Update: Laura Turner has quietly corrected her article in line with at least one of my criticisms of it, but without acknowledging that she was doing so. Just so you know.
I do need to respond to this article, but I am also in two minds about it. In order to interact with this stuff at all, you have to make a distinction between different kinds of people involved. On the one hand you have people on the other side of the country who are just getting in their leftist licks, at places like Jezebel. On the other hand you have the hurting and lost people who, when the controversialists are done using them, will be left alone to count the fragments of what they thought they were supposed to get.
What I think I will do is simply walk through the timeline of what happened in the Greenfield/Wight situation, doing this in a similar way to how I responded to Rod Dreher’s attack on us. The Jezebel article addresses the Sitler situation also, which I already addressed here. With my earlier timeline response, I was dealing with Rod Dreher and The American Conservative, from whom I expected a lot more, and in this place, I am dealing with Laura Turner and Jezebel, from whom I expected a lot worse. Oh well.
Dreher emphasized Sitler, and included some of the Greenfield case, while Turner does the opposite. So what I intend to do here is simply walk through what actually happened in the Greenfield situation.
There are several key facts to remember as you read through the Jezebel narrative and also through what follows. First, what was done to Natalie by Jamin was atrocious, with long term consequences that are simply heartbreaking. This was one of those wounds that just won’t stop bleeding. My prayer for Natalie really is that she might find peace and true healing, and find it soon.
Second, Turner casts me as a big, bad patriarchalist, with her definitions of that word every bit as scary as the word sounds. But she left out of her account the glaring fact that we suspended Natalie’s father from the Lord’s Supper for his abusive mistreatment of his family, and for claiming that his authority over his family was virtually absolute. There was a patriarchalist in this tragic story who was much closer to Turner’s description, but we were the ones who disciplined him for it. And Turner is the one glossing over what he did to the women in his family. Why is that okay?
Third, there are many falsehoods throughout the story — incidentally, Turner did not interview me for the story, but did I need to say that? — and here is one of them. Turner says that all NSA students and Greyfriars live with families. I don’t know who made that up, but somebody did. It is not true at all. And there are many other things I could say about the article, but we don’t have all night. Update: she edited her article in response to this paragraph.
But one of the falsehoods is big enough that it needs to be flatly denied in its own paragraph. “The Greenfields and Wilson went back and forth on whether it was appropriate for a 23-year-old to court a young teenage girl, until Natalie’s father Gary finally said no to any sort of romantic relationship between Wight and his daughter.” Even on this (misleading and false) account, Turner ought to have said what position I was supposed to have been advocating back then. Was she trying to insinuate that I was trying to foist Jamin off on the Greenfields? Or was I saying that it was totally crazy? Hint: my views are that a secret relationship between a 23-year-old and a 14-year-old is beyond irresponsible. In real life, I found out what had transpired in the secretly-arranged courtship years after the fact in 2005, when the relationship and the attendant abuse became public. So the relationship began in 2002, the parents knew about it at that time, set boundaries for it at that time, boundaries that they thought were being honored, and the reality of what actually happened blew up a few years later.
So then, here is the timeline. In 2005, I received a phone call from a woman in the Tri-Cities whose daughter was engaged to Jamin. She told me that Natalie had called her daughter, Jamin’s fiance, and told her about what Jamin had previously done to her. That’s how I found out about this.
The Greenfield family filed a complaint against Jamin and I reported what had happened to our board of elders (8/18/05).
About a week later (8/22/05) I wrote a letter to the officer investigating the crime, a letter that followed up on a interview he had conducted with me earlier. In that letter I said:
“Jamin’s crime and sin in this was of a particularly egregious nature . . . and his behavior involved a great deal of calculated deception.”
“We have verbally instructed him (and have followed it up with a letter) that he is responsible to own his crime and take full responsibility for the consequences of it.”
In that same letter, I mentioned the foolish courtship set-up. I noted that the Greenfields had acted foolishly “by inviting Jamin to move in with them, encouraging and permitting a relationship between Jamin and Natalie, while keeping that relationship secret from the broader community.”
The same day I wrote Jamin a letter, in the course of which I said this. “We want your first thought in all your practical choices to be the protection of the Greenfields, and particularly Natalie” (8/22/05).
As the case against Jamin moved forward, we were concerned with the attitude and behavior of Gary Greenfield. He had shown great foolishness in the way he allowed the courtship in the first place, and we were concerned that he was not showing great wisdom in how he pursued Jamin. We did not want him to swing at Jamin and hit Natalie. So I said in a letter to Gary that “we remain very concerned about the possibility that this whole legal process could proceed in a way that continues to leave Natalie unprotected” (9/1/05).
For example, during the relationship Natalie had kept a journal of love letters to Jamin which are currently sealed by court order. If the case had gone to a full trial, then those letters would quite possibly have been used in the defense. That is the kind of thing we were wanting to head off for the sake of Natalie. The Greenfields agreed with wanting to protect her this way, and it was at their request that the journals were sealed. Now was wanting something like that a desire for real protection? I think so, but it was entirely possible that Gary could pursue the case in such a way that such protection would fail and fail big. This is the kind of thing we were talking about.
Two weeks later, I wrote another letter to Gary (9/15/05). Incidentally, such letters were not a substitute for personal conservation, but were a way of confirming what we had said personally in our conversations. I for one am very glad we used that procedure. I have letters I can quote from. In that letter, we said the following:
“Your sin did create a vulnerability for Natalie, a vulnerability that Jamin took sinful advantage of. What we are doing is exhorting you to make protection of Natalie your highest priority in the months to come, because we are convinced that she will need it.”
“The problem was that you had a young man in his twenties living in your home, in a relationship that you knew about with your fourteen-year-old daughter. You kept this relationship secret from others, which contributed to Natalie’s vulnerability.”
“Again, Jamin is in no way justified by any of this, and we have no problem with his prosecution.”
In the following months, Gary’s behavior became increasingly erratic and the family was increasingly worried. I sought to meet with Gary about it and he refused. I suspended him from the Lord’s Supper for four weeks over his refusal to be accountable for his treatment of his family. Our session of elders then sustained that suspension from the Supper (3/30/06). That suspension was made indefinite the next month (4/13/06).
Gary was demanding that his family move out of town with him, but his behavior was unsettling, erratic and scary. I reported to the elders that I had “counseled Pat to remain in Moscow until we have assurances of her safety, welfare and protection” (5/25/06).
I wrote to Gary about a week later. In that letter, I said:
“You have no right to treat your wife the way you are doing, and you do not belong to a church that will ever grant you that right” (6/3/06).
At this point, I want to stop and ask Laura Turner what I should have said to Gary in that letter instead of what I did say. Does Turner think that churches should grant men that kind of authority?
As already mentioned, Gary was suspended from the Supper, but we were by now involved in preparing to excommunicate him. (In our form of church government, excommunication is the final step of church discipline.) In the course of preparing for that trial, I was given a copy of a letter that Natalie had sent to her father. In this letter, she was explaining why his authority was not absolute, and why she did not need to move with him. She said:
“[Doug] is my pastor and I will seek counsel from him when I feel it necessary. God put him over me as my shepherd and he has been a great encouragement and help to me . . . I love my church and my community” (6/6/06).
It is crucial to note this was a year after Natalie had made her abuse at Jamin’s hands public, and it was a month after Jamin’s final sentencing trial.
She concluded the letter to her father this way:
“I have written this on my own accord using my own, adult, thinking mind. I have not been persuaded, manipulated or coerced into anything. I stand on my own two feet and my feet are planted on my rock, Christ the Lord.”
Now what Jezebel is in effect maintaining is that we had a responsibility to not believe the Greenfield women, and to believe Gary instead. But we did believe Natalie, and we did believe her mother. We had (and have) independent confirmation that they were speaking the truth to us. And now, ten years later, Jezebel is attacking us for our “patriarchalism,” when what we were actually doing was disciplining an out-of-control patriarchalist.
A week and a half later, Natalie wrote to me directly, a plea for help. This plea for help is one that Laura Turner is now saying that we should have coldly ignored. Natalie described her father’s treatment of her this way.
“He said I did this to us. He said I’m sick with ulcers because I’m rebellious and sinful. He called today to ‘chat’ and when I told him how sick I’ve been, he said, ‘oh, really, hmmm, that’s too bad, isn’t it? . . . Did I do this? He said I did this . . .” (6/15/06).
The blaming, and the shaming, which did in fact happen, and which is gut-wrenching even to think about, was terrible. But we didn’t do it. We were in the middle of disciplining the man who was doing it.
So here is a summary of the disciplinary proceedings against Gary Greenfield. He was suspended from the Supper in March of 2006 for his refusal to meet with the elders regarding questions of his treatment of his family. This was a four week suspension. The suspension was made indefinite in April because of his continued refusal to meet. His behavior was terrible, including toward Natalie. Charges were drawn up for an excommunication trial in July of 2006. Those charges included “unrepentant mistreatment,” “harsh and abusive language,” “vandalizing the family business,” “refusal to supply financial support,” and “claiming the authority of a husband and father [was] virtually absolute.” When he joined the Eastern Orthodox church, we set aside the formal trial (for the sake of the family), and considered his departure while under this suspension as tantamount to excommunication. The reason we did not go through the process of a full trial is that there was a concern that Gary would retaliate against his family (financially), something he had shown himself fully capable of doing.
So I know for a fact that Natalie was not lying to me back then about her father. I believed her account then, and I still believe it today. There were other witnesses to what Gary was doing, and a careful record of everything was kept.
In the years since, it is Natalie’s account that has shifted. I am very sorry for her, and ache over the grief she has gone through, but the documented reality is that at the time of her abuse — first one kind from Jamin, and another blaming kind from her father — she knew then that we were on her side. She says now that we were not, but at the time she said we were, and was telling us that her father was mistreating her. The only way for her to deny this now is for her to confess that she was falsely accusing her father to us. Was she? I don’t believe so.
I don’t know exactly what changed, but it wasn’t our attitude toward abuse. The reality is that we discipline men who treat women that way. We did then, and we do now.
A simplistic approach to this sorry story is to present it as a choice between believing Natalie or not. It is actually a choice between believing Natalie ten years ago, with corroborating evidence, or believing Natalie now with no corroborating evidence. Her story has changed, away from the documented facts, and as long as she persists in this, real healing will continue to elude her.
There are other things that could be said about the years since then, but I think the above provides a basic outline of what actually happened thus far.
So I would like to conclude this section with an honest set of questions for Laura Turner.
Why should we have left the Greenfield women unprotected from an abusive husband and father? Why should we have disbelieved their verbal and written reports to us? What evidence do you have that should have made us want to set those reports aside? And if we had left the women unprotected a decade ago, do you think it is at all possible that you might be persuaded to write an article attacking us for that? So what do you want? Do you want us to believe women who report mistreatment, or do you not? I know that feminists don’t like jokes, and that is really unfortunate, because your feminism is one.
I am very sorry, but one more thing needs to be added to the timeline. I said a moment ago that I don’t know the exact nature of what changed, but in 2007 Natalie was suspended from the Supper because she had gotten engaged to a non-Christian man (7/19/07). Natalie is now married to Wes Petersen, not a believer, and that is a big part of what has changed. I wish her well, and I wish him well, and want nothing but God’s blessing on the two of them. But despite my best wishes, they are not well now. Those who know their situation know they are lost and hurting people. Natalie has recently scrubbed her Facebook history and her blog to make her overall story more palatable to those Christians she has wanted to tell her story to, but certain unfortunate facts were missed.
Regular readers of this blog know that I am not a big fan of trigger warnings, but this next point really does require one. Please note that I am not making anything public. These videos were made public a couple years ago by Wes himself. They were public then and are public now. These are “performance art” videos of Natalie’s husband, entirely naked, that he filmed of himself. Don’t click if it concerns you because you can’t unsee them. Wes and Natalie wanted them public, and I am simply providing links to them — here and here.
Update: The first link above to their posting of “The Bridge” video has now been taken down by them. You can still see it here, but only if you need to. Caution still advised. The relevance and/or propriety of these links has been questioned in the comments below, but surely the relevance is obvious? This behavior is something that Natalie currently believes is normal. Notice that they took down the first video, but not the second. That one must be okay then, one they are still prepared to defend. This is the worldview perspective that is criticizing our handling of sexual abuse cases. And this is what Boz T has identified his GRACE ministry with. This is what Ryan Sather has identified CRU with — that and his mocking dismissal of women who were abused. The whole thing is kind of a tawdry spectacle — evangelical leaders in bed with Jezebel. What would Elijah say? Update concluded
So just ask yourself this: what would happen if videos like this had been made by anyone else around here — by Jamin, by one of our Greyfriars, by an NSA student, by anyone related to me? You get the picture.
Is this what it takes to have Boz Tchividjian have his ministry link arms with you? Would Boz recommend that any ministry hire any man who had filmed himself doing something like this as a youth minister? When we tried to tell Boz’s organization privately that this is the kind of thing they were dealing with, all we got back from GRACE was the threat of a lawsuit. Christians suing Christians before unbelievers, just like in the Bible.
