Comment Thread Update:
Ryan Sather just removed a comment that my comment below was a reply to.
Listen, Ryan. Allow me to just deal with your first comment, about your strong effort to avoid being sucked back into this. At the time I write this, there are 499 comments, and just over 4% of them are by you (posting as JP). And don’t bother denying it — your real name is part of your email address.
This is not surprising to me because your accusations have been disingenuous from the beginning, and driven by some other motive entirely.
Your dishonest way of posting is manifest. The other day, under the Thanksgiving post, I called you Ryan
under the handle JP to see what you would do. You said, and I quote, “Heh?”
You are welcome to continue to post under your Christian name, but because of your trolling deceitfulness, I will block any pseudonym posts that have ryan,sather as a prefix.
I am sure there are ways for you to get around this, but these are my house rules regardless. You might try
truth.will.out@hotmail.com. Probably not taken.
Original Post
In my post last Monday on the Jamin Wight situation, near the end of it I linked to a couple of “performance art” videos by Wes Petersen, Natalie Greenfield’s husband. This was a game changer for a number of people in the middle, but there were also some die-hards who objected. In addition, some folks in the middle had questions about the propriety of me doing something like that, with others having questions about the relevance of it.
Questions about propriety are the simpler of the two, so let me deal with that briefly. If the claim is that a link to such images is indecency, I grant it. But it was not indecency on my part. I gave plenty of fair warning, and the point of my linkage was not to incite lust or scorn, or anything like that. I wanted people to be aware of the nature of the world from which these accusations were coming. Too many Christians think that to see such images is “automatically” sinful or corrupting, regardless of intent. But when Phineas took aim at a couple copulating, he was seeing a couple copulate. That did not make Phineas a voyeur, despite what he was seeing. He was not looking at anything for personal gratification — he was taking aim. So take the fact that the videos were appalling to many of my readers, as they ought to have been, and set that off to the side for a moment. It will become apropos in just a moment.
So how were the videos relevant? Wasn’t that just an ad hominem attack on somebody who wasn’t even in the picture ten years ago? I do think this is a reasonable question, and it requires a careful answer.
The abusive ad hominem is a fallacy that occurs when you introduce an irrelevant personal characteristic into a debate as a way of distracting people from the actual issue at hand. It really is a fallacy, and people really shouldn’t do it. For example, if someone says that he believes that a bowling ball dropped from a bridge into the bay will fall at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared, it is not to the point to reply to him that you don’t believe a word of it because his teeth are crooked. You are changing the subject from the topic to the man, which is what the fallacy of the ad hominem refers to. But the problem is the arbitrary change of topic, the distraction, not the critique of the man. This is because sometimes the character of the man is the topic.
This is what an attorney seeks to do when he sets up to impeach a witness. His argument certainly is “to the man,” but that is not a problem because the character of the witness is the central point at issue. Nobody is changing the subject. If Witness A says that he saw Defendant B pilfering from the till, and if Defendant B’s attorney produces a series of witnesses who testify that Witness A has been fired from three previous jobs for making false accusations against cashiers, this argument “to the man” is not an irrelevance. When character is the point, when reliability of a witness is what you need to know, anything that would establish the unreliability of that witness is not an irrelevance at all.
And it is in just this way that the videos are extremely relevant. There are many details of application, to be expanded on below, but here is the center of it, the hinge. Natalie has said that the sexual outlook of Christ Church is suspect, not normal (A). I linked to the videos to show that here is something demented that Natalie does believe to be normal (B). Now, given B, do you still want to trust her on A?
In other words, the future performance art of Wes was certainly irrelevant to what we did or did not do ten years ago. I cheerfully grant it. But Natalie’s view of such performance art is not irrelevant at all. She approves of the videos now, and she is accusing us of certain things now. How reliable is she now? What is her worldview about all such matters now? What kind of paradigm is producing her assessments?
Let me make it concrete. BozT has a ministry that helps ministries safeguard their ministries against possible abuse. Suppose Natalie and Wes were professing Christians, and GRACE came in to review the youth work at their church. Suppose they were shown these videos, and were also told that Wes was the coach of a wrestling club that the church sponsored. Would any red flags come up? Would this be something to follow up on? Would a GRACE review tag this? Would a GRACE review have a problem if Natalie was teaching Sunday School and approved fully of such videos? If so, then it appears we agree my link to the videos is relevant. If not, then I wonder why anyone would ever want to use GRACE’s services. Incidentally, as it happens, Wes was in fact a wrestling coach last year for young people through Moscow Wrestling Club.
