet lynch mob?
How would this impartial mediator stop the Intolerista group? They are not Christians, or a church, and they are crazy.
once you use the term intolerista you’ve shown you have no idea what is happening here.
One of them got this current ruckus started. I know who it was.
How do you join the intoleristas? I want in. Because, I too am intolerant of coddling child sexual molesters and rapists, marrying them off to parishioners, facilitating their access to babies and blame/shaming victims and their families. Oh and then trying to wiggle out of it, turn the tables on the discussion, reframe the debate and claim to be persecuted.
They don’t care about any of that. They are all about political correctness.
Oh. :(
lol to infinity. as if.
Oh, we’ve heard Doug’s side npf. Over and over and over and over and over again. On this blog, on twitter, on other people’s blogs….
That is your jam. “We don’t know the WHOLE story!” Yes, we kind of do now.
Please tell me what else do we need to know? Douglas’s nuggets of counseling wisdom? His homework reading assignments?
Yea, I thought we waited an awful long time for the awesome reveal of…..a timeline from the minutes of the elder meetings! Which added very little information to the discussion, and justified Wilson’s actions not a whit.
Then why did Doug put it on the Internet in the first place. You can’t have it both ways.if you put it out there you have to be ready for cross examination.
There is a back story as to why Wilson needed to write about the Sitler situation on his blog. There is a small group of “Intoleristas” in Moscow who have been causing trouble for Christ Church and Wilson since the early 2000s. They use the internet to throw scurrilous accusations. They have stirred up trouble in Moscow so much so at times that people have committed many acts of vandalism on businesses owned by Christ Church members, and against Logos School, New St Andrews, and twice slashing the tires of an NSA student. They have accused Wilson of actual crimes.… Read more »
Poor, poor Doug. He’s so misunderstood.
i feel veey sorry for you.
Leslie, thank you for your answer. I was really asking guester if he was an elder because of how he sings in a worldly manner rather than as a sincere Christian. For example, other Christians don’t agree with the decision to marry the Sitlers, yet they give their reasons and don’t continue for weeks with simple character assassination as he does.
You don’t live here, but the victims who wanted help were helped and are being helped even to this day.
Thankfully is doesn’t matter one bit if you are a christian or not to have and opinion on this matter and weigh in. Sincerity is not the sole province of christians. Nor is morality.
My one and only concern from the very beginning of this mess was that victims were cared for and not further victimized by church politics and saving church reputations, that Is all I care about, that concern has still not been answered in what seems to be a great attempt to save reputations and cover butts
When people speak without clarity, there is usually a reason, isn’t there Leslie? I have found this to be very true.
I understood what Dave said.
Sadly, Natalie Greenfield’s testimony of what she was offered at Christ Church is far from helpful ministry. “During this time, I was offered little to no support from the church I attended, in fact, on the day of the sentencing my former pastor and my abuser’s pastor sat on *his* side of the courtroom, successfully compounding my own feelings of guilt and shame. I felt terribly alienated and many times regretted every saying anything about the abuse.”
I hope you have shown her the respect of reading her testimony in these matters. It is available here http://natalierose-livewithpassion.blogspot.com/
As this mini-thread seems to have cooled off, I still don’t find guester, Botkin, RandMan, or Leslie to be persuasive in their narratives against Wilson. They seem to be spinning their own speculations about motives and actions that are disconnected from the facts of the case. For example, RandMan approvingly quotes Botkin as saying: 3. Natalie was significantly bigger than Jamin (implied in this statement: the fact that she should have been able to resist him). This is a specious accusation ignoring the facts. Wilson didn’t raise the issue of Natalie’s height to suggest that she should have had the… Read more »
“perhaps that is warranted.” Uh, yeah.
But then again, why not use pedophilia and child rape as an excuse to play verbal tennis with scripture? Or do the ‘hard things’ like minister to the sexual offenders and blame shame the victims and their families?`
The hard things are admitting there is a problem and dealing with it. Not whitewashing it or wishing it away
To the casual reader and those following the current conversation, much is said from people who obviously want to bash Wilson and much is said from those who know nothing of the actual court record. This particular flareup was caused primarily by an individual here who in attempts to obtain confidential or sealed records to find dirt on Sitler or Wilson ran complaints to Ms Bishop, Idaho Deputy Attorney General. This individual then filed a 10 page report to the parole office with about 6 pages of typed complaints, of which 4 1/2 railed on Wilson and Sitler and the… Read more »
” Individuals such as guester who make incorrect, outrageous comments about safety in Christ Church, ”
Why, thanks for mentioning me, Dave. I have simply said that I don’t consider Christ Church to be a safe place for me or my family, because I wouldn’t want my daughter to be treated the way Natalie and Katie were treated.