Linking to these videos is not retaliation, and it is not provocative. It is not gasoline on the fire. This is the kind of thing I have been laboring to prevent, not for my own sake but for the sake of others. I told Natalie in an email a while ago that it was not possible to dig up half a corpse. But if you insist, if you demand, if you keep it up, if you finally get your story on Jezebel, the rest of the corpse comes too. So this is where we now are. You wanted the whole story, and we are almost there. Unfortunately, for all you angry Internet personnel out there, this is just one more instance of you swinging at one person like me and hitting Natalie instead.
One last thing. If someone wants to read some accounts from other women in Moscow who have also been victims, but who processed it in a way much more conducive to healing, I would like to recommend this web site. There are no comments, and the women involved are not debating with anyone, or answering anyone. They are simply telling their stories. Because they are not attacking anyone, but simply giving their testimonies, their names are withheld. The stories are compelling, just like the truth.
Ouch. Retaliation and gas on the fire is exactly how your detractors will view this post.
It’s rather puzzling that they think recounting the timeline of events constitutes “retaliation.”
I don’t think it is retaliation but the anti-Doug crowd do.
Read more carefully, please.
There’s nothing at all wrong with my reading ability, dear.
Sad. Everyone knows Jezebel is a joke but that article was hacktastic. I hope Natalie finds peace in the only truly innocent victim.
Heavy. The men in a woman’s life can cause incredible damage. I feel awful for Natalie. On Twitter she said “I was barred from communion for dating an ‘unbeliever’. I married him. Ironically, he’s the best man I’ve ever known.” A guy troubled enough to film himself doing that and post it publicly? The best? The church was clearly right to be worried…
I’ve known Natalie’s family forever. I know (and like) Wes. He’s worked in my home. He’s coached my son. I hate seeing Natalie lash out against those who cared and care for her, rejecting a place where she could find true rest. I hate (for many reasons) seeing Wes in something so bent as these videos. I really do hope that God brings them both a glorious and gracious resolution to the turmoil they clearly feel. The Gospel fears no darkness. Grace flinches from no wounds. As public as they have made their troubles, the Holy Spirit can bring them… Read more »
Thank you Nate. This was kind and gracious and a fitting comment for a servant of Christ.
Good words, Nate. As silly and, honestly, depraved as that video appears, I’m left thinking that the darkness in which I’ve stored much immorality and expressions of self-centeredness is just as bad. Come, Lord Jesus, come and save us all from ourselves and from your righteous indignation.
Natalie’s husband’s art is hardly relevant to Wilson’s handling of her case. Just more shame and blame, trying to make a tenuous connection. I like Katie Botkin’s excellent observation about this: “Is public nudity automatically sinful? Is a naked dude banging a bent piece of rebar against a wall until it begins to straighten an abominable piece of work that shows the inner evil of said naked dude? If you answered yes to these questions, and you’re a Calvinist Christian, then congratulations, you’ve just invalidated your own religion. If you’re a Calvinist, then you believe that Jesus is one and… Read more »
I think there is a diffeence beween stripping off for the camera and being stripped and beaten for the salvation of the world.
Of course you do. There is also a difference between ‘stripping off for the camera’ and using your body as metaphor and allegory to make an artistic statement. There may be a range of opinions as to the quality of the art in this case, but the honest intention behind it is clear to me. To completely misunderstand it or more accurately, misrepresent it as in Doug’s case as some kind of moral decay and use it to shame and tar Natalie is the worst kind of retaliation. Wilson is the one baring his ass here. Re the piece itself,… Read more »
Why do you kick against the goads? You are bent with sin as we all are, and if it pleases God He will beat you straight. It happened to Paul, and it happened to Jonah.
I doubt it.
Not for long.
It is moral decay. It’s base. It’s vulgar. It is indecent exposure. Please understand I am a Christian and so aim to define things according to the word of God. Art is not a biblical category. Shame is, and his conduct is shameful.
Let’s say (like Elvis’ early performances were received) that it is art in moral decay and vulgar. How is Natalie’s current husband’s work at all relevant to Wilson’s failure in the Wight case ten years ago and his blame and shame of Natalie’s family when she was younger?
It’s relevant as an example of the ongoing shame being dumped on Natalie. His video shames his entire family.
I’m not sure if you are defending the posting of the videos or not. Are you advocating for pastors to minister to victims of sexual abuse by posting examples “of ongoing shame being dumped on” them? For what purpose? How does this help Natalie?
What has been put on public display in this case does not help Natalie. That is my point. But who is the offender – the one who put it on public display or the one who pointed out that it was on public display? Doug is pointing out the train wreck.
And do you believe this to be pastoral or helpful behavior on Wilson’s part?
I doubt as if most of the people commenting or reading here would have known of the existence of these videos were it not for Wilson alerting us. How does that help her?
Rebecca, I don’t know how this will help her, I can only speculate. So, here’s my speculation. Put yourself entirely in her shoes regarding the faith. You were raised a believer and were looking to Jesus for your salvation. You fell away. You married an unbeliever. You then continued to fall away. Your husband does some things, which, when defined by your former Christian faith, is shameful. Everyone finds out about it. Putting myself in those shoes, I wonder if I might not now see how far I have fallen. I wonder if I might fall to my knees and… Read more »
I’m glad Douglas Wilson type tactics worked for you, and that you seem to view them as the goodness of the Lord that brought you to repentance. I would argue that this approach is perhaps more effective used against men than women. Perhaps a man in the same situation would be more likely to concede, “Yes, my wife is a warped floozy; thank you so much for pointing this out in the most public way possible; I will immediately repent!!” However, a woman who has felt shamed by sexual abuse, and felt shamed and wounded by what she viewed as… Read more »
I would have a problem with anyone who tried to “engineer a tactic” to bring about repentance.
Most of those who come to repentance have found that it occurred in the organic circumstances of life and that God used whatever rod he felt appropriate.
Oh, I should clarify that my repentance was not the result of anything my wife did. It was the result of having my own folly exposed.
yes. this is always the way it happens: God reveals our own utter emptiness and bent toward depravity to us. and please don’t take my responses as a personal attack. I am sure you are a good man who tries to do the right thing.
Well, that is your opinion. Let’s say your priggish notions of art are correct, and that making art featuring nudity is some how shameful, placing Wes in the pantheon of other shameful unrepentant sinners: (Michelangelo, Da VInci, Goya, Cezanne and one or two other reprobates in human history…)
it is utterly irrelevant to what is actually on the table here.
Who said nudity was shameful? What is shameful, Randman, is a father and husband publicly posting video’s of his naked self thrusting sky high for his mum to see….and then having people defend the indefensible by saying, “Oh, but it’s art”.
Exactly. And yet defenders will grasp at straws with the supposed “context” that is provided by either the genre of performance art itself, or the intended “meaning” or “context” of the particular performance itself. But this is foolish for a couple of reasons: First, the, the type or genre of the “art” is itself a medium, nothing more. Mediums in and of themselves don’t provide context. Performance art might tend to be rendered such that it is very subjective, just like book might be written to make very nebulous or murky point, or a song lyric might also. This doesn’t… Read more »
Even if performance art is predicated on a fallacious understanding–one that allows for or encourages some kinds of sin–for a person like Doug Wilson to drag a performance art video into the issue is a red herring. He (and you) can be 100 percent right in your criticisms of the content (or lack thereof) of that medium–it just doesn’t say much about the character of Natalie’s husband. And the character of Natalie’s husband is itself irrelevant to the issue!
As they would say to the Judge on ‘Law & Order’, “Your Honor, it goes to the character of the witness”. Art, nor the artist exist in a vacuum.
No, of course not. But judging character is difficult, yes?
In my opinion, all of this–the “controversy” as a whole, Doug Wilson’s response to it, the responses of some of his critics, his posting of these videos–is evidence of the distortions of tribalism. Rather than soberly confront the issues, we have people being turned into symbols and scapegoats–Wilson by some, some by Wilson. “Our kind of people” would never film themselves hitting a stick naked. These are signals–flags and markers that are being waved about to incite hatred and division. Satan thrives and gathers power in this environment.
So public nudity is shameful? Or nudity in film is shameful?
I understand that performance art courts shock value, sometimes. But art that shocks is not always sinful. You know this, David. Doug knows this. Wilson is leading people into the murky back-alley of a debate about propriety in art. And why? Even if he is right that the video is in some way objectionable (and he may be–I am a Catholic, and the Church has flagged nudity in art as a difficult issue), what on earth is the point?
Sin, not shame, would be the relevant category. And the sin–real or not–of Natalie’s current husband has little to do with the trustworthiness of Natalie. Do you think that people who sin are not to be trusted? Or believed? Do you presume to judge the hearts of men?
Rick, I am using shame in it’s biblical category here snd elsewhere. As in, a lazy son shames his mother. Proverbs.
“If you’re a Calvinist, then you believe that Jesus is one and the same with the all-knowing, all-powerful and sinless God who predestined Jesus to die a violent death completely naked. He was publicly flogged (with a whip) and then nailed up on cross nude. Taken out of context, this would apparently sound to Doug Wilson and his ilk like the worst torture porn the world has ever seen. If being naked in public by your own volition is a sin, then Jesus was not sinless, and thus could not have validly taken on your sins.” What an asinine statement.… Read more »
The point is intention Evan. Unlike scripture, the true and unequivocal word of god, some art, especially performance art requires context. The point in these pieces is clear, and the fact that him being naked is what is bothersome speaks to prudishness and lack of understanding about artistic expression. Notice I am not commenting on the success of the piece or the quality of the art itself. Which I do not care about. Wilson’s intention is clear here: to try and twist the existence of Natalie’s husband’s work into a kind of gotcha. Ridiculous, obvious and desperate. Stop shaking your… Read more »
That you thought blasphemy would get you anywhere here say a lot about you. smh
What blasphemy? What on earth are you talking about?
The profane and contemptuous way that RandMan characterizes the death of Jesus on the Cross is quite blasphemous, as referenced by Evan in the above quote. Perhaps he feels that his attempt to bring the death of Christ down to the level of a lewd trashy performer is SNL, and elevate the utter pap with some worth.
I wouldn’t go to your church if you paid me. I see how Doug treats rape victims. So glad my church is a safe haven, many are NOT.
Wow.
I really don’t see why these videos are, in their own context, remarkable at all. I am honestly very surprised that Doug Wilson does. All I can say is, he knows better. Performance art is a certain medium, one that uses the human body as its template. I suppose one can decide that the medium itself is reprobate–or that many of the uses to which it is put are–but that needs defending. Even if Natalie and her husband had become Wiccan and were posting videos of themselves eating human feces, it would not shed much light on the issues at… Read more »
Wow, I hope this will help calm the seething trolling and hatred, but I have a hunch that the only consistency the haters have is to be inconsistent. Rage and indignation to patriarchs in “power” regardless of the truth. This is just another story being used by the feminist wrecking ball. How many times can you answer according to this folly?
This isn’t retaliation, it’s telling the other side of the story after Natalie et al posted their side in great detail for a long time now. Things left hidden have been drug out into the street.
Natalie admits to marrying an unbeliever then moans about being excommunicated. Wow. Tragic case of self-inflicted wounds piling up for someone who was already seriously wounded by others.
She was excommunicated for marrying someone who holds different beliefs. Fine, churches get to make those kinds of rules. But guess what that tells everybody? It tells everybody that the church and Doug Wilson think her sin of marrying someone she loves is worse than the sin of the man who abused her. No matter what your beliefs, you ought to be able to see why that is wrong, and why she’d be upset about it.
Not quite, this isn’t a matter of opinion. You can find it plainly written by Paul in the New Testament that believers should not marry an unbeliever. 2 Cor 6:14. This wasn’t something they were ambushed by either. She would have known this would happen when she married him.
He did have different belief’s but this isn’t something that was hidden in pages, or interpreted on the spot, and this wasn’t Doug Wilson’s personal opinion brought to bare either, this would have been the position of the Church, and CREC.
Don’t make this out to be a personal vendetta.
Sin doesn’t cause excommunication. Unrepentant sin does.
Non sequitur. If the perp wasn’t excommunicated, it was because of repentance. That is the deciding factor, not the sin, which as you pointed out is clearly worse.
Natalie is/was unrepentant and that is why she was churched.
One can be put out of the fold for a less serious offense.
You must be from the South using ‘drug’ like that. ; )
Prayers for you Pastor.
To the mind comes that image Doug used a few months ago of rain clearing the air — this is a very bitter, acid rain. But for those willing to listen, it does indeed clear the air, though blurring the vision a bit with tears in the meantime. How horribly sad for so many.
It is sad, and I do see Natalie as utterly victimized–by people, by circumstances, by the aftermath of abuse and a failure to protect. She was prey as a child, and she is prey now to people who, whatever they may say, are using her as a heat-seeking missile. I don’t find it surprising that her story has changed. I wonder what will happen to her when everyone finds a new cause celebre and moves on.
On the lighter side, the spectacle of “respected theologians” defending Jezebel will have all gravitas of the guy on the airplane insisting he reads Playboy for the articles.
A very piercing image. Thank you.
Quite.
It’s worth noting that Laura Turner is a frequent writer for her.meneutics, the women’s division of Christianity Today. What in the ham sandwich is a Christian woman doing writing for Jezebel? Can two walk together unless they are agreed?
Or…one might ask what in the Sam Hill is a “Jezebel” doing writing for a Christian magazine? Or, maybe, one might ask whether the two publications have that much distance between them…
Agreed. Turner has long been a vocal proponent of a liberal feminist version of Christianity. A few months ago, Christianity Today endorsed using pronouns of preference for “transgender” people. They’re going off the rails.
Using pronouns of preference for transgender people means they’re “going off the rails?” How is accommodating for a group of people bad? This comment baffles me.
For a magazine with the word “Christianity” in the title, yes, it most definitely is going off the rails.
Christianity is all about caring for the marginalized, the minorities in our society. Transgender people are people too and should be respected.
“Christianity is all about caring for the marginalized, the minorities in our society. ”
Incorrect.
How in the world is this incorrect? Have you heard about Jesus? He did this, like, ALL THE TIME.
I think it is correct, but it isn’t enough. People can do the Lord’s work in caring for the marginalized without belief that Jesus came to save them. I think Christianity is “all about” receiving the gospel. The good works will flow from there.
Have you not read the Scriptures, Cody? Our Jesus is very concerned with the poor and marginalized… by feeding, clothing, restoring dignity and calling them to repent. I don’t read the Scriptures and see ‘victims’ I see ‘sinners’ and ‘sufferers’ both called to repent, believe, and live a life of imitation of God and mercy.
But Matthew 25:44 makes it partly correct, I think. Our love for our Lord demands that we see and care for Him in the image of the weak and powerless.
@Cody, If Christianity is all about caring for the ‘marginalized, the minorities in our society’, then how is it any different than any other moralistic social program whether it is religious or not? “Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper,a 7a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head as he reclined at table. 8And when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? 9For this could have been sold for a large sum and given to the poor.”… Read more »
I think you misunderstood my comment. I never said Christianity was “only” about caring for people. My opinion is that love and care, with a bias toward the downtrodden, is part of the heart of Christianity.
Also, you seem to be speaking of social programs in a negative way. I think Christianity can partner with these and bring more good to the world. And we can offer Jesus’ message of love, forgiveness and reconciliation in the process.
So when you said “christianity is all about…”, you didn’t mean “christianity is all about…”? Fair enough.
Just because I accidentally worded it wrong doesn’t give you a right to be a jerk. Very Christ-like of you.
” jerk”
Normally, I only let my wife call me that, but since you were so Christ-like when you said it, I’ll let it go.
You’re honestly saying that me calling you jerk, makes me a jerk? Wow.
Jesus called the Pharisees brood of vipers. I’m think it’s ok to point out jerk behavior.
“So when you said “christianity is all about…”, you didn’t mean “christianity is all about…”? Fair enough.”
How do you not see your statement as condescending?
I remember this one from when I was a kid:
“you’re a jerk!”
“no, you are”
“you’re the one that is”
“I know you are but what am I.”
“you’re a jerk!”
Seriously, don’t take yourself too seriously. This conversation is obviously over. The last word is yours. Cheers.
Don’t bother. These types constantly point the finger at everyone else while ignoring their own flaws and errors. It’s sick.
“Don’t bother. These types constantly point the finger at everyone else while ignoring their own flaws and errors. It’s sick.”
Can you tone down the condescension please? Thanks.
why?
cody this is what natalie would have been subjected to had she stayed in the kirk and the reason why her husband is the best man she’s ever known
Here, that is a false statement. Natalie was subjected to love not hate. She chose to turn her back on Christ. The Christ Church members did not turn their backs in her.
You are completely off base.
Let me get this right, Cody. You can condescend to someone (assuming Evan did) and that’s worthy of the tribunal, but you can call someone a “jerk” (as opposed to simply saying, “Evan, you’re mistaken…”) and that’s OK?
Cody – you spoke/wrote imprecisely. Take responsibility for it and move on. We’ve all done it. You may not have intended it, but you did.
all about in the vernacular doesnt mean only about
I agree they are people and should be respected. However, there is disagreement on whether transgenderism is a healthy mental self-image or a mental disorder. If someone believe someone else has a mental disorder, encouraging the disorder does not seem respectful.
Like giving Napoleon hats to the deluded who think they have been exiled to Elba. I see it as a mental disorder which calls out for our sympathy and intelligent support.
But does support mean agreement?
No. Let’s take the Napoleon example. It seems easier in the moment to hand over the hat than to explain, lovingly and patiently and repeatedly, that the person is in the grips of a delusion. Before long, there is a cottage industry of Napoleon hat-making, with experts arguing on both sides of the tricorn approach. A while later you find people who disagree with handing out Napoleon hats being pilloried as unloving and hostile by people who do. Tempers flare, and the poor delusional patient finds himself in the center of a fight which has really nothing to do with… Read more »
Totally agree. I don’t like the anger at transsexual people I hear from so many conservative voices (though I think some cases do seem to be someone attempting to cash in on a trend to indulge their perversions, which does deserve anger, but erring on the side of caution to minister to the truly broken is probably the better path). Your analysis seems quite sensible and sensitive, thank you!
I do agree that unnecessary antagonizment is inappropriate. But where does the line between truth and hostility get drawn?
Tell the truth in love. When I figure out how to do that consistently, I will get back to you.
Don’t we all wish for that? :)
Um, not it’s not, and those who told you this–whether actual people or your own thoughts–were deceiving you. Christianity is all about God condescending to save His people, which include the “marginalized” as well as the “well-heeled.” Sexual deviants who mutilate their bodies because their brains are battered by lies from Hell are certainly people too, and God may condescend to save some of them, too. When He does, there will be much rejoicing in Heaven, and much contemplation of what to do now here on Earth since the body has already been mutilated. But until then, there’s little cause… Read more »
You honestly believe we’re not supposed to care for “the least of these?” You can have whatever beliefs you want, but please don’t use the name Christianity.
You’re treating these people like they’re monsters; we are all equal.
You think these people (your words) are the least of these? They are unfortunate, but that does not necessarily make them the people Jesus was talking about. Now how is grief, prayers, and Christian charity (Malachi’s words) treating them like they are monsters?
“But until then, there’s little cause for respect.”
Dear Mr. Malachi,
I can give you grounds for respect: That these people are made in the very image of God. That they are immortal beings. That Jesus died for them while they were still His enemies. The shed blood of our Lord demands that you give them respect.
It is about those things, but it is also about speaking the truth, not complicity in lies.
I’ve always loved the quote by Dorothy Sayers, “It is fatal to let people
suppose that Christianity is only a mode of feeling; it is vitally necessary to insist that it is first and foremost a rational
explanation of the universe.”
Christianity is about the gospel of Jesus Christ. Making dead people alive .
Yes, the “transgender” are created in His image, but Christianity is first about (per Westminster) glorifying God and enjoying Him forever, and the means by which we do this is to repent of our sins and come to Him.
Repent of all our sins, including transgenderism, by the way.
Partially because the sin they’re currently involved in is what is informing their choice of vocabulary. The Bible tells us we don’t choose our gender. They reject that truth, and part of that rejection is the rejection of common pronouns. They seek to control the discussion by controlling what words are used. Try correcting someone without the words “sin,” “forgiveness,” and “Christ:” it’s hard. Equally hard is correcting and reproving a transgender person while tacitly admitting their point by using the pronouns they want to be addressed by.
This also means that when a website declares that it is changing to a trans-gender friendly vocabulary, it means that tolerance of the sin itself is right behind. It’s the next boxcar on the train, so to speak. Hence the comment about “derailing.”
That’s really the issue here… while people should be treated as made in the image of God, and shown the light and mercy available through repentance and faith in Christ, it is not helping in any way to be complicit in the lie of “transgenderism”. No amount of surgical genital reconfiguration, hormonal rebalancing, or wardrobe overhauls can undo one’s God-given gender: xx chromosome for female, xy for male.
Now you’re speaking some truth that, in our attempts to be gracious, we all have trouble seeing.
Her.meneutics is pretty bad on the whole, though, so while it’s a shame it’s in a Christian magazine, the crossover doesn’t surprise me all that much.
Really liked the “Women freed” link! Thanks Ladies!
Ladies 3, darkness 0!
That picture is my new desktop background. Thank you.
How Jesus like and pastoral of you. That’s exactly what Jesus would do in order to bring people closer to him! Bring their follies to light for all to see. Good job. You are certainly going to be able to reach those who need love this way. If you really believed Natalie and her husband are lost and need help, you wouldn’t have done this in an effort to make it clear to all how right you are and how wrong they are.
Ah, you mean like Jesus to the Samaritan woman: “…you have had five husbands, and the man you have now isn’t your husband.” Sounds exactly like what Jesus would do.
And that Samaritan woman ran away, started a blog, and wrote about how Jesus had abused her.
Oh, wait…
Wait, Doug is Jesus now? Wow…
I think you didn’t read Random’s post I responded to, which compared Doug to Jesus.
It seemed as though you were being harsh towards Doug but instead we now see you were defending him and disputing my comment. Are we not called to strive to be like Jesus? Is a pastor not held to a higher standard in this calling? I didn’t say Doug was Jesus. But shouldn’t he strive to be so?
Comparing Doug to Jesus is quite different than saying Doug IS Jesus.
where have you been?
When Jesus said this was he speaking to an audience in an attempt to prove how right he was and how wrong she was? Or did he say this directly to the woman in an effort to draw her to him?
“When Jesus said this was he speaking to an audience in an attempt to prove how right he was and how wrong she was?”
How else is someone going to come to Jesus unless they are made aware of how right He is and how wrong they are? Is there any other way to come to Jesus other than through repentance?
Motive is the point here. Doug’s motive in showing these videos doesn’t seem to be to loving show Natalie and Wes their faults in an effort to bring them to Jesus. If you think that is the point, please explain it to me so I can see it with you.
“Motive is the point here. Doug’s motive in showing these videos doesn’t seem to be to loving show Natalie and Wes their faults….”
If you already know Doug’s motives then you’re already well beyond me. I try to stay out of that game, not being omniscient and all. *wink*
I didn’t say it WAS his motive. I don’t know his motives. I said it SEEMS.
Either way my point still stands. No one comes to Jesus unless they know they are wrong and He is right. Unless I’m mistaken, that’s one of Doug’s jobs as a pastor; to help facilitate that.
And my question still stands…. If Doug was doing this in an effort to bring Natalie and Wes to Jesus, great. Do you think that was the point? Given the context of this blog? If so, please show me. Seriously. I want to see it too.
If it is not his point to bring them to Jesus through showing this, then are you ok with him posting this? If so, please explain.
Another question – is a public blog the place to try to get others to see the errors of their ways?
Instead of wondering what the point is, why don’t you read what Doug wrote instead of hypothesizing? Here you go: “Update: The first link above to their posting of “The Bridge” video has now been taken down by them. You can still see it here, but only if you need to. Caution still advised. The relevance and/or propriety of these links has been questioned in the comments below, but surely the relevance is obvious? This behavior is something that Natalie currently believes is normal. Notice that they took down the first video, but not the second. That one must be… Read more »
“This is the worldview perspective that is criticizing our handling of sexual abuse cases.”
Do we need to prove the devil evil to prove Jesus is right and good?
Do I need to eat biscuits to know that cake is good?
Exactly! Why bring biscuits into a discussion about cake? Why bring evil up to defend Jesus?
I don’t know, I forgot what we were talking about. Hungry for a cake all of a sudden…
Why can’t we have our cake and eat our biscuits too???
A lot of good people at Christchurch including in my opinion Doug Wilson are being maligned because of this ongoing discussion and so I don’t think it’s unfair to bring facts out into the light since there’s so much misinformation getting a great deal more airtime on the Internet. The same nothing is to essentially appear as if the accusations are true. There are different ways to defend yourself and if your defense is true then by defending yourself you’re defending the truth. The fact that people can defend themselves out of selfish motives does not by way of a… Read more »
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
Matthew 23:33. And this is the same Jesus speaking as in the sermon on the mount.
There’s no contradiction between these passages, just a problem with your proof texting.
You can make someone aware of their sin without broadcasting their sin for all to see. For some reason, CREC pastors seem to think public shaming is the same as calling someone to repentance.
What sins did Pastor Wilson broadcast that weren’t already out there (of their own doing) for all to see?
Yeah, what was John thinking when he recorded that conversation. Not very Christian of him. And why in the world did Paul reveal all those sexual shenanigans in 1 Corinthians. He definitely should be called out for not being very “pastoral.”
Did Paul make these revelations in an effort to defend himself? Doug is using another’s sin to justify/defend his own actions. Why does he feel that necessary?
If you read the first 4 chapters of 1 Corinthians there are a number of places where one could read into the text that Paul was defending himself, but of course he is really defending biblical principles. But of course Pastor Wilson’s motive is to defend himself. It could not possibly be to defend the church he pastors, or to defend biblical principles. I guess I just missed that due to my lack of the spiritual gift of mind reading which you seem to have.
Why is it that the majority of responses I am getting from people defending Wilson come with a certainly rudeness? Have I been rude to you?
I would not have thought that proclaiming your spiritual gift was rude, but rather flattering. Or do you think it rude to use sarcasm? …you know, something like “How Jesus like and pastoral of you”
” Or do you think it rude to use sarcasm? …you know, something like “How Jesus like and pastoral of you”
Doh!
Touche! I was being snarky.
Reading through the comments especially those from Malachi leave a bad taste.
I thought at least some level of snarky-ness was a requirement for commenting here; and I say that with what I hope is the appropriate level. Personally speaking, without sarcasm I would be a pretty quiet guy.
Because there are people ready to proclaim everything that Doug Wilson touches and the people at his church as being nothing more than a patriarchal sex cult on the basis of the misinformation that’s been bandied about by this story. And that may not be important for the individual people per se but since this is a Christian Church and a Christian ministry there is nothing wrong with them defending themselves. Honestly, the hypocrisy in this question is breathtaking. Everybody wants to comment negatively about the man and the moment he tries to clarify even a factual issue he’s accused… Read more »
The Apostle Paul named certain persons to be avoided in letters that were publicly read. Jesus also handed out some “woes” to the lost pharisees in front of his disciples and a pretty general crowd. This had a dual purpose. It was to call the pharisees to repentance, and it was also to protect the sheep from the lies of the pharisees. This post by Pastor Wilson I think serves a similar purpose. He is both calling out those who are lost and are behaving hypocritically, but he is also guarding his own flock. If he took this situation quietly,… Read more »
You mean he submitted himself to his friend. Wow.
Dear Mr (?) Random,
Could you suggest a manner by which Mr. Wilson could have presented his side of the story without doing the alleged harm to Ms. Natalie et al? Because, if you could, that would be edifying.
I think he can present his case by stating what he did in care for Natalie and say he stands by it. Why must he stoop to their level? Should he not be above reproach? And if he did everything correctly then why must he bring up a corpse? That’s retaliation. Not defense.
Sure it’s a defense, people do it all the time in courts of law. It’s called a ‘character witness’, in this case it happens to be the husband. Don’t you folks watch reruns of Law and Order?
Shouldn’t Wilson as a pastor be above the court of law in his actions? Is he not held to a higher standard?
“Shouldn’t Wilson as a pastor be above the court of law in his actions?”
Wait, like Steven Seagal?
What is higher than the law? Are you suggesting that Wilson can’t be lawful? Character Witness is one reason we believe in the resurrection. Me thinks you just don’t like Doug’s tone…
If God was not bound by His law, he would not have had to send His son to die. Why can’t Doug operate within the law?
“stoop to their level …”
Yes. This is a valid complaint about Mr. Wilson’s approach. I have often wished that he would practise what he preaches so well: especially about being suspicious of the tendency of the flesh to defend itself. It may well be the result of writing too much too fast (Proverbs 10:19).
Maybe the Holy Spirit will cure him of this soon. Perhaps the cure is already underway. Let’s see …
Did you really create a blog where women can anonymously share how you helped them with their sexual abuse? Wow.
The answer is, no he didn’t. They did.
Yes, I see this now. After reading the blog I see it was created by women in his church. My bad.
Wait, DW created that blog?
Citation needed.
Doug,
I appreciated many of the things you said in this post, but posting a link to those videos was way over the line. I understand why you did it, but it makes you seem petty and crude. Just because something is public does not mean we should direct people’s gaze towards it (trigger warning or no). As a fellow pastor and Christian brother, I ask you to please remove those links.
I’m taking the warning seriously and not looking but I wonder whether it’s possible to describe them without being gross.
Ditto. We don’t need to see it, and you don’t need to show it.
I respectfully disagree on this point, and I do mean respectfully because I was of this same opinion at some points in my life. The reality is you could open another browser and google “naked man beats concrete with stick” and find something equally or more crude. Doug described precisely what was in the video so that it was the reader’s choice to click the link, just as it is our choice to google dirty things. I think the point was to show the depth of depravity of this couple and the choice that was made by the woman to… Read more »
Why does Doug need to show the depth of depravity of this couple to show he cared for her properly? Because something can be easily accessed doesn’t mean it is ok for a pastor to share it. Shouldn’t pastors be above reproach?
Does he need to prove the devil evil to show Jesus is good, just, and right?
I don’t have strong disagreement with what you said. I think the point here is you don’t just have the pagans lining up against Doug, you also have Christians condemning him. The point of posting the video is to show the average spectator in this whole thing that maybe the one side is not as pure as they are representing themselves. I think that is very important in a battle between Christians, because the fruit of the person is important when we are judging a Christian. And one side’s fruit is pretty rotten. Matthew 7:15-20.
We are all unpure. There. Done. Now back to not slinging unnecessary mud.
Because there are people on the internet who claim to want to defend the victims of sexual abuse but have a very funny and unbiblical way of going about that process. And they want to, unbiblically, without any oversight or first hand information themselves, accept any accusation without qualification against Doug, so that the only response left is for Doug to confess whatever words are put in his mouth by any of a number of accusers, or else he’s being self righteous. So posting links to videos like this might help wise up a lot of people who I think… Read more »
Being above reproach doesn’t have limits. There is not clause that says it’s ok to cross lines blur lines when there are people making accusations that you need to defend.
I don’t believe he crossed the line. He’s responsible for his actions and so when there are accusations made against him not only is it responsible for him to respond but he is required to buy the teaching of Scripture because the ministry that he has is not his own but is Christ’s ministry. For him to sit idly by and to be accused of being the purveyor of a safe haven for sexual predators denigrates not only the name of Christ but all that’s done in Christ’s name through that church. I think you’re confusing living above reproach with… Read more »
i dont think depravity means what you think it means.
You’re wrong … and you will not listen to the why of it.
I’m actually glad he did. After viewing them I’m even more convinced of the truth of Natalies narrative. There is no there there…just a naked guy expressing….i don’t know but apparently frustration. Perhaps with the church that claims to represent God, which treated his wife in such a horrible way. It wasn’t a big deal in my opinion unless we’re now going to start deeming the renaissance painters as mentally unhinged bc they drew nudes?
I get the creepy feeling that the Kirk thinks Sitlers marriage is more advisable than Natalies.
No Christian should ever marry a non Christian. For any reason. Ever. Period. 2 Cor. 6:14.
However, there is nothing unscriptural about one Christian marrying another Christian who has committed terrible sins in his past and has since repented.
oh wow. the denial is strong.
THIS is the reason Pastor Wilson had to post the videos. This. Right here. I didn’t watch them, but the description is enough to make me question the character of this couple. These weren’t leaked. THEY posted them. This shows how they view sex and sexuality, which is incredibly relevant to this discussion. THIS guy comparing a naked guy on the floor to renaissance painters. Wow.
the videos aren’t about sex. obvious to the most casual observer.
btw..i did watch them.
So you would be okay with showing the videos to children?
Doug will do anything to avoid apologizing apparently.
Huh? How is that an answer to my question?
are you planning to?
Dear Pastor L,
Why has it crossed any line? He merely posted a link to the videos: he did not embed them in his blog. The mere fact of pointing to a liquor bar does not make someone an alcoholic. And the “liquor bar” in this case was very much relevant to the point Mr. Wilson was making.
From where I sit, I don’t see how it brings dishonour to the name of our Lord in any way. Posting the links was a quite neutral action in that regard.
Pastor L, I understand your request for the links to be removed and I disagree; however crude, they are necessary to show the mud that an unbeliever sinks into and how the whole family is pulled in. Natalie blames Wilson but refuses to see her Dad’s part in her abuse. Why didn’t Natalie blog about her journal? Is she ashamed of it? Those who champion her cause based on current blogging need to see her husband in such a disgraceful manner and to see that he is the type of man Natalie looks up to.They need to see what her… Read more »
predictable…more stirred up over nudity than all the mess perpetrated by sitler and wight
Urbane-adjacent! I think that’s a promotion, right? Go for sub-urbane.
Anyone else think it odd that Natalie thought it necessary and had the presence of mind to write in her letter: “I have written this on my own accord using my own, adult, thinking mind. I have not been persuaded, manipulated or coerced into anything. I stand on my own two feet and my feet are planted on my rock, Christ the Lord.” doesn’t that sound just like something a cult member would be forced to write?
That Doug keeps going back to things she wrote during the abuse shows he knows nothing of sexual abuse.
Hmmmmm. Your comment sounds forced. Please signal if you need help!
What exactly would someone say if they wanted to communicate that they wrote of their own free will and that was actually true?
I, Jillybean, with a Saturday Night Special held to my head, hereby assert…..
Ummm. I like this comment, but am unsure whether or not the “like” button is appropriate…
Was the Apostle Paul involved in a cult from which he could not escape when he wrote his letter to the Galatians? (Gal 6:11)
AM, you really need to stop and think before you speak. And then probably not speak anyway.
It’s interesting you can’t reply to anyone disagreeing with you without being ugly.
no its totally representative of cult speak. i wish i didn’t know why.
Am,
If the situation were reversed, and Natalie had initially accused Doug of having a hand in her abuse, but then later recanted that statement, would you say the same thing?
Wow…when the light shines, the cockroaches scatter and the vrocks go to screeching.
What a mess of a situation. I’m sorry for all those who have suffered, including the church. All in good humor here, but from the article, “Why are people attracted to Doug Wilson? “He has a very take-charge presence,” Natalie said. “He is charismatic, very assertive. He talks a fancy game, and he’s a master of rhetoric—and that’s enticing to a lot of people, especially Christian intellectuals.” Actually it’s his commitment to scripture and the love behind it that I find appealing. Some people have a strong understanding of theology, but they are nothing more than clanging gongs because there… Read more »
That Natalie would, in the midst of her agony say “[Doug] is my pastor and I will seek counsel from him when I feel it necessary. God put him over me as my shepherd and he has been a great encouragement and help to me . . . I love my church and my community” … and now say pretty much the opposite is troubling. Saddens the heart, actually…
Something I pray she comes to understand, much of what she writes and does she says is “for the others,” to be a voice for them. The thing is, our own healing must come first, to focus on our own selves, to receive an abundance of grace and mercy and to let the others find their own way. That is one problem with the social justice bandwagon, the personal becomes political, and we are encouraged to take up the cause for the good of the world, “for the others.” Somebody smart said, “everybody wants to change the world but nobody… Read more »
Wow, very well said. I’m surprised your comment hasn’t been disparaged yet. There’s still time I guess.
Ah…. Performance “art”.
Ain’t exactly “The David” is it?
(Junk not withstanding .)
Perhaps it was an “homage’ ” to those periodic, difficult diaper changes?
Reminder that Jezebel is part of the Gawker conglomerate, a group of journalists who (among other things) advocate full communism: https://nithgrim.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/gawker-is-communist/
Better to not link to anything they put out, they measure success by number of clicks, not positive or negative reactions to it.
Agreed. I’m hoping to read the article in a cache (I don’t know for sure that avoids contributing to their cesspool, but…)
Sure, sites like donotlink.com assist with that.
Thank you! Hopefully that worked for me.
I wish I could find a way to read the Jezebel article in a cache, because even though Doug linked it, I really don’t want to encourage them by giving direct clicks on their links.
Doug — seems like you’re making the sausage correctly.
Do you reserve this kind of thorough, intimate attention to “members” only — or to all you invite to the Table?
If JP is so against this blog, why does he spend so much time here? I don’t get trolls. Isn’t your time more precious?
Some people want to know the name of the “freed women” blogging. But if the names come out, the insatiable hunger of the haters will not be satisfied. They will then ask for their husbands’ names, their children’s names, their former churches’ names; they will never be satisfied, not even if more hurt, more details, more pain are caused. They remind me not of the mad people watching the Roman circus, but of the lions who devoured Christians. To the Freed Women, stand firm in the freedom God has given you. Go to him in prayer and go to the… Read more »
Amen. Thank you for speaking out, and I am so grateful to God for your lives and testimony – not just here, but in day by day trusting God. I’m sad that it’s come to where you felt it necessary to post, but very thankful that you have the courage to do so.
They would out the women in the name of helping women. How, what would you call it? Quaint? “Hypocritical” doesn’t do it justice so that some kind of ridiculous understatement seems called for.
I’ve been around the internet since “gopher” and “newsgroups”, and — having been both anonymous and not, depending on circumstances, I am very much in favor women maintaining anonymity for the sake of safety. As an advocate for sexual trauma survivors, I am firmly opposed to any attempts to call for their public outing or shame any of them for not providing more information than they choose to provide.
This is the Internet, not a court of law. Survivors need not attempt prove their stories just to satisfy strangers.
From the notes our gracious host makes, it sounds to me like he’s got something of a dossier of records relating to these cases, all of which have probably been submitted to a court of law, and hence all of them would likely be accessible to the detractors of our gracious host. In which case it is doubly damning that they persist in their stories. Moreover, I would infer that given this trail of evidence, our gracious host probably also has a trail of documentation related to the cases discussed on “womenfreed.com” that these ladies might agree to make public… Read more »
1 Timothy 3
Qualifications for Overseers and Deacons
3 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife,temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
Can this post be defended as not quarrelsome and above reproach?
What is not above reproach here?
And where is Doug being quarrelsome?
Is it not quarrelsome to go tit for tat? I told her not to push me to this point…..Jezebel posted so Doug posts.
I mean specifics. Doug has been restrained for reasons he has documented before. But even Paul defended himself against the superapostles.
So you disagree that Doug should have responded? Fair enough, I have warned him likewise (but note all his enemies demanding he respond). But your disagreement about that does not make him quarrelsome.
What is your definition of quarrelsome? It would be possible to defend oneself without responding to the demand of enemies. Example:
Doug might say: My pastoral care for Natalie was xyz. I stand by it.
Enemy might say: Oh but you suck! Im going to write about you and be crazy about it.
Doug might say: My pastoral care for Natalie was xyz. I stand by it.
Doug’s opponents have made accusations and demands. When he declines to answer them they claim he his hiding stuff (or has nothing to say). When he does answer them they say he shouldn’t have shared specific information, or they say that his tone is unacceptable, or that he insults.
I think that all accusations need to be specific. False accusations are easier to make if they are broad or non-specific. So it is important to specify what exactly people say that is wrong. It is nigh impossible to defend against vagueness.
Why does he need to give anyone anything? Is it not the definition of quarrelsome to go back and forth with someone responding to their side with your side?
Would you tell children to they need to justify their actions to a bully? They need to engage the bully?
Again, can he not simply reply I did xyz. I stand by my actions. He doesn’t need to say See how wrong and bad Natalie is now!?
You’re being awfully quarrelsome about this.
I know! Good thing I’m not a pastor and held to a higher standard.
Thank goodness!
What can be the cause of your job in my not being a pastor? I mean, I am happy I am not either, but all you know of me is that I object to something Doug Wilson has done. Does that make me unworthy of being a pastor?
*joy
Sorry, you’ve reached your question quota for the day. On a side note, do you know that the average 6 year old asks 437 questions a day?! Mind blowing.
ABC also doesn’t claim to be an elder.
I for one, am thankful for that.
I just wish this whole issue, in its specifics, would stop being a public discussion. One of the most damaging side-effects is that we are all encouraged to think we somehow play a role in this drama, whether as prosecutors or defenders, and we all tend to think we know facts that we can’t possibly know. The lack of charity among some of the participants here is appalling and should be a warning to us to back off. When I come home and want to check my laptop right away to see if I have missed anything, I am treating… Read more »
“When I come home and want to check my laptop right away to see if I have missed anything, I am treating this family’s tragedy as my personal entertainment. This is not a pretty thought.”
I resemble this. Thanks for the reminder. Time for less comments and more prayer.
I wouldn’t say quarrelsome, but I think Doug’s fondness for a sharp retort sometimes distorts his overall tone. I think the “feminists can’t take a joke, and your feminism is one” (I think that is more or less correct but I didn’t look it up again) is unnecessary and it hands a weapon to those who think that all this misery is the result of patriarchal abuse with its concomitant disrespect for women. I think he would have done better with something more like, “You say you represent feminism, yet you don’t seem to care about the welfare of individual… Read more »
C’, it’s OK to expose fruitless deeds of darkness. Getting “stoned” for it, as Stephen did literally, and other have, figuratively, does not make the truth speaker “quarrelsome”.
As G.K. Said, ” people quarrel because they cannot argue.”
Wilson is known for having a more than cogent argument.
Do you?
Looking through your comments here it seems all you have is rudeness and a sharp tongue.
Is that an argument or a quarrel?
ABC,
Okay, fair question. However, you need to define quarrelsome, so that it does not become a double-edged sword. You are disagreeing with people on this thread, right? Does that make you quarrelsome?
When Jesus called Herod a vixen, was He being quarrelsome in the manner that Paul is referring to in the verse above?
Yeah, but alphabet soup’s not a pastor apparently, so he/she can do what he/she wants. Right?
“The relevance and/or propriety of these links has been questioned in the comments below, but surely the relevance is obvious? This behavior is something that Natalie currently believes is normal.”
What does it matter what Natalie believes to be normal? Can you not defend your actions in caring for her without trying to point out her flaws? If you believe her actions today to be a result of her difficult painful past, are you not exploiting that for your benefit?
#forthewin
“I’m not always quarrelsome, but when I am, I make sure I blame it on someone else.”
-Anonymous internet meme
This would be funny if it made any sense at all. What am I blaming on someone else? I am not blaming MY actions on anyone. And, yes, I prefer to be anonymous.
Hey, don’t look at me; I was just throwing rocks at that pack of dogs….
I think you just blamed me for being “rude and sharp tonged”. Even Socrates was made to drink hemlock for his questions! ; -)
Correct?
Like good little soldiers- keep nodding and March right off of that cliff without asking questions. I for one like questions and if a pastor and his people can’t handle questions or have an issue with them perhaps there is a bigger deeper issue?
Again, is that a quarrel or an argument?
I can Handel questions C’, I also go the next step and offer or take on answers.
Not everyone finds this process “rude”. ????
You can Handel questions? Are the answers written on the Bach of your hand?
LOL. Clever. Love a good musical pun.
C’, in case you were not aware, that jilly brings her heart and mind with her, everywhere she goes! Somehow she even likes me! You might take that under advisement.????
What makes you think I don’t like you? A difference of opinions? You seem to have a sense of humor and can laugh at yourself. I appreciate that.
It’s that I don’t know that I am “rude and sharp tonged”. This blog, like this world, can be a rough neighborhood at times. Some times truth is hard and should not be softened.
I would look pretty weird without them.
Well, it is getting near Christmas, when we show our joy that The Messiah showed up! Even though Handel seems to have written it for Easter!
Jilly, thanks for your sense of humor, even here, where faith does in fact get worked out, warts and all!????
I need my sense of humor this afternoon. My own special little snowflake, who tends to regard me as cerebrally challenged, decided to speed dry her towel by draping it over some plastic lamp shades. Which were covering burning bulbs. This led to a lovely fire and the destruction of aforementioned towel and lamp shades. Our guardian angels were on overtime this afternoon.
Sounds like they were Jilly! Don’t go anywhere without them either! ; – )
Too bad that, as Andrew Klavan says, children never seem to have that moment where they realize you were right. They go straight from “leave me alone” to “why don’t you fix it now?” :)
Jilly, what is in them beans you’re eating? That’s hilarious!
They’re full of jilly, of course.
You should be building others up, instead of Chopin them down.
Will you now respond openly, or go into Haydn?
Very clever indeed! But I have a little Liszt of punsters like you.
What will you do with your Liszt – are you threatening me with violins?
You are too good.
I feel like Haydn from all of this.
Edit: darn, too late again!
If I were, would you be shaking like a bowl of cello?
I’d wait for you to regain your composure, before reminding you to conduct yourself better!
Are you going to bow out now, or shall we string this along further? ;)
I can’t continue to dally with someone who marches to a different drummer yet who clearly knows the score. No matter how wide I castanet, I cornet find your equal in sheer virtuosity.
Oh my word, is this still going on?!
We need someone to put an end to this.
Let’s you and him fight.
Ha! “I’m a lover not a fighter.”
I run for cover at the first sound of raised voices. And if I can’t get away, I hover on the sidelines saying, Please! Just be nice!
Amen!! No wait…that’s not quite right…
From my armchair quarterback position: I do not think that Doug needed to respond to the jezebel artical and this post is a tactical error.
JP upvoted this, I don’t think he comprehends my position.
What ABC said: “The relevance and/or propriety of these links has been questioned in the comments below, but surely the relevance is obvious? This behavior is something that Natalie currently believes is normal.” What does it matter what Natalie believes to be normal? Can you not defend your actions in caring for her without trying to point out her flaws? If you believe her actions today to be a result of her difficult painful past, are you not exploiting that for your benefit? There was no response to this from any of the kirk. I’m curious to know what the… Read more »
What Doug’s accusers think is normal is important, as it speaks to the character of the parties in this mess, and their reliability, especially when there is now a significant difference in what Natalie is saying about Doug and her father, and what she said/wrote about these two men years ago. This is fairly standard. For example, a criminal on death row convicted of beating his children to death would not be a reliable arbiter of what constitutes excessive corporal punishment. If he testifies in exchange for a reduced sentence, this may discount his credibility as a witness. It’d be… Read more »
Let’s use your court analogy-
Defendant: I’m a good person your honor. Look how bad the prosecutors husband has been!
How would that work out for the defendant?
The proper analogy is the witness’s husband. And if the defense attorney pointed out that the prosecution was trying to portray the witness as an expert on what it’s like to be mistreated by men sexually, then the defense pointing out that the witness married a man who has no concept of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate sexuality, would certainly be pertinent to the case.
How are you judging a man’s concept of sexuality by a piece of ‘performance art’ that is nonsexual?
I think I just judged your concept of sexuality since you’re capable of thinking of that as non-sexual.
What can I say, you did give me a chuckle this afternoon. Art is subjective and therefore your opinion of it is valid, but that you believe this to be inherently sexual says more about you than about anyone else. There’s no eroticism in this, save that which you infused through your own perspective. Hate to break it to you, but you’re the one making it sexual.
Are you saying the purpose in posting the link to the videos was to point out that Natalie’s claims of being mistreated by a man sexually should not be believed because of actions of her husband years later? Did Douglas Wilson tell you directly that this was his motive or are you merely speculating?
ABC,
What you listed does not really use my analogy.
I want to know whether Doug, or Natalie, or whomever can be trusted, if I am going to listen to one party accuse another.
If Doug had made those videos, you darn well would find that relevant, would you not?
The rest of the alphabet is making JP look pretty tame in comparison.
I will gladly be wild and crazy for truth and justice. If you and your pastor are right then being challenged and questioned about your stance shouldn’t be a problem.
Cool, what is the truth exactly?
That’s what all the questions are for!
So you don’t know what the truth is. Thank you for admitting that. How are you going to be “wild and crazy” for the truth when you don’t know what the truth is?
Presumably people who know the truth will honestly answer the questions….
C’, the Jezebel article did have a few questions, but it had more statements:
“What would you tell Doug Wilson, I ask her, if you could make him understand anything? She thought for a moment. “It’s never been about taking down a church or making this man go away,” she said. “It’s always been about healing and hopefully connecting with other victims who are in similar situations. It’s important to be loud.”
Can you understand that others may have a “stance” issue, besides Wilson?
Some Wilson critics think “it’s important to be loud”.
Let them be loud. If Natalie is lost as is being said then one would expect an unbiblical response from her. Wilson is a pastor. Much more is expected from him.
Wisdom has been known to cry out in the street,
Has it not?
(Quiet question here. : -)
Also, ms. Turner is an alleged Christian author. Any expectations of her?
Why do the nations rage and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth have set themselves against the Lord and His anointed… There are more people to consider in situations like this than the hurting nonbeliever lashing out (raging) against the tough pastor who can take it. If this were only about the personal indignation which results from knowing you were being misrepresented by someone in their pain, then swallow your pride. Sure. However, Satan is very clever. He knows that we live in a society which demands that all members of approved victim classes must… Read more »
The videos are sick. Not that they aren’t evil. They are. But they are also sick, sick, sick.
Doug, if all of this is true and you were perfectly correct in your handling of the situation, what was Peter Leithart apologizing for in this statement? https://www.facebook.com/Leithart/posts/10152973045111467?hc_location=ufi “A number of the things I said about Jamin to the congregation and court at the time his abuse was uncovered were spun in Jamin’s favor; I am ashamed to realize that I used Jamin’s talking points. Though I never doubted that Jamin was guilty, I trusted his account of the circumstances more readily and longer than I should have, and conversely I disbelieved the victim’s parents (to the best of my… Read more »
Reb T.
Peter has a facebook page, why wouldn’t you ask him yourself?
Not only that, per the quote you attach, Mr. Leithhart appears to be apologizing for:
“I used Jamin’s talking points. Though I neverdoubted that Jamin was guilty,”
“I trusted his account of the circumstances more readily and longer than I should have,”
“I disbelieved the victim’s parents.”
“I should have seen through Jamin, and didn’t.”
“I didn’t appreciate how much damage Jamin did and I was naive
about the effect that the abuse had on the victim’s family.”
Any more questions about Mr. Leithart’s apology Reb?
I think Reb’s question is referring to the same question I have. And that is that Doug appears to be saying the parents were in on this. And Peter appears to be saying he didn’t believe Natalie’s parents. It is a fair questions and this response does not help those of us who really do want to continue supporting the work and ministry of Doug Wilson.
Well, Reb appears to be capable of asking his own question, which was: “what was Peter Leithart apologizing for in this statement?” Yourjustasking question apears to be: “Doug appears to be saying the parents were in on this.”? Wilson’s clear response is: “Was she trying to insinuate that I was trying to foist Jamin off on the Greenfields? Or was I saying that it was totally crazy? Hint: my views are that a secret relationship between a 23-year-old and a 14-year-old is beyond irresponsible. In real life, I found out what had transpired in the secretly-arranged courtship years after the… Read more »
I think your response goes a long way towards furthering the ministry of Christ Church. Congratulations.
While I may seem bruske to some at first, you will notice that I offer a response to the questions of some folks, but I don’t ask many or any of Wilson himself. The thing that is not innocent about many of these questions is that they don’t appear to consider some of the involved family, who never comment on this situation. How heart broken are they? What if this or something like it happend to our own personal family? Things similar to this happen to many families in a fallen world. These families, and others involved don’t actually owe… Read more »
I have lived through this. Very publicly. In the paper. I get how this works. Please see my other comments if you want how I feel about this. But my concern is not about “this” situation. It is about integrity. Doug, very clearly (as you aptly noted), stated Jamin had permission to court Natalie and they, Natalie’s parents, hid it from the church. I believe elsewhere Doug claims this is what Jamin said. While Peter says he believed Jamin over Natalie’s parents and apologized. Her father denies he gave Jamin permission to court Natalie as well. Doug is accusing Natalie’s… Read more »
I doubt Wilson would have written anything about this on his own. This post and previous posts were always in response to irresponsible “reporting” by other venues / blogs. Wilson has responded with integrity. 1 Peter 3:14-16 14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,16 keeping a… Read more »
Your rebuke in this case is taken. And you are correct. And I should pay attention to my words and consider them much more carefully.
‘Asking, Funny you should mention rebuke. It’s a word nobody likes. We often don’t know how to take it, we often don’t know how to give it and we often don’t understand that godly rebuke is an act of love. Anyway, let’s call our conversation a mutual admonision, God and His Word are correct, me / us, not so much. ; – ) Thank you, on Thanksgiving week! Colossians 3:16 Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God… Read more »
Wilson doesn’t accuse Gary Greenfield of lying, he pointed out the fact that Gary was lying. This round was started last spring by a busy body who lives outside of Moscow and has spent a good portion of her life hating God, Wilson and anything associated with Wilson. It was out of public view until the busy body forced trouble on the Sitler’s to get at Wilson. Natalie is seeing a secular counselor who does not consider posting incorrect and false thoughts to be a problem. Just like when the lions were sent in to the arena, those who wanted… Read more »
“A” dad, my question is for Doug, not Peter Leithart, whose position is indeed clear from his statement. There would seem to be a discrepancy between these two closely-associated pastors, who worked together on this, in their views of how they handled the situation and of the need to apologize for disbelieving Natalie’s family regarding her abuse by Jamin.
Looks to me from the writen record, that Wilson came down apropriately hard on Wight, in writing, at the time.
If there is s similar writen record by Leithart, I am not aware of it.
What was “disbelieved” by Liethart in the above, is not well defined.
Anyway, there are more direct forums to ask Wilson such questions, although a blog that takes it’s name from the most sketchy woman in the OT, is not one of them.
“A” dad, correct. You get it. Congratulations. What Peter disbelieved is not well defined. So he is asking a question. Not on a blog with a sketchy name, but on Wilson’s blog. And on the same blog that Wilson has written an abundance of words on this very subject. I am uncertain why you think it is out of line to ask about this. Peter has chosen wisely not to comment more about it in public. Doug has chosen something else, which is why the question is directed at him.
1 Corinthians 6 7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11… Read more »
This whole thing is very grievous. Having been here and done this in my own life and helping other women find healing in Christ, I know one of the besetting sins of abuse victims is lying. Now it is hard to know if Natalie is lying now, or when she swore of her own accord that she was of sound mind in her above statements. I can see where she would be angry with her father for letting the abuse happen and was manipulated by Doug to say what he wanted and hoping against hope that the church would come… Read more »
Pastor? I think not. He has claimed the title, but obviously does not have the calling.
I don’t think that is fair. These things are very difficult to deal with even when the victims and perps aren’t in your congregation. And just because I may have some concerns about this particular situation and how it has worked out, does not mean I am ready to throw the CREC under the bus or even Mr. Wilson for that matter. Calling names and being snarky are much easier to do than to actually have rational conversations about this kind of stuff. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what happened. But I have been a victim of abuse and… Read more »
I am not calling names or being snarky. Mr. Wilson went beyond the boundaries of good taste on his blog,. As far as a so called pastor calling out a member of his congregation in this manner just defies all biblical interpretation.
LL’,
I know for a fact that you call some people “minions”. Me for instance! ; – )
Isn’t “name calling” a sign of abuse?
Isn’t abuse outside the boundaries of good taste?
Can you think outside the Doug Wikson box ? are you willing to test what you believe against Scripture? I think all this blathering back and forth is obscuring what Scripture says. I again challenge you to read The Bible for yourself.
James 4
11 Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?
LL’can you even respond to James 4:11-12?
I don’t think you can.
, …
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Keep LL’ in your prayers. She might be learning!
This is a very thoughtful post. My only point is that I would not describe what many abuse victims do as lying. I think that in order to survive, they sometimes shape an alternative reality that is more tolerable. Predators are known for messing with their victims’ heads, distorting their sense of reality, and making them doubt themselves. All of this can add up to someone who has trouble discerning and telling the truth, but who is not in the usual sense a liar.
Jillybean, I will give this to you with hesitation. Because I know what you are talking about. But it doesn’t do victims any good to not call a spade a spade. Just because you were legitimately a victim doesn’t mean your sin nature magically disappears. And victims lie. They lie when it is just as easy to tell the truth. In my more screwed up days, I lied because I had a hard time discerning the truth and I lied with the intent to deceive. Both are true. But, given that this is a public forum and families are possibly… Read more »
We also live in a culture that celebrates victims for the purpose of advancing a particular political cause. Weaponizing the victims is another form of being re-victimized and being used by someone else, but the celebrity can be very tempting. Natalie is called brave and strong for changing her story and assassinating Wilson’s character. She is doing the blog circuit, delivering a popular narrative against an unpopular Christian faith.
katecho, I have many reservations about this whole scandal. It has been your posts that have put the brakes on my general distrust. I agree with your post above. I wish this were not the forum in which this conversation was taking place. Those in Moscow are reeling with the sting of this whole thing and those who have any concern are immediately labeled as part of the internet assassination mob. It would be nice to have a real conversation about all of this. Right now, there isn’t one.
I completely agree that arm chair internet warriors have dragged this horse into the living room with only limited facts. I wish it wasn’t so. They have demanded apologies without first establishing guilt. They have ignored the most basic principle of innocent until proven guilty. This has given Wilson an opportunity to speak to us about principles of justice, and to give limited information that hints at just how much of the story the internet posse was not privy to before they jumped to their conclusion. The truth is important, but I do wish it didn’t have to be tried… Read more »
I am appalled by the tactics you have taken. I have taken 9 hours to think and
pray about my response to you. You in no way resemble a Christian, a good person or heaven forbid, a pastor. I have been a Christian for 43 years, have attended Bible College and have been very involved in the local church. There are many verses in the Bible about protecting the sheep and false prophets . I am sure you know them. Who are you accountable to and who holds you accountable? You should be ashamed .
James 4 11 Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor? What has Wilson said that is untrue or slander? Ephesians 5:11-12 11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 It is shameful… Read more »
Matthew 23 for starters
Matt: 23: from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.
Wow, Wilson must be older than I thought! ; – )
Keep reading. . dUH!!
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you,?
Who has Wilson killed or stoned? When did Wilson become Jerusalem? (He’s actually not that heavy.)
I think you looked up the wrong verse. Read Matthew 23
Start with Matthew 23. Can Doug not speak for himself? He needs his minions to TRY to defend him. Again who holds Doug accountable? And who is he accountable to?
“Can Doug not speak for himself?”
Yes, see every post on this blog, and all the youtube videos!
Especially the ones about raising kids. ; – )
Doug, like you and I, are accountable to God. Is that good enough for you?
If you are calling me a minion, can you at least explain why? And why that is not a judgement?
In the healthy churches I have been in the teaching pastor is accountable to the elder board, and the elder board is accountable to the congregation.it is fine to say we are all accountable to God, but therein lies letting the wolves into the hen house, .if we are not accountable to someone we fooling ourselves that we are accountable to God.
Anyone who blindly follows a leader without asking questions and using discernment is a minion.
Christ Church has elders per 1 Timothy 5. I don’t know that the Word says elders are accountable to the congregation, but elders are often elected after a fashion, although I expect everyone a Christ Church is accountable to one another. Also, CC is having an independant denomoinational body investigate the handling of these abuse cases. Since God is real, and His Word is living and active, I am much more worried about being accoutable to God then men, although I am accountable to the Christians I fellowship with. As for questions, there are plenty around here for Wilson, and… Read more »
Leslie, there is Biblical accountability at Christ Church as you mentioned. No one is blindly following as is espoused on the web. It is obvious you do not have first hand information of what happened with Natalie and are making an incorrect decision. This post is about protecting the sheep and it is a call for Natalie and her husband to turn to Christ. You may think it rude, but it is necessary to point out the incorrect behaviour that is posted as truth. The keyboard crowd is happy to type away at Wilson but very little is posted about… Read more »
I would challenge you to study the Bible for yourself. Or with a Bible study group not affiliated with Doug, You may be surprised at what you learn
I live 3000 miles away from Christ Chuch.
I ask you to take James 4: 11-12 to heart, you might be surprized at how freeing it is.
Also, these CC Ladies sound pretty noble don’t they?
http://www.womenfreed.com/
“Who are you accountable to and who holds you accountable?”
I assume Doug is accountable to the CREC. He is not accountable to you me or any other random commenter on this blog.
Mr. Wilson (and others of his ilk) are accountable to the same people to whom the Islamic extremists are accountable. It is an account they’ll never be able to balance once it comes due, I’m afraid.
Jason Pearson, thanks for this explaination as well! ; – )
Ok, I think I’ll stop now. Any possibility that you will get your own point?
I’m afraid you’ll be getting a point of your own soon enough, dad. Hollow point, that is. Courtesy of the U.S. Government. Sure, keep laughing…
; -) !!
Sigh, at least you can’t say you weren’t warned. Good luck, buddy. You’re going to need it :-(
Hmmm.
A. “hollow pointed” by the govt.?
B. Abducted by aliens?
B. is the most likely. ; – ) Any more explainations? ; – )
And to think we were wondering where the Permanently Outraged were. (some of the usual suspects are currently missing) Thanks for coming in on cue.
I don’t think you, Doug or the other minions who support him have much to say, CertInly not Biblical truths. And not much common sense either. It seems to me you all need a whole lot of attention and to he** with truth, Biblical principals and downright human decency,. This blog is a lot like the Jerry Springer show which I watched once. I am out of here on this blog also. So glad not to be enskVed in this cult.
” I am out of here on this blog also. So glad not to be enskVed in this cult.”
*tears*
You will be sorely missed. We’ll keep the light on for you. And that goes for any other of the Ever Enraged who wish to leave. Happy trails.
*crying*
Again, then why are you here? Shouldn’t you just snicker and walk off into the sunset? Why are you letting us waste your precious time on this earth?
If you’re explaining, you’re losing. Cut the crap, Doug. Start a soup kitchen or something useful. Less sexy, I know. Probably more pleasing to Christ, though.
JP, thanks for explaining this. ; – )
Not “JP”, Jason Pearson. One of the few people on here with the guts to use their real name. Sue me. Please sue me. Let’s really air some laundry.
Jason Pearson, thanks for this explaination as well! ; – )
Yuck it up while you can, dad
I find this whole thread a little comical. First Doug doesn’t says very little therefore he is not fit for pastoral care, and then Doug puts a drop of context in the mix and therefore he is not acting pastoral. I choose to stand by the “edgy” artistic naked guy.
Even though my wife was horribly abused by certain villians within the CRE, I can’t in good conscience let this pass without a warning.
Think about it: A fundamentalist religious sect based out of northern Idaho that is wallowing in lurid sexual scandals where women and children have been the victims of patterns of abuse. The headline writes itself. This is easy-picking, low-hanging fruit.
I implore judicious readers of this warning to think about where all of this must inevitability end. Is it really worth it? There are alot of skeletons in this closet. And they’re not happy skeletons, either.
What is the inevitable end?
Waco, TX ring a bell?
I fail to see how that is inevitable.
God help you
with what exactly?
With not feeling bad on the day that the heavily guarded compound–in which Doug keeps his entire congregation locked up and away from all contact with the outside world–is attacked by minions of the NWO. With not feeling guilty when the truth is revealed and you learn that all the men have been kept in cowering submission and all the women are sex slaves. And that the male children’s only schooling was in shooting AK-47s at images of infidels while their sisters scrubbed floors. I think that this is what he is trying to say.
That gave me a good laugh. I wonder if the Permanently Outraged ever laugh, or even crack a smile for that matter? I mean some of them are named after alphabet soup for goodness sake!
I thought he was hinting that the NWO was going to come after me for not thinking that they were coming after Doug.
Jason, you paint a beautiful picture with no facts just like the other trolls and those in Moscow who hate God with a passion.
Judicious Christian readers know that trolls don’t have scriptural foundations for their comments but rather choice false statements and innuendo which like choice morsels go the inmost parts.
Tell us why you hate Wilson so much. I hate Wilson because ______________.
I don’t hate Wilson. He can deal with hate in the hereafter. What I hate is injustice and incompetence. And I know of many (including my wife) who have been irreparably harmed by those who follow blindly his very twisted, self-aggrandizing interpretation of Scripture. Much like the insanity in Islam today, if Christians do not course-correct now, there will be a very ugly price to pay.
Jason: . . . Villians; Many irreparably harmed; Blindly following; Like Islam. No, you again falsely foist rhetoric as fact. This post is about course corrections and calling those who are off course to correct their ways to Christ and that includes you. Your posts show a generous disregard for scripture and fact. In the same manner, I am concerned with truth and for years have stood against those who paint false pictures of the CREC, Wilson and Christ Church. I was at a county commissioners meeting when two local women read a prepared statement that started out with we… Read more »
Seriously? Over a period of a decade, there are two notorious incidents of sexual crime committed by people moving in from outside the community, both of which were immediately reported to the legal authorities, and that constitutes “wallowing in lurid sexual scandals where women and children have been the victims of patterns of abuse”? A “fundamentalist religious sect” whose theology resembles Presbyterianism?
You wouldn’t have some kind of interest in painting the situation in the most negative possible terms, would you?
For example, during the relationship Natalie had kept a journal of love letters to Jamin which are currently sealed by court order. If the case had gone to a full trial, then those letters would quite possibly have been used in the defense.”
I am a therapist who has seen many sexual abuse survivors. Doug’s insistence on bringing up things Natalie wrote to and about Jamin during the abuse shows he has no understanding of how to help sexual abuse survivors.
These women’s stories seem to indicate that he does:
http://www.womenfreed.com/
Successes do not negate ignorance. You can successfully help someone and not understand sexual abuse. What does his insistence of bringing up a 14 year olds writings to her abuser say about his knowledge?
Same for you, C’,I would be more concerned if you think this guy, Lundy Bancroft, is an abuse “expert”.
http://transitiontoanewworld.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-spiritual-community.html
Lots of secular and “Christian” advocates love him, but he is a charlatan,
and a cult founder.
He spreads lots of false “knowledge” about abuse.
That’s as relevant as bringing up Scientology when talking about Wilson and Christianity. Are you trying to make it look like Sarah agrees with this person you are posting about?
It is relevant when abuse “experts” turn out not to be “experts”, as is the case with Bancroft.
It is relevant when folks who love Bancroft accuse Wilson of being cult like, when Bancroft, their “abuse expert” is a real cult founder.
Did I miss where Sarah mentioned Bancroft?
Don’t know that she did. The question is still out there.
Many Wilson critics do mention and refer to “a cry for justice”, which is a “ministry” that is completely taken in by Bancroft.
It seems you are trying to take the subject and change it off of Wilson and trying to make Sarah look bad by having it seem she has something to do with this Bancroft.
Sarah made a professional observation given her background. She does not mention Bancroft.
Just like there are many different religions and different beliefs among religions there are different therapy beliefs and different therapist.
Shall I go find someone very controversial and start connecting that person with Wilson?
Scientology is a religion. Surely there is some slight similarity between Scientology and Christ Church and Wilson.
The subject is abuse “expertise”, and there are many who say that they have it, when they do not.
Are you a Bancroft fan?
The subject is also on a pastors response to an issue. There are many who say they are the only true religion. Are you a Hubbard fan?
No, I am a Jesus salvage job. Considering what He had to work with, I think I came out better than expected.
Where you aware that Jesus said that He is the only way to The Father? However it is that we find Him?
@herewegokids, Scientology got brought up. You might want to get in on this.
“Successes do not negate ignorance.”
Success does a far better job of negating ignorance than failure does.
Sarah, what is your scriptural basis for saying there is no understanding here in how to help sexualy abused individuals?
Do I need scripture to back up my masters degree and experience?
I would be more concerned if you think this guy, Lundy Bancroft, is an abuse “expert”.
http://transitiontoanewworld.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-spiritual-community.html
Lots of social workers love him, but he is a charlatan.
Sarah, this blog concerns scriptural application to real world problems so, yes a scriptural basis is of importance.
If you want to do whatever you want to do and there is no right or wrong then this whole situation is just typed words. If you believe that the Bible is God’s holy word and that it is to be applied properly, as salt to cleanse a wound or as a kiss to the mouth, then the situation is one to uplift and call those reading to Christ.
Can you not use education outside of the Bible to think through a situation? If not, that seems a bit cultish and like you should be on a commune not using the Internet to post your arguments.
And do you believe that what Doug has done here is uplifting and a call to Christ?
Alphabet, of course education outside of scripture is of use. Do you use that education in a Godly manner or in a satanic manner? That is the crux of this situation. Who is blogging about how bad a man Wight is? Who is blogging that Gary Greenfield set up a bad situation that caused this trauma to his daughter? Hardly anyone. However, the internet is ablaze with what a bad preacher Wilson is and how scripture was incorrectly applied. It is flaming with opinions and false information being posted by those who don’t have first hand information or are posting… Read more »
This post isn’t directly about helping sexual abuse survivors, it’s a response to an attack by a blog owned by Gawker Media.
So therefore Sarah’s observation is not relevant?
By way of analogy, if a wild eyed man who had an abusive upbringing is running around stabbing people, a sensitive person might look on this individual with compassion and desire to help him find inner healing. However, it is also important for the sake of others to take the knife out of his hand. In other words, the desire to protect the former victim from emotional pain is not the only consideration. Second, we have to define “helping” sexual abuse survivors. Sarah’s understanding of helping sexual abuse survivors is an example of the soft bigotry of low expectations. We… Read more »
Whew. Is it responsible to hold a 14 year old accountable for having feelings for her sexual abuser? Do you think we can speparate sex from feelings? Does a rape victim need to be held responsible for having an orgasm during rape? The victim obviously experienced feelings from the rape.
The reason why DW mentioned N’s love notes was to provide some context for why Doug would recommend not having this situation be decided in a full trial. The reason why DW is having to explain his motivation for not thinking a full trial was wise is due to the fact that N had previously called into question his motivations for thinking so. N accused Doug of wanting to keep the situation quiet to protect himself. However, DW’s recommendation was made out of a desire to protect her, not him. In order to provide a rationale for how not going… Read more »
Just to be clear. You are saying the 14 year was in part to blame in her rape? And should repent of having feelings for her rapist?
If this is what you are saying at what age does this responsibility on the victims side start? A 5 year old is capable of feelings and of writing. A 5 year old is also able to copy adult actions and flirt. Does an abused 5 year old need to repent of improper feelings?
Umm? When did I say that?
You’ve made it clear she has somethings to repent for.
I said it is possible that a 14 year old girl in a situation like hers might have something to repent of. I then said that I am far too distant from the situation to make any conclusions one way or the other.
You haven’t answered any of my questions. So let me ask just one. Given everything I just wrote out. How can you say a girl in her situation could have something to repent of?
You seem to enjoy parsing out a scenario in which she might have culpability in her abuse. The fact that you do shows me that you do not understand the nature and dynamics of sexual abuse in children. Access is only part of it. A grooming period takes place where power is transferred to the abuser. Natalie has written well and informatively about this. There are as many ways to create this dynamic as one could imagine and many reasons given to the victim by his/her abuser to keep silent about the abuse. Also there are many reasons that you… Read more »
I don’t have your understanding, but then you are an atheist. You make it up as you go. My thoughts are bound to a book.
A personal attack because you can’t answer. Nicely played. Your thoughts are bound to your interpretation of a book.
Did I miss a question that I was supposed to answer? Randman said his piece. Why would an atheist and a Christian agree on issues of sin, guilt, confession, and repentance. That makes no sense.
You mistake the quality and nature of my understanding. I understand this scenario quite well because I lived it. I was groomed and sexually abused myself at nearly the same age. I understand first hand what it is like to live in a loving christian family and become skillfully separated form the herd in very short order, raped and left with the shame of it. Only to have to carry it in silence and meet with pushback when I finally had the courage to come forward. So when I read posts like yours, from people who are coming to this… Read more »
I don’t mistake the quality and nature of your understanding. You already told me your story. You have the understanding of the dynamics of sexual abuse one would expect from an atheist.
We have different understandings of the problem, solution, accountability, compassion, and guilt. I don’t expect to make any progress in this discussion. Thank you for your thoughts.
An atheist and Christian are not going to agree on the nature, origin, and solution to shame. That should be obvious.
I have the understanding of sexual abuse dynamics that on would expect from a childhood rape victim.
I sincerely hope two things: One, that you are never in a position to have a loved one personally experience where this rubber actually meets the pavement. Two, that you and others like you who are willing to entertain placing blame on the victims of rape and/or sexual abuse in order to protect someone in power, an ideology, (or an institution,) are never in a position to provide consul to an abuse survivor.
I will not pretend to thank you for your thoughts.
My family and I have been affected by this issue personally. I am regularly involved in helping individuals walk through these issues. We have found hope and help in the Scriptures, and helped others do the same. Believe it or not, we have found the secret to lasting change. Our past haunts us no longer. We are whole people whose identity is firmly fixed in Christ and not the sins of others against us. We also understand ourselves as sinners in need the same grace that our abusers need. Our sin against God is much worse than the sins of… Read more »
I am sorry to hear that your family has had direct contact with sexual abuse; I wish that on no one. Still, I reject your type of counsel for those who have to be sullied, and/or re-victimized by the idea that they are to share blame for the evils that predators would inflict upon them. That idea should carry a different kind of shame: the kind that would be on the head of those who through scripture can convince themselves of such wickedness. My thanksgiving today will be that I am free of the shackles of christianity and the immorality… Read more »
I totally get your point of view, and I almost completely agree with it. The part where I agree with Tim is that, for some victimized people (not all), there is a point at which they may have done something they knew to be sinful while still being innocent of the sexual abuse. For a Christian to have a peaceful conscience, they need to deal with that part of it. For example, I was strictly ordered by my parents never to hitchhike. I often did, and although I had some scary moments, I never got raped or murdered. If I… Read more »
Yes. We are all sinners and need to repent of many things. Even victims. My main issue with these journals being brought up by Doug is that he seems to think they are some type of proof that Natalie was involved in a consensual relationship with an adult and these journals are proof because she states her love and lust for Jamin. Abuse doesn’t work that way. In no way shape or form do these journals prove anything. A child can never be responsible for a sexual relationship with an adult.
Yes, of course jillybean that all makes sense, and in a strict hypothetical respect I do not necessarily disagree either. But here we are not talking about a grown woman going to a stranger’s hotel room. We are talking about a 13-14 year old girl and a very manipulative man ten years her senior. I willingly and actively sought out the friendship of an older man who represented a type of attention and freedom that I very much desired. I was conditioned by my experience in the church to be trusting and open to such a man. So you might… Read more »
I found the website from a few years back of a church defending itself against “attacks” regarding their handling of sexual abuse. Thought you’d be interested. One section: “Cyndi cites an affair that took place over 40 years ago between a woman and a girl in her junior year of high-school. It was brief, only a couple of times, and broken off. The woman repented and came and confessed privately. No “little child” was molested. The “girl” was a 16 year-old young woman, taller than her, and the aggressor who initiated the relationship with a sexual kiss–and also hit upon… Read more »
Not sure what your point is. But it seems to be that you are insinuating by this that Natalie’s story is one of an evil little predator preying on a repentant adult and a poor defenseless church?
Acually I believe Natalie. Sorry, it was late when I found that website. I noticed many similarities with Wilson’s tactics– even excusing the adult perp by the teen’s being taller. And discrediting the teen with dirt on things she supposedly did LATER. Little about anything the church may have done then, or may be doing better later to protect or help victims of sexual abuse. Loads of ad-hominem against their “enemy”, who, for all I know, may be a really bad person, which is fully and completely irrelevant as to how well these shepherds protect and serve their flock.
Maybe you should just erase the earlier link and make it easier on yourself. We’ll give you mulligan on this one. Friends like these, eh RAndMan?! ;)
Lol. You obviously didn’t get the memo.
“Let’s face it. Tim’s protestations here are in the service of excusing Douglas Wilson’s pastoral negligence and the tenets of the reformed church regarding sexual abuse that he quite clearly represents.”
Lol. Any other verdicts you want to pass down as long as you’re sitting on the throne. You’re deep into it, eh?
Content free as usual. I do admire consistency Evan. Well done there.
Oh I don’t know, seems like there’s plenty of content in there. You okay?
“and zero real-world understanding of the nature of sexual abuse, I am left feeling quite disgusted.”
Not that you would know what Tim M.’s understanding is, but hey that’s never stopped you before.
When you said that all guilt and shame are real, and that the victim may have to repent of her sexual enjoyment (if any) of the rape or of having sexual feelings for the rapist.
I think you are hearing things that I am not saying. To be clear, I am saying that 14 year old young men and women are capable of lust. If a 14 year old commits the sin of lust, that 14 year old should repent of it. That should be uncontroversial to Christians. I am not addressing the subject of sexual enjoyment for forced sexual acts at all. Rape, by definition, is forced copulation. This situation is not a situation of rape, but a situation of inappropriate physical contact with a minor. If a person is forced against their will… Read more »
I took you to be speaking in much more general terms. Thank you for explaining.
Yes ma’am. Out of curiosity, can you explain why the rejection of false guilt is objectionable? I don’t understand your reaction.
I think I did not do a good job of explaining myself. I think it is essential to reject false guilt, not only because it can play havoc with our physical and spiritual help but also because it makes it harder for us to recognize true guilt feelings when we need to. I think that sometimes victims of sexual abuse need help in rejecting false guilt and shame. This does not mean, however, that there is nothing in their lives that does require repentance. I took you to mean in your original comment that there is no such thing as… Read more »
Yes, we do live in a different world today. I wouldn’t judge a 14 year old’s feelings from a distance one way or the other. Some 14 year old’s are thinking in line with your characterization, “love, love, love,” and others are not. I think it is wrong to assume one way or another. Human beings are very complicated creatures. I think many seek to oversimplify subjects like this. But caricatures do not help people heal. You did take me rightly to mean that there is no such thing as false guilt in the case of sexual abuse victims. It… Read more »
I think I understand you, and I agree to a point. When the Catholic church prohibited eating meat on Fridays, if you went to a ball game and said, the hell with this, I’m having a pork and chicken hotdog, that was serious sin. Even if the wiener turned out to be made of vegetarian meat-substitute, your attitude made it a sin. On the other hand, if you genuinely did not remember the day of the week and you ate a Dodger Dog, you are guilty only of forgetfulness. But, in my religious tradition, we make a big deal out… Read more »
Thank you for your response. I think we are getting somewhere. In terms of your second paragraph: I absolutely agree that we need to make a big deal about the formation of a biblically informed conscience. If the conscience is constantly going off for the wrong reasons, we are more tempted to ignore it, and if we ignore it, then it loses its function. In terms of your first example: The girl feels shame in that situation as a result of objective wrongdoing. Her childish naughtiness should not be minimized. Clearly, her childish sinfulness is not causing the drunkenness. It… Read more »
How is a 14 year being sexually forced to do things not rape? Can a 14 year old consent to an adult? Do you think a 14 year who is forced into sexual relationship with an adult is responsible for the natural feelings that come from a sexual relationship? Such as having sexual feelings towards that person? Do you think it possible to have no emotions result from a sexual encounter unless they are of your own doing? If 14 year old girl was not molested and just started having lustful feelings for a random person then sure. We can… Read more »
Hmm… It might be helpful to agree on definitions. I don’t know how to respond to you because it seems that words are being used in different ways. Rape – Forced copulation. Non consensual copulation. Statutory Rape – In Idaho, statutory rape occurs when a male 18 or older penetrates the body of a child under the age of 16. Under the laws of statutory rape, the consensual nature of the copulation is irrelevant. Inappropriate sexual contact with a minor – sexual touching between a legal adult and a minor. It is my understanding that this case involves consensual sexual… Read more »
We do not agree because I do not agree that it was a consensual relationship as I do not believe a child can be in a consensual relationship with an adult. It seems you do?
Sure. I understand that you don’t believe a 14 year old to be emotionally ready to consent. Many don’t and hence the law.
We do have to be able to make a distinction between forced and voluntary acts. The rape/statutory rape distinction provides this.
Would it be different if Natalie was a 5 year old? A 5 year old could voluntarily perform sexual acts.
Sure. If you can’t conceive of a lustful 14 year old, I don’t know what to say.
One thing to consider is the fact that not all societies agree on what age a child transitions to an adult. This difficulty is further complicated by the fact that not all children mature at the same rate. The Jews hold children accountable to the Law at age 13 (the general time of puberty). At age 13 children become adults. I honestly, think that this is a wiser age than the age of 18, or whatever arbitrary age an individual state decides to be the appropriate age of consent. Regardless, it is important to realize that it is not as… Read more »
Rape is not by definition forced copulation.
Rape by definition in this situation under Idaho statutes is: the penetration, however slight, of the oral, anal or vaginal opening with the perpetrator’s penis accomplished with a female under any one (1) of the following circumstances:
(1) Where the female is under the age of sixteen (16) years and the perpetrator is eighteen (18) years of age or older.
I am speaking of Oxford dictionary usage 1) i.e. the most common usage. 1) The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will: I understand that current usage of the term rape is fuzzy and less precise. This is actually one of the primary reasons for the inability of people to allow for any moral culpability for acts which are included under this broad and imprecise category (a category which varies from state to state). However, it is helpful for the sake of discussion to distinguish between various… Read more »
Hi Tim, you lose me in your last paragraph. In general terms, a victim who is physically coerced and who experiences some sexual feeling (however improbable that may be) does not have anything of which to repent. She did not consent to the sin. The physical feeling is beyond her conscious control. I disagree with you that all shame and guilt is real. There is such a thing as false guilt, and that is very destructive, especially related to sexual abuse. A good example is the girl whose report to the authorities puts her father in prison for rape. Often… Read more »
I would hate to come across as crass and do not desire to unhelpfully explicit. That qualification being noted, a clitoris is made to respond to physical touch. You do not fault a person for this. Agreed? In terms of false-guilt. False guilt is a Freudian concept, not a biblical concept. All guilt/shame is real guilt or shame. We feel guilt as a result of the fact that we have violated some standard of behavior which we have ascribed to, whether consciously or unconsciously. Sometimes we feel guilt as a result of the fact that we have ascribed to a… Read more »
Would you be willing to excuse the guilt of these lustful letters if they were written AFTER Jamin molested Natalie? Or should she repent of her God given biology?
Are you a Christ Church member? I’m curious if these are just your thoughts or the beliefs of the Kirk and Doug.
I am not claiming N was full of lust. I wouldn’t know. I am not using those letters as proof of this. I said that I can imagine a situation where a 14 year old might have something to repent of in situations like this, e.g. lust.
I don’t understand lust to be biological.
I don’t excuse any guilt. If someone is guilty, take it to Jesus. He is mighty to save. Quick fix.
I am not a Kirk member, Presbyterian, or Postmillennial if that helps you.
Regarding “understanding …” Let us assume that you have great credentials and relevant experience (which I do not by the way.) Doesn’t that mean that your point of view is necessarily that of the dominant culture? Doesn’t your model of reality, of what men and women really are, owe more to the modern university than to the Bible?
Was Doug not participating in the modern world when writing to judges on behalf of Jamin and Sitler?
I don’t recall Doug bringing up those letters before, maybe he has once or twice that I’m not aware of. So I wouldn’t say he’s insistent on bringing them up.
Douglas Wilson: There appears to be an inaccuracy in this statement, “Turner says that all NSA students and Greyfriars live with families. I don’t know who made that up, but somebody did. It is not true at all.” Please give us the citation where Turner says this. I found only two references to NSA and Greyfriars. One says that most boarders with the Greenfields attended NSA, some the U of I, and a handful were Greyfriars, and Wight was one of the latter. Another claims that like many students at NSA and Greyfriars Hall, that is to say, like Jamin… Read more »
Why even respond to anything posted on the “Jezebel” site? Do not answer a fool according to his folly or you yourself will be just like him.
From the article, “A theology that domesticates women will, ultimately, devalue them. It will see them as complicit in their own abuse. It will make them hate themselves until they repent or run away.” Do you think that following Christ and believing in scripture devalues women, implies we are complicit in our own abuse, and makes us hate ourselves? Because that is the point and purpose of this particular article. If no one ever speaks out about these false portrayals of both the bible, scripture, and what it is to be a believer, how many women will flee from faith… Read more »
The misrepresentation of christianity and Doug in the jezebel artical is not origonal so there will be other oprotunities to correct the falsehoods.
The artical seems to have been writen to generate traffic. This post, especially by linking to the artical, does not hinder that and may even help generate more traffic for them. So I don’t think this particular artical needed a response.
Douglas, Ms. Turner had no intention of getting to the truth anymore than those at Mizzou do. The idea of journalistic objectivity is gone. No pretensions to it, just agendas to work. Interview the victim, but not the ‘perp’, even though I’m sure you would’ve flown this Trader Joe-loving hipster in at your expense. It would be great to see Bekah sit-down with her, too. I mean, to discuss the ‘issues’ between book-loving ladies who’ve had very, very different experiences with Christian men.
So you can excommunicated for marrying an unbeliever, but not for marrying a pedophile?
The pedophile was still part of the Kirk. That’s the difference it seems.
Actually HM and Teresa, though I think this was not a good decision which Doug made, the difference is that the Bible forbids Christians from marrying unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14; I Cor. 7:39). The pedophile you are referring to was not, according to Doug, acting out those behaviors at the time of his marriage (I Cor. 6:9-11).
The pedophile was ostensibly repentant. An unbeliever by definition is not.
The Christian faith addresses both the seriousness of sin and repentance. As such a person should be disciplined or excommunicated if they commit an egregious sin, or if they refuse to repent. So a paedophile should be disciplined which may lead to excommunication, though he is to be welcomed back (with safeguards) if he is repentant. Conversely, a person may be warned won to marry an unbeliever. An insistence on doing so may be an occasion for discipline. Unrepentance may lead to excommunication. While not all sins are equal, and many are very serious; God is more concerned whether a… Read more »
Then again, God did use Esther’s marriage to a pagan king for His purposes.
To clarify the change. The first article stated
the updated article states
It is common (and I think helpful) for news sites to mention subsequent changes at the bottom of the article.
Par for the course. That Laura Turner does not interview Doug Wilson for her piece about Doug Wilson is what’s really bananas.
Currently Bing has cached the page from Nov 23 which shows the old version. Google has cached Nov 27 which has the updated change.
I can get a screen shot of the old version but it is just text, it doesn’t show that it comes from Bing as the header is off the screen. So I don’t know what the point is in doing this. But anyone who wants to check can do so here before the cache is updated.
It appears that Jezebel may request Internet Archive to exclude its website, or it is excluded for some other reason.
I don’t get the complaints about links to Wes’ video. If Doug shamed Wes by revealing information that Wes wanted to keep secret then there might be some objection. But Doug linked to something that Wes thinks is art and that Wes wants others to see. That is why Wes put it on the internet. Wes and Natalie think that this art is good. Doug’s comments were that Doug’s opponents would object to Doug if someone associated with Christ Church did this. The videos make their point if you agree with Doug that the art is inappropriate. The videos do… Read more »
Another question is should Doug have posted them? Is that very righteous of him? Is that above reproach?
And then the question becomes who gets to judge whether Doug’s actions are righteous and above reproach? You, or maybe the rest of the alphabet?
Aren’t we all here making judgement calls? Me you the rest of the alphabet? Doug?
Are we? (I like the question asking; you never have to answer anyone else’s questions that way. Pretty slick. ABC is the master of it from what I’ve seen.)
E’,
“ABC is the master”?
ABC seems more like a threat to the memory of a very fine Jackson 5 song. : – (
Glad I could make such an impression on your life!
The Jackson 5 did not deserve any collateral damage from our ever so brilliant dialogue! ; – )
Happy Thanksgiving ‘C! I’ll be cooking for a while now!
Happy Thanksgiving! Hope it’s delicious. I’ll be singing ABC 123 baby you and me girl all day now.
We are all making judgement calls. That better? ;)
Some ask questions others make random weird statements.
John 7 19 Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?”20 “You are demon-possessed,” the crowd answered. “Who is trying to kill you?”21 Jesus said to them, “I did one miracle, and you are all amazed. 22 Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a boy on the Sabbath. 23 Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you… Read more »
Why would it be wrong to post the links? Wes approves of the video being on the internet.
Well, there are lots of things that are approved of by their creators, that should not be deliberately promoted.
It can’t be wrong because it shames the person who created it, since he sought to shame himself by doing it in the first place and making it public. But it could be wrong because such things just should not be promoted by noticing and directing people to them.
Fair enough. Though I don’t think Doug was promoting this.
There is a balance between: it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret (Eph 5); and mentioning sexual immorality of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate (1Co 5)
Perhaps it is shameful but at times still necessary.
What is the shame in that piece? Nudity?
At first I was bothered by the linking to the videos, and I still am. But, I think they illustrate something very important. The record shows that the concern of the Elders in Moscow was that in swinging for the boys someone may end up hitting the girl. The reference is to the shame and susequent guilt, wounds and ongoing grief. The actions of the man in that video, biblically defined, only serve to bring further shame to his wife, and now her children…. not to mention himself. It is a sad and sorry perpetuation of the initial 50 Shades… Read more »
You seem confused as to the difference between art (however well done… or not,) and pornography. Pornography is ‘printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.’
This is clearly not that. If you think that it is, is say much, perhaps a wee bit too much about you as a viewer. Which in a roundabout way is what art is supposed to do. So perhaps we should call his art successful?
It’s shameful. A grown man lying naked on a floor and thrusting his fallacy in to the air for all the world to see is shameful. It’s degrading.
Maybe that was the point? Perhaps you have been skillfully manipulated into an emotional response. Perhaps provoking thought on the nature of shame, power or lack thereof and degradation was the idea. Intention is very important in art. Especially when there is metaphorical content involved. Take for example former poet laureate Billy Collins’ poem about silverware. If not for the title ‘Divorce’ you would not understand the intention. Or Andres Serrano’s piece I referenced above. That is a powerful metaphor for what your god was willing to do in order to become the scapegoat for the sins of the world…… Read more »
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
Intention is irrelevant. The effect of his indecency is to bring shame and disgrace and that’s the point. Men keep doing what comes naturally to them and Natalie keeps being crushed under the shame of it all.
Abused by a man, accused by a man and now publicly mocked by a man.
“Hey honey, look at me – your Knight in Shining Armour! You’re not the only one who gets to peek under my kilt. Come on in girls, take a look at me and my art… you too, kids, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!”