NB: None of this is intended to say or to imply that Wes or Natalie are abusers of children. It is to say that they would not be my go-to witnesses for an accurate assessment of abuse.
But Natalie has mounted a strong challenge to us and our ministry, saying that a sexual abuse case (hers) was mishandled by us. She has made this case in such a way as to appeal to a large number of Christians, who have simply believed her account while assuming that her definition of what is sexually normal lines up with theirs. But it doesn’t. She stands by the videos, and says that they are perfectly fine, nothing to be ashamed of.
This puts her in a completely different world than the one her conservative Christian supporters were assuming she was in. And it is a world they cannot function in. Moreover, it is a world, an outlook, a paradigm, that they simply cannot support.
That is why, from this time on, any conservative Christian who says that Natalie’s account of her abuse and its aftermath needs to be taken at face value needs to fit that supposed reliability together with Natalie’s current support for the videos. If she thinks that they are normal, then she really is from Portlandia. And since she is from Portlandia, what does she think about transgender children? same sex mirage? open marriage? And might any of this have any relevance to her evaluation of how we handled her abuse case?
Of course it is relevant. She wrote highly of our care for her at the time of the abuse, and we have those letters. We know what she was saying then. She did not develop any retroactive animus toward what we had done until after the church suspended her from the Supper because she had gotten engaged to a non-Christian man. In other words, our first difference with her was over a matter of sexual ethics. Since then, that difference has only widened. She has married an unbelieving man Jamin’s age, and she is fully supportive of these artistic pursuits of his.
So the gulf has widened. But not everyone was aware of this gulf. The Christian community here in Moscow was aware of it because Wes and Natalie moved to Portland, and were very public in their embrace of that town’s vibe, and all that goes with it. Many of us have seen how she presented herself over the years — but in addition to that we have also noticed how she has recently been carefully curating her persona, her profile, in order to make it more palatable to Christians elsewhere. She grew up in a Christian home, and so knows the language. But she has nevertheless fallen away from the faith, and has been very much a daughter of Portlandia. I would link to some examples — as egregious as the videos — but she has taken them down. She has scrubbed a number of things from her online presence, and that was done for a reason. But for some reason, they neglected to take down the videos.
The end result of all this is that you can see Natalie’s supporters online trying to crowd-source a coherent response, and they are having trouble. They are completely at odds with each other. One group, the conservative Christian part, says that the videos are appalling and disgusting, but that they have nothing to do with the case. The other half says that the videos really “are too” performance art, and that I am a dirty bird for seeing anything wrong with them. These two groups cannot work together so long as this is on the table, and that is why I put it on the table. Their previous cooperation depended on the Christian side of the room not knowing what was actually going on.
If Natalie has two lives, two personas, two sets of friends, two circles that she travels in, it is not blackmail to let one set know about the existence of the other. Both lives are public. The videos I linked to were public, and had been public for years. I didn’t put them up, I didn’t release them. I simply linked to them. I said to one group that perhaps they might be interested in the outlook of the other group. If two people are standing on opposite sides of the same room, how is it blackmail to introduce them to each other?
Christians like Boz Tchividjian, Ryan Sather, and Andrew Sandlin were taken in by Natalie. They ought not to have been taken in — they had a moral responsibility to do far more checking than they did — but they were in fact taken in. Now that the videos are public to all of us, and now that Natalie has identified the real nature of her worldview by standing with those videos, certain questions are now permanently fair game. If any Christian group seeks to stand with Natalie, they will have to stand with some other unsavory things as well. This is why Andrew Sandlin has (apparently) taken down his earlier posts supporting Natalie’s story. Good.
Correction: I am reliably informed that Andrew’s posts have not been taken down. Not good.
So do you think that someone who believes such behavior to be normal should be an arbiter of normal?
Important Related Note: A Retraction
Despite all our differences, truth is far more important than winning or scoring a point. In several places in this controversy, I have said that I learned about the mess when the mother of Jamin’s fiancé called me because Natalie had called Jamin’s fiancé to tell her about it. Natalie claimed I was lying, and that she never made such a call. I spent a few days tracking it down, and I now believe Natalie is correct about that call. The mom called me because Jamin called her from jail. I don’t know how the wrong story got into my head, but it did. It wasn’t a lie, but it certainly appears to have been false, and so I have apologized to Natalie for the error.
One additional qualification here. There are some aspects of this timeline that might need to be adjusted in the future because some things don’t add up and my memory is murky about some of it. So bear with me.
Zoom-in On the Timeline
Natalie has said that I wasn’t there when the secret courtship was arranged, and that I therefore couldn’t know the boundaries her parents set for it. I grant that I didn’t know the exact boundaries of the secret courtship, but I did know the fact of the secret courtship, and I got it first hand from Natalie’s parents when everything came out. That fact was documented in writing at the time. That is what we were dealing with. Other witnesses on the fact of the secret courtship are available as well, including even Rose Huskey. The fact of the secret courtship is not really in dispute. A few months ago, Natalie tried to deny it, but her story has shifted since then.
In the course of saying that I did not know how much her father did to protect her after he became suspicious of Jamin, Natalie recently said something that reinforces the fundamental concerns we had about Gary’s negligence.
“Doug was not with my father as time dragged on and he began to become suspicious of Jamin. He was not in the hallway with my father where he sat on a chair in the middle of the night watching my bedroom door to make sure I was safe and protected. Shortly after this night of intuitive suspicion on my father’s part Jamin was kicked out of our home permanently.”
In short, long before Natalie told her parents the full story, Gary came to believe that Jamin was a scoundrel and a threat to his daughter, to the extent that he was willing to sit up all night outside his daughter’s bedroom, and to evict Jamin as a boarder because of it. And yet he said nothing to us about it — which meant that Jamin continued in his hypocritical status as a Greyfriar thanks to Gary’s silence.
Doug, I would urge you to quit wasting your gifts on this nonsense, and start using them to expose the Sandy Hook Hoax.
Bwahahahahahah! This is amazing! Among Douglas Wilson’s followers are Sandy Hook Truthers! Why am I not surprised?
–Deana M. Holmes
mirele@sonic.net
Mesa, Arizona
Since you are so wise, feel free to refute this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxTafqejV6k
I am not going to indulge in your false flag nonsense and Doug Wilson, if he had half a head, would delete this entire thread, including my response.
That’s what I think of your Sandy Hook GARBAGE. May God have mercy on your soul.
–Deana M. Holmes
mirele@sonic.net
I suppose you “stand with Natalie”, too?
Great refutation. “Don’t confuse me with the facts.” Typical feminazi.
“Name calling to put a person into a liberal camp so I can believe they don’t have value to God as well”-typical Doug lover.
There’s an ironic connection there, as someone is asking Pastor Wilson to stop denigrating the victim of a serious crime…in order to latch onto a ridiculous movement whose very existence completely belittles the suffering of victims of a serious crime.
I seriously doubt, though, BRB, that Pastor Wilson would subscribe to the nonsense you promote here, and I really hope that he can come in and make himself abundantly clear on that issue.
Doug, one (of many) questions: Why is the fact that Wesley is “Jamin’s age” relevant?
It’s not relevant at all. It’s one of the many red herrings being strewn about by Douglas Wilson, who is absolutely desperate to get people to look at someone else, anyone else, besides him. Because if you look very hard at Douglas Wilson, you will see the figure of a cult leader in Moscow, Idaho.
–Deana M. Holmes
mirele@sonic.net
Mesa, Arizona
“Why is the fact that Wesley is “Jamin’s age” relevant?”
Because she is seeking the familiar and attempting to rewrite the script. At least that is what we often do when we have been victimized, try to replay the whole thing in another context so as to figure out how to control it.
Or maybe she met and fell in love with Wesley, a kind and loving man who happened to be the same age as Jamin. And that’s it. No assumptions necessary.
Oh. I see. We are going for painting her as deep in mental problems so people won’t listen to her. I was trying to get which spin we are on…..
Which is it? Does abuse cause lasting and serious damage or is it no big deal and leaves victims mentally intact and thinking clearer than ever?
Yeah, yeah, keep spinning
I’m not spinning anything, I’m just trying to understand how you can hold two opposing perceptions at the same time.
Nuanced thought is a skill.
It’s a false dichotomy. Abuse can cause serious and lasting damage, and victims can find healing through kind and loving friends and family. Both can coexist. Also TRUE counseling can be quite beneficial, not what was peddled at “kirk.”
Don’t get dizzy spinning around so much trying to defame a victim when you protected her abuser’s posterior.
Pastor Wilson is not her abuser. How interesting to watch people deflect guilt from the ones who actually harmed her. What’s with that?
Those who show concern know that Wilson knew much more and could have done much more in this situation and others.
It’s also interesting that a man with pastoral power chose to cover up the sins of his parishioners, leaving them at risk of assault. What is with that?
ME, it’s clear that at worst, he is an abuser, with his role spiritually/emotionally (or do you consider it just fine to, when meeting, be asked immediately about what sex acts you and a significant other are engaging in? Would that be cool with you? That’s considered sexual harassment where I come from). At best, he has created and maintained an environment in which abuse can occur and reoccur, such as asking for leniency for offenders and then actually presiding at the marriage of a convicted pedophile, which—completely unexpectedly, right!—led directly to further problems. Meanwhile the young man in the… Read more »
OK, now let’s consider the evidence, a ream of which was presented and entered into court records in these cases, and clearly demonstrates that the crimes were promptly reported, and that no less than the judge approved of the marriage to which you refer. So are the police and judiciary “abusers”, too, then? By your logic they are. No argument that ministry to sexual abusers is difficult and loaded with nasty surprises, but pointing out that a man officiated at the wedding of an abuser does not ipso facto label that man as an abuser himself. The judge would have… Read more »
People generally are able to “hold two opposing perceptions at the same time” … by spinning from one to the other as the need of the moment requires.
It’s not relevant at all, except for Doug Wilson, who is desperately, desperately trying to throw out every red herring in the book to distract people from eyeballing his evil deeds. You know, kind of like the President of the Religious Technology Center (parent company of Scientology), one David Miscavige.
Yes, Doug, I’m comparing you to the gold standard of evil cults. You’re probably preening right now.
–Deana M. Holmes
mirele@sonic.net
Mesa, Arizona
Wow. Sinking lower and lower.
Like I said in a comment a few hours back: Footbullets hurt. And “L. Ron” Wilson just keeps firing at his own toes, and thinking himself clever.
Wesley Peterson just wrote an artists statement explaining the nature of these videos, I don’t understand how you can see them as anything BUT a powerful art form.
XLA,
As Christians, despite his intended meaning, I don’t see how any of that is relevant when a man exposes himself like that.
I really don’t see a panel of professors at PSU being concerned with whether or not “Christians” are personally offended by art or not.
In one video, I saw a nude man doing absolutely nothing but yelling and swinging a stick. In the other, I saw a nude man doing nothing more than repeated pelvic thrusting.
Can you explain how flopping male genitalia glorify the name of Christ?
Well, he explains it in his statement. You know how valuable context can be…
“My main focus during my Masters Studies was Performance Art. Performance Art is an art form in which the artist’s body is their medium and their actions are the artwork. It is a highly conceptual form of art and without context can seem confusing or bizarre. My work deals with the idea of humans as animals, which is the reason for the nudity in some of my pieces, and focuses on violence and aggression as inherent human traits. The two pieces, which were pirated and published without my permission, were called “Reveal” and “Bridge”. I’d like to briefly explain the… Read more »
An art piece depicting humans as agressive and violent animals. What wouldn’t Doug find objectionable about that.
XLA, In fairness I think it’s too clever by half to have a video with a fully nude man who in the process of creating this art piece is well aware that the camera is placing his male organ in full view and there’s actually very little in the way of props dialogue or much else except flopping genitalia, and then to make a comment which says that if a viewer thinks that that video is sexual in nature that they must have some kind of a hang up. Obviously having the penis exposed must have been very important to… Read more »
I fundamentally disagree with you, but it has nothing to do with anything. Natalie has no right to have any opinion about Christ Kirk because at one point her husband did art people disagree with? It isn’t about sex, not even close. There’s nothing erotic about it. So you’re going to smear this man who has done nothing to you and insinuate that there’s something wrong with his working with kids because you don’t like his art and you want to protect your pastor at all costs? Even to this point? Really? You’re really going to go through the intellectual… Read more »
So what if you find Wesley’s art “sad and offensive”, he wasn’t trying to impress YOU with his master’s degree. Whether you or Doug or whoever else has a problem with it has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The fact that Doug is using it as a personal attack against Natalie is the point here.
XLA,
For what it’s worth I can understand how someone with an interest and perhaps a talent for art might have difficulty expressing that to people who may not have anything more than a tin ear or a tin eye toward artistic expression. I will also say that it took some guts to do what Wes did.
“Guts”? Little boys (and girls) expose themselves all the time. All it takes is immaturity and a desire for attention.
There’s a certain bravery that comes from making yourself vulnerable for an audience.
Read the context. It explains the entirety of the point of the piece.
No David I understand what he’s saying but the point that I don’t believe your understanding is that there are God glorifying ways to express oneself and God glorifying ways not to. For example if I’m injured and I begin to use profanity and you take me up on that and I respond by saying no no you don’t understand my motive was simply to express that I’m in pain….you get my point?
Wes isn’t a Christian. He wasn’t seeking to “glorify the name of Christ” in any case. And that has no bearing on Natalie’s testimony.
We all know the first point. Regarding the latter, the thread is above.
We don’t care about a panel of professors at PSU, we are Christians.
See “And I’m cute Too”‘s comment above.
Question: Do you think that classical art featuring the nude form is wrong?
David,
If you equate classical art with those videos, you might also equate McDonald’s with fine dining since they now offer a burger with Angus beef.
That’s not the point of discussion, and you didn’t answer my question.
So because you don’t think the quality of his art was equal to the classics, his nudity is therefore dirty and theirs wasn’t. So it must be perverted.
The issue of nudity and modesty has to do with three main points: (1) Original sin. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were naked and not ashamed (Genesis 2:25). After they sinned, they were ashamed of their nakedness and made coverings for themselves (Genesis 3:7). (2) Marriage. Seeing the nakedness of a woman/man (opposite sex) is strictly reserved for marriage. Any nakedness of a woman or man that is seen by someone other than the spouse (no matter what you call it — “performance art,” “classical art,” “inspiring piece of art,” “beauty of the human form unclothed,” etc.) actually spits… Read more »
Nudity has been a tool in art since forever. Is Michelangelo’s David sexual? The only reason to see these as anything other than a performance art project done in college is if you have an interest in smearing someone’s character. He doesn’t even have an erection, for crying out loud.
Grace you’re adding a lot to my comments that I really did not say and unfortunately you are drawing inferences from what I did say that are not at all good and necessary. Let me just head off at the pass that I am NOT going to have a discussion about whether the presence or absence of an erection is the distinguishing characteristic of whether something is art or not. No I’m not offended by great pieces of art that happens to express the beauty of the human form unclothed. I think one of the differentiating characteristics between Michelangelo’s David… Read more »
It IS a major focus in erotica. And whether you agree with the animal nature part it has nothing to do with Natalie being able to judge whether or not she was abused. And trying to infer that there’s something wrong with his working with kids is a disgusting, low smear tactic. He’s trying to change the subject.
Grace I have four children and to be frank although I don’t know Wesley or Natalie if I found out that one of my children’s teachers or a coach had produced that video I would have cause for concern. I’m sorry but the things that we do and say whether in the name of art or in comments on someone else’s blog say something about who we are. Now if you wish to interpret the video differently so be it but it seems to me that you take issue with Doug looking at videos and drawing evaluations about the creator… Read more »
I’ve read far more by Doug than a few blog posts. And I take issue with a pastor that claims to represent Christ being involved with character assassination.
Is it character assassination to speak the truth? Doesn’t the very fact that speaking the truth puts someone’s character into question, indicate there is something wrong with their character?
Whether or not you like Wesley’s art has nothing to do with anything. And to paint it as something sexual is dishonest.
How about when someone speaks the truth about the pedophiles and sexual predators you hid and protected in your church? What does that reveal about the truth of YOUR character?
You didn’t just hide and protect Jamin. What about Steven Sitler? How many children has he abused at this point?
Again, what does all this reveal about the truth of YOUR character? That’s seems worth discussion.
Grace, I’ve never met Doug or Natalie, and chances are, I never will. If Doug is a bombastic person, or a liar, that sort of information is important, in so far as while it may not prove his guilt, it may indicate a danger in taking his side at face value. The same process is true of Natalie. The issue I have is that you appear to have no issues taking a stick to Doug, though it appears any information brought up about the other side is out of bounds, it appears, because that is character assassination. I just think… Read more »
No, I’ve just watched this case progress, and watched Doug try to smear people at every step.
I’m concerned that anything that Doug says which might be true but unflattering to those accusing him is equated with smearing. Is that concern of mine valid? Is there a way that Doug could bring up a legitimate concern (I.e. Natalie’s letters years ago were apparently positive toward Doug and negative toward her father, and then after Natalie was placed under church discipline for marrying an unbeliever, her story changed) that to you would not be smearing?
That’s a good question David, that I think deserves an answer.
Let’s ask about “David” in context. It’s supposedly a portrait of a Jewish adolescent….without clothes, with his foreskin, and without a beard. It really fits the ancient Greek pattern of the “eromenos” far better than a Jewish shepherd boy. And yes, since the eromenos was the beloved in pederastic relationships, we can assume that there was something sexual about that situation. It’s not as blatant as Donatello’s “David” or a lot of ancient Greek art and literature, but those who had learned Greek in college would get the point. In the same way, female nudity in Renaissance art centers around… Read more »
Whether or not we agree that this is a valid art form is irrelevant to the discussion. I don’t like nudity in my art but let’s not pretend that nudity does not have a long history in the art world, in many forms. There is a context.
No one denied that.
The context is that Wes is demented, Natalie drinks from the same cup, and Grace needs to change her name to Insipid Accuser.
Because we’re not deluded that sexually degrading behavior magically becomes less degrading if you call it art.
because context is everything.
Natalie has been to Portland. Her husband has done nude art. She might (though I don’t know for sure) have sympathies for people we disagree with. Therefore she has no right to say anything about how she was treated in our church. End of story.
There was no reason whatsoever for you to post those videos, Doug. In doing so, you act just like the cult of Scientology, which uses things like this, ripped from their context, in order to badger and shame people. Internally, Scientology calls it “dead agenting,” but the external story is what you’ve done here, so that people have “all the facts.”
I’d rather go to hell than share a heaven with the likes of you. It’d be like sharing heaven with the leader of Scientology, David Miscavige.
–Deana M. Holmes
mirele@sonic.net
Mesa, Arizona
“I’d rather go to hell than share a heaven with the likes of you”
Nice. Be careful what you ask for.
Personally I’ll share heaven with whoever God says I’ll share heaven with.
Good luck with that. I hear God has issues with clergy covering up child abuse.
Or were you okay with the pedophilia in the Catholic Church? Do you also expect to spend time with the pedophiliac priests in Heaven?
Not if that priest is unrepentant.
But if the [we’ll play your game and imagine it was just one] priest repents, it’s okay that he fondled and abused children for decades? One moment of repentance and it’s all okay?
Yet we cannot take Natalie’s valid claims seriously because her husband got an MA in performative art and you don’t like what he did? Or is it because he doesn’t believe in your version of Jesus? And how does his work impact the hideous history of the “kirk” and its myriad cover-ups?
Since the thread is not about justification by faith or pederastic priests, let’s not divert the thread.
Wes could be a porn star and it would not prevent Natalie from being a victim.
Did you read the blog entry above? None of the arguments you’re railing against were made by Doug.
Did you read it? He complains about ad hominen attacks, then engages in another round himself. He presents false dichotomies as though those are the only options. He also covers up for sexual predators, like Jamin Wright and Steven Sitler. Those are the only ones who’ve been public, but he wrote letters of support about those men to their judges. You’re right — let’s not go off thread. Let’s focus on how Douglas Wilson protects and defends pedophiles and sexual predators, as long as they go to his prayer groups. They can and do continue to offend, but Douglas Wilson… Read more »
“One moment of repentance and it’s all okay?” That’s kind of how the gospel works, yes. Doug’s mentioned several times before how truly shocking that is to unbelievers. Grace is pretty insulting to sinners. “You’re telling me that THAT HORRIBLE GUY can get in just by saying sorry, but I’m left out in the cold? How dare you!”
Of course he can be forgiven. But would you write to the judge and say he wasn’t a predator and call it a relationship?
This appears to be introducing an unrelated (and very dubiously factual) line of argument. That’s not terribly useful except for rhetorical trickery.
“myriad cover-ups?”
Be serious, what is your count?
Jamin Wright’s entire story was pretty hideous, but he’s not the only sexual predator who is a friend of Douglas Wilson. I don’t know how many children Steven Sitler has abused, but many: http://newwest.net/main/article/two_child_molestation_scandals_break_over_moscows_christ_church/ Douglas Wilson defended that pedophile and married him off to a woman from New St. Andrews. Douglas Wilson wrote to Steven Sitler’s judge to plead for leniency. