I want to begin with a brief logic lesson, and then move to develop an important point about the biblical view of scandals.
One popular logical fallacy is called affirming the consequent. It runs thusly: If P, then Q. Q is the case, and so therefore P. Ta da! If it is a cow, then it has four legs. Fido here has four legs. Fido must be a cow.
All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted (2 Tim. 3:12). I am being persecuted. I must be godly. No, you are being persecuted because you’re a jerk. And Fido is a dog.
But take another “if P” operation, this one a little closer to the action. If you study hard, then you will get good grades. Now you might get good grades without studying, because a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. It nevertheless remains the case that if you want a particular thing, you have to be willing for another thing. If you want good grades, you have to be willing for the studying. This is simple horse sense, and is not affirming the consequent.
The Bible teaches that faithful ministry is scandalous. Faithful and effective ministry results in scandal. To say that everything that is scandalous is therefore faithful ministry is to affirm the consequent. But that is not a very common problem. It is a problem when it happens, but it remains relatively rare, even though there are Westboro Baptists who think that they are walking in the footsteps of the prophets of old.
Now by saying this I do not mean that scandals and cover-ups are rare. Far too many people in modern evangelical churches have been boinking people they oughtn’t to have. But I do mean that it is rare for people to claim a link between such scandals and their holy stand for righteousness. Maybe other generations thought that way, but ours usually doesn’t. It is far more common for our culprits, once caught, to play the role of victim and check into rehab than to play the role of mistreated prophet.
C.S. Lewis once observed that when we are confronted with a flood, we tend to break out the fire extinguishers. A far more common problem in our generation is that of ministers who want to be stalwart in battle, but with no bullets allowed. No live fire. They want to preach a scandalous, radical gospel, but with none of the blow-back reactions from angry mobs. They want to have skin in the game without having, you know, anything risked by any actual skin.
But in the Bible, scandal is a real deal. When it happens, people get furious. For some reason you walked up to that culture, licked your finger, and attempted to touch their eyeball. That gets a reaction, and not a mild one either. It is easy for the crowd to start search for what rhymes with “flay him.” My twitter feed, for just one edifying example, is currently disporting itself like a sewer ditch in 19th century Calcutta.
So the following passage is in the Bible for a reason.
“Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men” (Matt. 5:11–13).
So we always have to beware of affirming the consequent. Look at this passage closely. Jesus is saying, in effect, that there are two reasons why men might trample you underfoot. One is because you are salt that has lost its savor, and the other is because you are salt that hasn’t.
We have to be able to tell the difference because Jesus is teaching us to tell the difference. Unbelievers treat insipid Christians with contempt and they treat salty Christians with active hostility and hatred. When some manifestation of this arises, every Christian involved has to make a judgment call as to which it is, and has to be careful not to affirm the consequent. He has to read the situation correctly. And if he decides rightly and raises a glass of Scotch in a faithful toast, it matters not if men like Rod Dreher find it convenient to sneer at the obedience.
When men treat the salty with contempt, and persecute you, and say every evil thing they can think of, they are trying move you from one category to the other. Their central tool for doing this is their weaponization of apologies. They do this because they much prefer their Christians to be supine and saltless. The tragedy is that so many Christian leaders prefer it that way also.
Jesus had to turn the table so that He could set the table so that we would be welcome to the table.
I think at this point all the criticis need to either have their pastor chime in with them in support of being against Doug and Christ Church and their decisions or Doug and members of Christ Church can just assume they are all a bunch of rogue Christians with no authority in their life looking to get off on self righteous rants.
I don’t have a pastor or a church so I can’t really get one to join in with my disagreement with Pastor Wilson. But Pastor Wilson seems to have a great deal of knowledge in a wide variety of disciplines so I thought it might be interesting to talk with him. Just for the record I personally think the marriage in discussion was not a very good idea from my very outside the stadium view, I think the interaction with the young lady who was sexually abused was also not handled well. If accurate, I personally would have sat on… Read more »
The Berean believers are honored in Scripture because they “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” See Acts 17:11. No pastor or elders are required for contemporary believers to evaluate how a church leader’s words stack up against Scripture.
No priest or pastor stands between the individual Christian and Jesus.
It is easy to tell who the real Christians are by what moral standard they are using in their arguments – the Bible, or a random conglomerate of things they personally consider outrageous.
“One is because you are salt that has lost its savor, and the other is because you are salt that hasn’t.” Ah, but the rub comes in figuring out which is which. Did the fuel tank explode first, and that’s why the wing broke into pieces? Or did the jet break up first, ripping open the fuel tank, so the fire came second? Not just me; one of the main points harped on in safety school is that you NEVER go to the crash site looking to confirm a theory. (That’s also why judges tell jurors to keep an open… Read more »
Not sure if I want to wade into this one…a hazmat suit with hip waders wouldn’t guarantee coming out of this thread untainted. We should ask ourselves the following questions: 1. What would Jesus be writing in the dirt here? 2. Pharisee or Tax Collector? 3. “Forgive and you will be forgiven.” Are there limits that we (who are not God) are allowed to define as Christians? For the non’s here, are you wanting to draw lines that may apply to you down the road? 4. “‘It is Mine to avenge, I will repay’, says the Lord.” So are we… Read more »
“Writing in the dirt.” One tradition has it that He was writing a sin of each man from the crowd.