I trust you’ll honor that whole “head of household” thing you’ve got going and allow me to make a judgement about where my daughter would be safe.
No guester, you are quibbling about what you said in your post. You intimated that it was unsafe for all and are now back peddling. Other readers will my post and understand what is really going on. They will read the quotes from the court record not just web gossip and realize that the elders handled these situations in a Godly manner. You never answered if you were an elder or if you have decades of Christian counseling such as Leslie mentioned or as others posting here have. They have reasoned questions and comments. All you do is make snarky… Read more »
Yeah guster, you: gossip, slander, bitter.
Ha! I’ve been around church long enough to know that “Gossip, slander, bitter” means “Shut up”. But I’m immune to it.
“Ha! I’ve been around church long enough to know that “Gossip, slander, bitter” means “Shut up”. But I’m immune to it.”
All we want you to do is apologize. What’s so hard about that?
I sincerely hope other readers will indeed consider whether they would want their own daughters to be treated like Natalie and Katie were. Thanks for drawing attention to this, Dave.
That is really an excellent yardstick. I simply cannot imagine anyone with a daughter siding with Douglas on this. I have a daughter. The one thing we know is that sexual abuse (all abuse) thrives in the dark. Places that have not been properly vetted where trust is freely given. Places (like churches among others) where authority reigns and we are taught not to question those in power are in particular places of risk.
And unless Wilson would officiate the wedding of his own daughters to a serial pedophile, or subject them to a discussion of how their own physical pubescence affected exactly what kind of molester their molester was, he has violated the law of love: ” Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
That’s true for everyone here. Would it be okay for OUR daughters?
You have not described Christ Church. You people who keep repeating that mantra that this church is a place where authority reigns supreme and nobody can question it is laughable and insane. You picked that up from the the internet lynch mob with no proof offered by them or required by you. Now you can’t say that you didn’t know.
that’s always what people under oppressive inappropriate church influence say. and they go on believing it right up until they personally become the victim and sometimes even after that.
Your endless droning does not change reality.
Make whatever judgment you want. Who cares?
This is just freakish. This idea that a pastor is somehow obligated to marry people unless he can find a specific Biblical justification to forbid the marriage is … not found in the Bible. The simple fact is that Doug Wilson did an evil thing to the child born of the Sitler marriage. By officiating that marriage and blessing a union that would result in a children being separated from their father, Wilson has openly mocked God’s plan for marriage and family. Is Wilson not the pastor of those children? He’s failed every duty he has to them, and he’s… Read more »
This idea that a pastor is somehow obligated to marry people unless he
can find a specific Biblical justification to forbid the marriage is …
not found in the Bible.
Doug didn’t say it was found in the Bible. He said the church can’t prevent a biblical marriage . Doug can refuse to officiate but he covered that scenario.
As you think a paedophile marrying is so monstrous, perhaps you may wish to explain why?
The above coment is unrelated to the paedophile issue.
Any marriage that is entered into with the goal of producing children who cannot live with their father can in no way be considered a “biblical marriage.” Quite the opposite. Such a “marriage” is a perversion of God’s idea for marriage. Any two people desiring to make such a situation and do such harm to a future child are committing a sin, and your pastor sinned in participating in it.
To pretend that it is Biblical to bring children into such a situation is to make God the author of confusion.
If Sitler wants to marry there are no biblical grounds to refuse him. This is Doug’s position and I agree with him. I don’t think any pastor should have to marry anyone, but I also don’t think the church generally can forbid people from marrying. They are both of age, they are not married to another, they are of the opposite sex. I don’t think that having children in this specific situation means that abuse is inevitable. But I will ask you what I have asked others, do you think your policy of: no marriage when kids are at risk,… Read more »
A desire to create a Frankenstein family where the father is separated from his children is sinful. That is the grounds for refusing the marriage. No church should participate in such sin. Doug Wilson’s participation in it is sinful and shameful. It’s true that no Bible verse specifically forbids a marriage when the goal is to produce children who will live apart from the father. That would be a very good argument for allowing it, if we were Pharisees, because that is exactly the kind of thing that they did. But I live not only by the letter of the… Read more »
So how would you approach a couple who came to your church in their position? Refuse them membership or attendance?
What if a Christian thought that it was okay for them to marry? What then?
And you haven’t answered me about your policy on women who have had an abortion, the risk of subsequent abortion is not zero.
If they came to my church in their position? How about immediately counseling them about the sin of bringing a child into the world unable to live with his father? How about confronting the selfishness of parents who would do that to a child? How about urging repentance of that sin? That would be a good start. Then, I’d probably counsel Sitler to have a vasectomy. I haven’t answered your abortion hypothetical because it’s irrelevant and immaterial to the point I’m making. I’m not making an argument based on risk. My objection is that the Sitlers married and intentionally had… Read more »
But you also would have him have a vasectomy so you think he should not have children anyway. So the woman with an abortion example is relevant. If you think a paedophile should never get married because he may have a child should a woman who has had an abortion?
No, you persist in trying to counter an argument that I am not making, in order to ignore the one that I am and started this discussion. I have never said that a pedophile should never get married. I have said that it was a sin for this one to marry and have children, because legally, those children would be unable to live with their father. I have said that blessing the creation of such a fraudulent family is a sin that lies on that church. You have no argument against that, so you keep trying to bring in other… Read more »
That’s fine Ryan, if you are happy for some paedophiles to marry and have children under some circumstances then my question, while important, may not be that relevant for yourself. Cheers
I appreciate our exchanges, and I hope you understand that my motive is never to be contentious. I think the marriage can be an excellent idea (although I am not sure why an emotionally healthy young woman would be willing to sign on for a marriage that is more than usually likely to be troubled and productive of heartache). As I said before, my only concern is children born of the marriage (and, of course, the children in the extended family that may have unsupervised contact with the pedophile). There are sins which, although egregious, do not carry a high… Read more »
There are sins which, although egregious, do not carry a high risk of recurrence. From everything I have read, the paraphilias are incredibly deeply rooted–possibly even hardwired into the brain–and are difficult to treat. The urge to molest a toddler is not like having inappropriate daydreams about your neighbor’s 17-year-old daughter (though that is not okay). One is wrong but normal; the other is so weird and sick as to be almost outside our comprehension. I agree that certain sins are harder to throw. While I generally agree with your comment, the problem is that it is in the throws… Read more »
For those of us just following the comments and who have not studied the details of the case, could you please provide the source for your phrase:
By officiating that marriage and blessing a union that would result in a children being separated from their father
If DW did do this, I would like to think this through. On its face, I think your reasoning from scriptural principles is solid. However, I am not a bible scholar or well read in scripture. Others (like bethyada) are and I think it is prudent to examine this line of inquiry.
thanks.
Just wondering when all the haters are going to apologize. Now that a judge has found no wrongdoing on Sitlers part and ruled that he can go home. With his wife reinstated as chaperone.
Let all those howling for Doug’s repentance stand up and show us how this is done. And the floodgates open in 3..2.. Crickets.
Just as I supposed.
Maybe after this.
http://crechurches.org/documents/announcements/2015-CCMoscow-inquiry.php
I could be wrong but the quote ‘this is what I do not understand’ seems to be taken slightly out of context… Rod Dreher is not only saying he doesn’t understand how Pastor Wilson can marry a serial pedophile, but he’s also saying he doesn’t understand how they were allowed to marry given that the couple also planned to have children straight away. Ie. it wasn’t only a risk to Sitler’s wife (who wants to be married to a ‘practicing’ pedophile?) but also to their children (since he may reoffend).
If Dreher doesn’t understand how they could be allowed to marry, perhaps he should provide the biblical and legal grounds for prohibiting them from marrying. I assume that Dreher is not just basing his views on his own emotional disposition. If Dreher had been their pastor, he may not personally choose to officiate in such a marriage, but that is different from saying that Wilson did something morally suspicious or outrageous by not prohibiting it. Dreher casts a shadow of doubt over the whole thing, but failed to provide any principles to support himself. Regarding the question of “what about… Read more »
“Would he want me to refuse to conduct the wedding…” How is this even a question? And how is the correct answer not an unqualifed Yes? “Don’t I need a verse or something?” Perhaps not — but if you call yourself a Christian minister, then you need to have at least some semblance of pastoral discernment. It is good for men to marry, but Steven Sitler is clearly an exception to the rule. God-given common sense tells us this. By agreeing to marry this couple, you (by definition) extended your personal blessing to this union (and by extension, that of… Read more »