P.S. Perhaps Alex will return from Wonderland? Or will he take one look and the threads on this topic and say to himself, “There’s goes the neighborhood!”
This lot is certainly in a holding pattern. Not sure how long I will stay. Good to “see” you!
I’ve made my last comment on the merits of bash/defend Pastor Wilson. If and when enough information – – one way or the other – – ever becomes public, there will be no shortage of “I told you so!” and “We wuz robbed” heaped upon it at that time.
I like these comments from you.
Glad they help out. I have no problem hanging the guilty. I do, however, want to make sure before I hand out the blindfolds and that last cigarette that we’ve got the correct perp standing in front of a wall. In my USAF time I was on two rape juries and a half dozen lesser things like discharge boards. It’s NOT like Perry Mason. Nobody stands up and hollers, “OK, I did it!” Trust me on this one. You have no idea how painful it is listening to two people call each other liars and you KNOW one of them… Read more »
So come on critics. Christ Church members stand here with our Pastor. Why don’t you show up with yours?
Let’s just make this easy for the critics. Example:
I hate DW and CC has no idea how to handle sin. You all need to be lesbian social justice warriors blah blah blah.
In Christ
Brian Gayther
(Church member affiliation)
(Pastor/church phone number)
Perfect! How about we do that as soon as Douglas signs his blog posts:
In Christ,
Douglas Wilson
(Who Ordained Him)
(That Church / Pastor’s phone number)
Douglas, you poor persecuted christian!
Your position is looking increasingly lonely pal. Rightly so. Your arrogance will be your undoing. You can still turn this around for yourself… yes?
What church do you attend and who’s your pastor?
I would recognize no pastoral authority over me. And certainly not from someone as ethically and compassionately challenged as Douglas Wilson.
Thanks for playing. Turnyourshitin
Your desire for authority to be exercised over you means absolutely nothing to me, and has zero relevance in this conversation.
Darren,
Are you trying to win people or just annoy them? Because right now no one cares what you think. And our pastors think it is funny that a guy on a blog wants them to hold their people accountable. And when my pastor found out that Doug was protecting pedophiles, erm, well, let’s just say I’m not the one who is afraid of accountability.
Rich
Doane has set up the hoop; you must jump through it.
Krueger and company has set up the hoop; Wilson must jump through it.
You don’t know who I am, and I have no “company”. What ‘hoop’ have I set up, and who have I asked to do anything? I simply despise people who say “if you don’t do such and such, you prove I am right”. Like Doane, for instance.
Umm..no.
You reframe this conversation to your own demise. It is a pretty obvious move there to anyone with the slightest ability for critical and/or independent thought. As if you can redefine scandal in this context as something virtuous and and apology as contemptible? You should really be ashamed of yourself there. You are not jesus; you are not turning over tables in the temple. You are siding with child abusers and rapists over the true victims, putting others at risk. You blame and shame. You are indeed a scandal. I am pretty sure no one would believe and apology from… Read more »
Turnyourshitin
The would double down and demand groveling. Its what your tribe does.
Pastor Wilson, what an insightful look at Jesus’ words, and what a helpful application. Great stuff.
This is a comment from Rod Dreher’s last post on this that I agreed with: “Ironically, all Wilson has to do is just admit the bad idea to marry Sitler and that would basically be the end of it. The other case is too full of unknowns to draw much of any conclusion about.” The reason the marriage of Mr. Sitler continues to be a live issue is that, for many people, it is sufficiently obvious that Mr. Sitler simply should not have gotten married. That secular authorities encouraged or at least did not oppose this foolishness only mitigates Pastor… Read more »
What Church do you belong and who’s your pastor?
dear God…
Who are you to judge another Man’s servant?
Ahh, but at the end of the day its just not your judgement to make, is it? You don’t get to say who can and can’t marry. Not to mention that a sitting Judge signed off on the idea and approved of it, Sitlers counselor signed off on the idea. One official in the justice system wasn’t in agreement, but even Sitlers parole officer was in favor. In short the people with the most experience with Sitler judged it good.
No one was coerced, and more to the point no one asked your or others opinion.
I can still state the obvious: it was a terrible idea for a man with a long history of abusing children to get married and have children.
This is so obvious, I can’t believe I have to state it.
So you place yourself up pretty high to second guess everyone else that’s professionally been involved in this. People with degree’s and decades of experience ok’d it, and you’re chucking in at it from the cheap seats along with a few others.
“People with degree’s and decades of experience ok’d it”
You do realize you aren’t actually casting a more favourable light on their foolishness by saying this.
You are displaying arrogance. Since that is the case, you had best not ever accuse Wilson of arrogance, because that would be judging hypocritically.
I’m told that in the audio of the court session the judge appears reluctant to”sign off” on the marriage but there were other factors involving time constraints. As to the parole officer and counselor it would ne instructive to know if Doug made any appeal to them. Doug’s support probably swayed the law enforcers.
That may be. While I haven’t heard anything about the audio, the Judge did put it in writing. So… Not to mention that Silter is on parole for the rest of his life. thats a rather short leash.
not short enough apparently. You know what would be really great since Doug was so invested in seeing this man receive all the grace available? Would be if Doug himself would volu teer to be present at all interactions of Sitler w his child and only then would it be in any way appropriate for hm to enjoy a “clear conscience”. As far as i can tell he hasn’t lost a minutes sleep or missed an occasion for a tip of the bottle.
Can’t even believe you think he’d be capable enough for this. He orchestrated this whole thing for his own pride and glorification remember???
Oh he’s not capable. But he should be willing.
BTW, I agree that the howling internet mob out there is, to put it mildly, far from being just to Pastor Wilson, going far beyond merely accusing him of bad judgment in this particular instance. I also agree that Dreher was hasty and irresponsible in the way he wrote about this. But none of this means that Pastor Wilson didn’t blunder horribly in this situation.
So your point is that a convicted paedophile should never be allowed to marry ever. A lot of people agree with you.
The counter point is that the situation is messy and that a blanket rule can not be made. There are a lot of people here who side with Doug on this: that in certain circumstances a repentant paedophile can marry. So this is a contentious issue with people on both sides of the debate. If that is the case, why should Doug apologise? He doesn’t agree with your position.
It’s pretty clear that the ‘howling internet mob’ is howling about Wilson’s ‘horrible blunder’.
Dreher was hardly hasty in writing about this. How long must he wait, another decade? Also Wilson is the poster boy for not-forthcoming. No, this is right on time. There is no need at this point for the velvet glove.
Thursday, as I understand your concern here, you are thinking that if I am good with Sitler marrying, and if down the road he molests one of his own children, that was something that I should have anticipated, and therefore bear some responsibility for. Is that correct? Now the question should also go the other way. If I refuse to let him marry, and so he does not, and five years down the road is caught molesting a neighborhood child, do I — because of my refusal to let him marry — bear any responsibility? The answer, of course, is… Read more »
That almost gets it, but not quite. You also created a situation where, at the very best, a father can never be trusted to be alone with his children and where, under no circumstances, should he ever reside in the same home with them. Even assuming the marriage, on balance, helps reduce the likelihood more crimes, this comes with a terrible cost, a terrible disfigurement of fatherhood. And, quite aside from all the consequentialist arguments, someone who has done these horrific crimes has simply disqualified himself from ever standing in the symbolic role of father. See also my also my… Read more »
There’s also the general problem with consequentialist reasoning here: there’s a real difference between directly and intentionally helping to create a situation where a child is in danger or is (or should be) kept at arm’s length from his father, and doing nothing, which might create a situation where another child get’s abused.
“You also created a situation where, at the very best, a father can never be trusted to be alone with his children and where, under no circumstances, should he ever reside in the same home with them.”
As I understand things the only reasons Mr. Sitler could never be trusted with his children are that he is incapable of repenting or that he is incapable of being forgiven. In light of the gospel I don’t think either of those are true.
Not the point. Should a repentant alcoholic work in a bar? Should a repentant adulterer stay friends with his former paramour?
For that matter King David repented of his sin but there were still consequences. What should have happened is this man should still be incarcerated.
Only Jesus knows this man’s true condition and if we on earth guess wrong, little ones are put to harm. If he is truly repentant the last thing he should want is to be near any child.
Should Bill Clinton still be married?
Stop conflating sexual conduct between consenting adults with sexual contact activity forced upon a child, in the case of Steven Sitler a two year old.
I really can’t see the parallel here. Based on his track record, Clinton could be supposed to have ongoing issues with adultery. His wife could have ended the marriage, but chose not to. Nothing excuses his infidelity, but his wife is an adult. In a sense, by choosing to stay with a serial adulterer, she has become a volunteer, not just a victim. There is nothing in this situation that parallels putting the welfare of a tiny child at risk. Even if a pedophile is only 1% likely to reoffend, that is an unconscionable risk. In California convicted child molesters… Read more »
Jilly, thanks for your comment. As dark as this topic is, the discussion helps my mind work through the issues. As others have said, while the Bible supports the death penalty for certain types of sexual immorality, some adultery, rape, incest(?), same sex and no doubt sex with children, the USA no longer executes people for these offenses and crimes. Sitler was sexually immoral, Bill Clinton is sexually immoral. What should be done with them if they are not executed? Sitler will always be under a life sentence for his confessed crimes. Wilson comments to “Thursday1”, saying as much that… Read more »
If you think he should still be incarcerated then wouldn’t your beef be with the legal system? Or should Christ Church just go ahead and put him in the church prison if the judge won’t?
Proverb 27:12
A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself, but the simple pass on and are punished.
Why can’t a former alcoholic work in a bar? The relationship between a former adulterer and his paramour would depend on the nature of the friendship.
Since Mr Sitler was not incarcerated for life someone had to guess his condition and it is not nessessrily true that Doug in particular guessed wrong.
Saying “the last thing he should want is to be around children” sounds equivelant to saying “he should not forgive (or possibly should not be capable of forgiving) himself”.
Though the behavior alf alcoholics ripples outward, one falling off the wagon molests himself above others. An adulterer has a similar problem.
A pedophile directly changes children forever. Steals their innocence forever. Deposits his own shame deep into their soul. Children deserve consideration.
Define ‘forever’
“What should have happened is this man should still be incarcerated. ”
I agree. Doug might agree (have you asked him?).
But in case you haven’t noticed, Doug does not have the authority to jail Sitler in the church basement.
” If he is truly repentant the last thing he should want is to be near any child.” Thanks for this, Connie. A key indicator of repentance is the restrictions that an offender will willingly place upon themselves, even without being forced. One of the best examples of repentance in the New Testament is the story of Zacchaeus. In Luke 19, he says to Jesus “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.” Jesus didn’t ask him… Read more »
One who has done to a child an offense which Jesus said called for being cast into the sea wearing a millstone necklace, may repent and may be forgiven, without barriers. He must never again be trusted alone with a child.
Then how forgiven is he?
100 percent why would you even ask that? Forgiveness has nthing to do with trust.
Or with escaping consequences/punishment.
Was the thief on the cross unforgiven because Jesus did not loose his bonds and take him down?
The theif recived a just punishment for his crimes. I don’t think not being alowed around kids is considered part of any punitive measures.
You don’t consider not being allowed around kids a just punishment for a pedophile? I assure you that such a restriction is indeed part of the standard punitive measure for a child molester.
If the person ceases by the grace of God to be a pedophile it has no effect other than making people feel better.
The thief on the cross was forgiven by Jesus himself. Did he cease by the grace of God to be a thief? Yet Jesus still did not remove his punishment.
How is it that you know better than the professionals and others who have been working with Sitler since 2006?
Matt 7: 9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Thurs, there are fathers and mothers who give their children “snakes”, but compared… Read more »
But if you are in innocent victim, run the other way.
This. Why so much concern for the perpetrators, and so little for the victims? Doug Wilson has spilled an Atlantic Ocean of internet ink about the perpetrators and no more than a teeny tiny drop on the victims, who he rarely mentions at all. Katie Botkin has provided a revealing quote: “Another thing Doug shared with Natalie a few days ago: “Though Jamin has been in possession of this entire set of facts through various Internet dust-ups (demonstrable facts which enabled him to show that his crimes did not include pedophilia), he has shown more respect for the feelings of… Read more »
In scenario A you actually facilitate the offender in home growing his own victim who will be under no oversight apart from that of the wife.
So yes, i think the responsibility is much more weighty.
A check to scenario b would be making sure the neighbors are informed of the potential danger next door.
“The standard I am using is that of 1 Corinthians, which tells us that marriage is a help against immorality.”
The context of 1 Corinthians 7 is sexual relationships between consenting parties. You are conflating sexual acts between consenting parties with sexual acts forced upon a child, in Steven Sitler’s case a two year old child.
‘Don’t ever get married, so, totally abstain from sex.’ Anything else you would’ve said to the poor guy?
‘They bind on heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and they themselves don’t lift a finger to help in the carrying.’
Wow that’s so far out of context as to be laughable.
For the record, several pastors have graciously and publicly disagreed with Doug about this: http://baylyblog.com/blog/2015/09/pastoral-care-men-and-women-who-are-sexual-predators-against-children (Tim Bayly), http://baylyblog.com/blog/2015/09/responding-heinous-sins-pastors-and-elders (David Bayly) http://baylyblog.com/blog/2015/09/dealing-sexual-predators-objections-answered (Joseph Bayly) http://vintage73.com/2015/09/doug-wilsons-failure-to-safeguard-children/ (Mike Sloan). PCA pastors all.
FYI, Tim Bayly left the PCA a number of years ago.
Are one of those your pastor/church?
I’m a member of Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow for ten years, and was a member of Christ Church for two years before that.
So what’s your point? Just introducing testimony for the prosecution?
I think Daniel’s point is simply in response to Darren’s — there are pastors, not just individuals, who have expressed disagreement. I haven’t read all of those posts, but some of them, at least, have been reasonable and rational — not a bit of poo to be smelt. Godly men can disagree graciously.
Thanks, Valerie. I get that. But those other pastors have their own flocks for which they must give an account. I can’t know for sure, but my guess is none of them have all the information required to make a judgement.
They can speak to general principles. I don’t find that unreasonable. But I find Doug’s responses to them even more reasonable. His persistence in framing this issue in terms of the gospel has been persistently persuasive to me. And profoundly comforting.
They should speak to general principles. It just seems to me that linking to their posts, in this context, is trying just piling on and not helpful. This trial-by-internet business is getting old.
It was old when it started.
“His persistence in framing this issue in terms of the gospel has been persistently persuasive to me. And profoundly comforting.”
Very well said. I couldn’t agree more. :)
Oh dear.
Valerie got it. My point is that not all the critics are God-haters or “rogue Christians with no authority in their life looking to get off on self righteous rants”. Reasonable people are allowed to disagree about controversial things. Some of them express their disagreement in venues other than blog forums. It is an optical illusion that Doug’s critics are mostly hysterical nutjobs with their hair on fire. Those PCA pastors love the Church and Pastor Wilson. Rod Dreher is a respected conservative Christian writer. Boz Tchividjian has a good reputation fighting for the victims of sexual abuse.
This from Sitler’s psychologist (appointed by the Idaho court) who has been counseling him since 2006, made this statement under oath: “Mr Sitler has successfully learned self-management skills, he has modified his cognitive and behavioral patterns consistent with treatment recommendations; and above all, he has not re-offended. In my opinion Mr Sitler is a positive candidate for parenting his son in the family home. I note that Dr Wert concluded that Steven ‘does not currently present as a sexual risk to his son.’ Consistent with the information presented by Dr Wert and Blaine Holman, IDOC, Mr Sitler continues to represent… Read more »
Obviously now they’ll direct the same full weight of their outrage against Dr. Wert and the psychologist as they did against Pastor Wilson.
Waiting…
Heh heh
I wouldn’t bet the safety of an infant on it. The stakes are just too high.
The Judge appears to disagree. And Sitler is on probation for life. Not exactly a long leash.
The secular justice system did. Any ongoing campaigns against them?
There should be.
Please provide a link to these documents, npf.
Go find them yourself, like I did.
It’s not persecution if it’s God trying to get your attention.
Yes, agreed. Or maybe both… or neither. Do you know?
Don’t be shy, you’ve got more to say.
What I say or think matters little. What God thinks matters a lot. If it were me in this firestorm the first thing I hope would be recommended to me is to consider if my critics had a point.If God can use a donkey he can certainly use an internet critic.
I can tell you what my pastor would think or what my conservative Presbyterian pastor friend thinks, but I don’t think Doug would be happy to hear it.
If I were Doug I might want to just get off the internet, period.
“Since one godly donkey one time was a critic, critics I like must be godly donkeys.”
Connie, you need to take the intro to the post more to heart. ; – ) I’ll pray that you begin to get it.
What I see is a man trying to justify himself rather than see if he could have made some errors. And since when does God limit Himself in who He uses?
If Doug wasn’t so danged defensive I doubt he would be getting this drubbing. I for one commend him for wanting to work with pedophiles but he has made errors and it is not evil to point that out.
Doug, you are coming across as unhumble, shall we say. It is not a mark of weakness to admit to being wrong sometimes.
Connie, Wilson is not an Apostle, though Paul (and other godly people) had the same issue, and the Word addressed it. 2 Cor. 10 7 You are judging by appearances. If anyone is confident that they belong to Christ, they should consider again that we belong to Christ just as much as they do. 8 So even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us for building you up rather than tearing you down, I will not be ashamed of it. 9 I do not want to seem to be trying to frighten you with my… Read more »
My point is simply IF a sovereign God is allowing this to happen in order to get Doug’s attention, then his disregard of the point might cause God to shake things up in an even greater way. It’s worth considering, in any case.
As an aside, the internet is no place to be if you cannot or do not want to handle criticism. If one blogs and tweets, people will opine, and they won’t all be Calvinists. ;)
“As an aside, the internet is no place to be if you cannot or do not want to handle criticism.”
I’m pretty extra sure that Pastor Wilson can handle criticism just fine.
Out here or in print or via social media etc, but from within the ranks from the people in the pews of his church? Can he handle criticism from them?
OOPs sorry forgot to sign Brian Darby PS I hope you have a nice day.
He wouldn’t be pastor if he couldn’t. I hear it comes with the territory, eh?
That has not been my personal experience to say anything to a pastor other than Yes is to invite being given the left foot of fellowship unless you are a large donor, then that is different.
It appears that he is handling it, and that seems to make his critics even more angry.
C’, The Sovereign God Is allowing this to happen, the object of any
“attention”, “disregard” and “shake ups” my be far different than you consider.
So, in the meantime, while everyone is sitting their hands, secretly somehow knowing the mind of the sovereign god, why not just do the right thing by the children involved here?
I don’t know the mind of God, I do know that He Is. The churches involved in the Sitler and Wight cases had Sitler and Wight trun themselves in. I think they both plead guilty. The crimes were punished and sentence for those crimes continues. There is still plenty of hurt for many to do right by and some are. Randi, you might consider taking your hands off your eyes or off your ears, which ever it is that is clouding your perception of these facts.
Wilson doesn’t have the authority to stop this man and woman from creating a child.
The secular justice system did have that power (granted with the blunt instrument of continued incarceration), and chose not to use it.
Wilson had the choice not to encourage Sitler to get married and have a child. The fact is that Wilson thought/thinks that this is a partial solution to pedophilia. It isn’t. He made his choice based on his ideology. It is the wrong choice.
There is a reason this follows him around.
I think another reason is folks like you.
I sincerely hope so.
God permits a lot of stuff He didn’t approve of. But if you happen to be paying attention, a lot of stuff in a lot of places has been coming to light…..Doug’s stuff is actually tame compared to that of others which is why I am so mystified he is so defensive. Some of us think he may have made errors in judgement and if so it is kind of God tp bring it to attention now rather than later. A wise man appreciates the opportunity. Wiser heads than mine believe he has made these errors, and it is not… Read more »
New Testament believers are clearly instructed to judge the qualifications of a church leader by their outward conduct. To NOT do so is to disobey the Bible. Please see Titus 1: “An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined.” And I… Read more »
Hmm,
Above reproach? Not so much
Self controlled? Maybe not
Not violent, but gentle? ???
Not quarrelsome ? Definitely not
Not a liver of money ? That may be up for debate
A good reputation with outsiders ? Doesn’t look like it
You’re clearly a Berean believer, Leslie.
Do you know him?
Faithful to his wife? Yes
Children believe and were never wild or disobedient? Yes
Not overbearing? Yes
Not quick tempered? Yes
Not given to drunkeness? Yes
Not violent? Yes
Not pursuing dishonest gain? Yes
Respectable? Yes
Hospitable? Yes
Not violent but gentle? Yes
Self controlled? Yes
Not quarrelsome? Yes
Not a lover of money? Yes
Good reputation with outsiders? Yes
I actually know Wilson well enough to know that he is qualified for the office of elder. Do you know him?
What you see is what you WANT to see, or what you think you SHOULD be seeing. You (and countless more) are of the mind that when someone attacks, the only proper response is to cower in the corner and apologize profusely. Lookit…when someone attacks you, it is NOT being “defensive” to defend yourself against the attack. Saying otherwise is just plain nonsensical. If you honestly believe you are right about something–and you think it matters that you are right–then you would be a FOOL to roll over and pretend that it doesn’t. You would also be highly stupid to… Read more »
I believe he is wrong. And wrong to the point I should not be reading his blog anymore. Ps. I finally looked up federal vision and it is rank heresy. Theology matters.
You’re really going for scorched earth here, aren’t you Connie?
I believe in the Biblical view of sanctification. Truth matters.
Not talking about FV necessarily, but you’re sure systematically walking thought his house and prouncing curses on everything. I’m sorry.
I know what a curse is. I don’t curse people. By your definition we should let Doug sail over a cliff without saying a word. That’s not loving.
Particularly since he is taking folks with him.
You’re being too reserved and coy in your words. Trying not to say what you want to say. I know nothing of his federal vision, but you’ve swooped in, late to the party I might add, with your proclamations of shame, shame and he should hide his head from the internet with a scarlet letter.
And like those who give scarlet letters, you’ve done it without authority, and without all the knowledge that those who have the authority do.
There are many of you commenting in the last month +, that have taken on the activity of nannying busybodies.
Well, if choosing my words carefully and trying to be respectful are coy, guilty as charged.I care about that baby, and I care about Doug’s soul and the others involved as well.
What do you care about?
Don’t defend Doug from the truth because you are sinning against him if you do. And if he doesn’t want our opinions, why does he blog publically? He can take it. Let him.
No, I find you disrespectful and discourteous because you are stating that you know better and your opinions are more valuable and important than the authorities that are over the Sitler case. You’re claiming you have the ‘Truth’, yet it is merely the truth that you find comfortable by your own measures as you have chosen them stuffed into innuendo. You won’t let him stand, and you won’t acknowledge that he might have a better understanding of what’s happening. To say nothing your second guessing of the state authorities. Do you realize that with all the documentation available we’ve only… Read more »
I think I do know better. And if thinking one knows better is wrong, that would make DW the chief of sinners. And I feel sorry for him. Because a bunch of you are so convinced he could never be in error, how could God get to him to help him? I am beginning to think this man has no true friends. Ps. If I am not following “rules of reproof” (and I consider that what I am actually doing is commenting on a thread) then what are you doing calling me names? I mean, I have been called worse… Read more »
You do know better? Strange I don’t know what ecclesiastical authority you represent? I just hear the clucking of tongues.
I was not aware ecclesiastical authority was required to have common sense.
Obviously not, or Pope Julian would not have held bull fights in the Vatican. And we could probably rule out the Pope who made his horse a cardinal.
This fabulous comment on common sense was left at dreher’s blog by “Irenist”:
“No Bible verse specifically forbids shooting your foot with a shotgun: common sense prudence does.
Wilson’s self-excusing special pleading is a reductio ad absurdum of solo (not sola) scriptura.”
Brilliant!
Nor is it required to evaluate the words of a church leader, Connie. Carry on being a Berean believer.
Acts 7:11 “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”
Oh, do chat with his pastor Connie! That would be so fun. ;)
In my experience, those who are most self-assured that Federal Vision is a heresy are least able to accurately describe it. Is connie able to name a basic feature of the Federal Vision that is conclusively heretical, and which Wilson would actually affirm as his own belief? For example, some have (incorrectly) said that FV teaches baptismal regeneration, but Wilson rejects baptismal regeneration.
It sure seems like connie is just jumping on the internet band wagon, which would be a very unjust thing to do.
confirmation bias
Have you been reading Doug’s Blog for a while now, say starting with 10 September or is this your first foray? How did you find yourself here? Who directed you? Doug has not ever been one to mince his words so please don’t feel like you have to.
Welcome to the rough and ready part of the internet. Please check all weapons at the door, and don’t forget to clear the breach.
On and off for years. Used to peruse his magazine….Credenda Agenda, I believe. I am not of his theological persuasion but I am a conservative Christian.
In other words, I did not just discover his existence within the last month or so.
I was wondering Pastor Wilson would you officiate at a marriage between a couple where the Husband to be held to an egalitarian view of husband-wife relationships and held to the validity of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution vs the “biblical” view of “creation. If both who were getting married were Christians etc ?
thank You Brian Darby
I’m sure he would…though I suspect the couple wouldn’t be too pleased with the wedding homily. ;^)
Mark 9:
49 Everyone will be salted with fire.
50 “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.”
Well Wilson, thanks for the Salt. I’m at peace with you at least. In fact, I think we are due for a drink!
If we are ever less than 3000 miles apart, we’ll have to see about that!
I really enjoyed reading this, thank you.
The analogy used here by Doug’s opponents is that of an ex-alcoholic not running the bar. I agree with this principle but it is worth considering further. Ex-alcoholics avoiding alcohol is not a law to be obeyed, it is a wise principle. As such it is not a sin for an ex-alcoholic to drink alcohol, his sin was drunkenness. So many ex-alcoholics stay away from temptation because they want to avoid a fall back into alcoholism. That said, many ex-alcoholics do drink alcohol and stay away from drunkenness. Some ex-alcoholic Christians take wine at communion and don’t have a incorrigible… Read more »
I agree with most of what you said. If a repentant pedophile can find a woman willing to marry him and support his efforts to change, I think that is good (assuming she understand the problems). Her love and the support of the community may help him avoid temptation and to resist it when it arises. My question in this case has always been the wisdom of having children.
I think it depends on the situation. While I happen to think that deviancies are more likely to to occur with other deviancies, this is at a group level not an individual level. Thus a specific paedophile may not be attracted to same sex children, or to incest. These things probably should be explored. A repentant person should be obviously loathing his own sin and should be in an accountable situation.
I think it matters a lot, whether the person is only attracted to children, or has crossed the line and acted on that attraction. If the person has never acted, hates his or her proclivity, and has sought help for it without being advised or ordered to, I’d feel a lot better about the chances of this person’s own children not being harmed. I would still want some oversight, for two reasons: the many daily opportunities for inappropriate activity, meaning that person, if attracted to their own child, will face constant temptation, and the inability of a small child to… Read more »
Agreed, we punish for crimes committed not thought about. I think that we should be extremely cautious with people in the church who have committed acts of paedophilia.
Some of what I was getting at is paedophilia and incest are different perversions. While deviancies almost certainly group together on average, I don’t think one can assume that they cross over in every individual. If that were the case then the church should ban marriage and contact with children for every previous sexual deviancy as they all could cross over to either paedophilia or incest.
I have read accounts of men who said that they would never have thought of children sexually in their life if they had not run into child porn on the internet and eventually clicked on it out of curiosity. They got sucked in and addicted. It stands to reason that they can get un-addicted and back to normal.
Missing from your discussion (and nearly everyone else’s) is the work of sanctification. You see, pedophilia, drunkenness, bulimia, self-mutilation…these things are, at their root, SIN. Sin cannot be removed from the heart simply by plucking out the eye, cutting off the hand, holing up in a padded prison cell, removing alcohol or computers or knives or food or children. Sin is removed from the heart by the work of the Holy Spirit. Certainly we humans need visible evidence that the thistle plant is now producing figs, but when multitude counselors, overseers, and parents have concluded that the Spirit’s work is… Read more »
It is evident from the comments that some are feeling besieged. Ignore the internet trolls, but don’t shut out other parts of the body of Christ who may differ with you. “Indeed there are many members, yet one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’; nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’ … And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it.” We love the saints at Christ Church, and we are praying for you. “In the world you will have tribulation; but be… Read more »
I don’t think Doug is saying (at least I hope he isn’t) That he is always being persecuted for Godliness. I think, and hope, he is saying that not only with others, but with our own lives, we need to analyze carefully are we having trouble because of faithfulness, in which case we should rejoice, or from carelessness, in which case we should repent. Of course, there are times people are just jerks. I think Doug has real times the flack may be because he messed up (unless he’s some kind of super-saint) What is fair to point out is,… Read more »
I think the fact that Doug has messed up is in itself irrelevant. I think the fact that Doug has messed up and refused to admit it is very relevant, a little humility can go a long wat to smoothing a situation and make it right. The arrogance that has been shown just seems like the biblical stiff neck and has made a bad situation worse,
Where did he mess up? I have no idea what you are referring to. Claiming faith in Christ makes a woman more attractive? Saying the options the world gives for woman are heinous? Allowing a former pedophile seeking redemption to be married?
sigh.
More from Rod Dreher:
“The really extraordinary part is that Wilson still seems to think that it’s all about him. He’s praising himself for being a courageous Christian leader for not covering his butt — as if the personal liability of Doug Wilson if the Sitler situation blew up was more of an issue than the safety and well being of any children that came out of a pedophile’s marital union, and the mental, emotional, and spiritual health of Katie Travis and, yes, of Steven Sitler. The self-pity here is mighty weird.”
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/douglas-wilson-steven-sitler-pride/
oh. oh yeah.
Aye, pure gold from Rod.
1. Widely acknowledged all round that Katie and Steven could do whatever they want without Wilson being able to lift a finger whether he officiated the wedding or not.
2. Attacks Wilson despite this.
3. Attacks Wilson for defending himself and making it “all about him”.
How exactly does one defend oneself against vicious slander without making it about yourself?
“Tell me your account of the story Mr Wilson” he said. “Well,” started Wilson, “I fir…” “ENOUGH OF YOUR I TALK DOUG IT AIN’T ALL ABOUT YOU!”
Mr Wilson has a seriously compromised moral compass, and this is obvious almost every rime he opens his virtual mouth. In recognition of the fact that he has been bamboozled by at least two predators whom he pastored and in the light of his subsequent failure to evidence even a modicum of compassion for the victims, i would like to see him step down. He does not need to be pastoring. He should never again counsel anyone ever. Perhaps if his burden for sexual deviants continues to weigh on him he might consider a full time prison ministry. At least… Read more »
guester’s observation is worth a re-post:
“Natalie was a beautiful and striking young woman, and at the time was about eight inches taller than Jamin was.”
Casting an underage person as mature and grown-up, whether physically, emotionally, or mentally, is a classic justification used by sexual predators to minimize their crimes. The fact that Doug Wilson posits this twisted description himself is very troubling; it has absolutely no relevance. Someone who is so taken in by the logic of a sexual predator as to quote it himself is emphatically UNqualified to establish whether a sexual predator is “repentant”.
RandMan, guester and others appear to be constitutionally incapable of grasping why Wilson refers to Natalie’s height, and to her maturity, and to her beauty. This may be because they don’t understand the difference between a legal conviction of pedophilia, and a conviction of statutory rape. If Natalie was mature for her age, this goes against a theory that Wight was attracted to her because of immature, prepubescent, childlike qualities in her. Natalie’s physical height goes against a pedophile theory for the same reasons. If Wight had to actually look up at her to look her in the eye, then… Read more »
As has been pointed out before, katecho, pedophilia is a diagnostic criteria, not a legal one. There is no “conviction of pedophilia”, as you say, though there are convictions of “child molestation” or “statutory rape” or various other ways in which these crimes may be referred to in individual state statutes. Jamin’s abuse of a child was and is absolutely reprehensible to the Christian (and to most outside the faith as well). Natalie’s appearance makes not a whit of difference to that fact; it is truly irrelevant. Please note that arguments about the supposed maturity of the victim are typically… Read more »
Wight was attracted to her because he is a predator and an abuser. One who instinctively and naturally sensed he could take advantage of ten-year age difference and power dynamic between an adult and a child and a trusting family who bought his con. You never heard me make a distinction between pedophilia and statuary rape. I wouldn’t bother. The distinction is the one I make between those like you who think that someone else’s sexual abuse is worth parsing out and debating, and those who genuinely care about kids. If you had any idea of the nature of pedophilia… Read more »
I hope that RandMan’s abuser was prosecuted to the full extent of the law for the crime committed, but RandMan is showing us (like Natalie), that the hurt continues when there is no place found to deal with the shame. In regard to creating a cover, I’ve simply pointed to an appropriate impartiality that I see in Wilson. Impartiality is called for when our current legal system has trouble registering basic concepts like the destruction of the unborn, and moral conscience in refusing to glorify a homosexual mirage. So impartiality is not the same as lack of compassion, but it… Read more »
You’re the worst. Go bloviate that pseudo-legal BS and spew empty piety at someone else.
Ah, but in prison ministry he could write letters to the parole board and help influence them to release a dangerous sexual predator before he is ready to be released back into society. I vote he goes back to playing the guitar on the worship team….
you are right my bad!!
preferably under the authority of a female worship leader. maybe a celibate lesbian.
“Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men” (Matt. 5:11–13). But then there is this as well: “But how is it to your… Read more »
Well, that’s the whole point, now isn’t it?
We have to know the difference between being trampled underfoot because of righteousness and being trampled underfoot because we’re worthless.
The trampling in itself tells you nothing.
Doug, you need to stop being so nice to this Dreher putz and start letting people know what kind of guy he really is. Tell everyone how he’s been promoting a hard core racist novel, Camp of the Saints, for the past month or so. It’s all about how white people, the “saints” of the title, are going to be “genocided” out of existence by hundreds of millions of swarthy immigrants from Third World countries. Written in the 70’s, it’s been a favorite of KKK and neo-nazi types ever since. And lately Dreher has been praising it as prophetic. Repeatedly.… Read more »
In your desire to hand Pastor Wilson a stick with which to beat Rod Dreher (of whom I had never heard till recent days), I think you are being both inaccurate and unfair. The subject of this appalling novel, written in the 1970s and dealing with mass third world immigration into Europe, is undeniably timely in light of the current refugee crisis. Because of its timeliness, Dreher has blogged about it as he read it. To say that Dreher (by the way, do you know what putz means, and do you believe that by using a Yiddish term you have… Read more »
Wilson often rebukes racism with articulate appeals to our common lineage in Adam and Eve, the mother of all the living. However, Wilson knows, all too well, what it is like to be falsely accused of being a racist. So I don’t see Wilson ever lightly employing a charge of racism against any particular person or group without a mountain of evidence.
I agree with you. I did not think for a moment that Wilson would use this suggested weapon, but it still offended me because of its lack of accuracy and fairness.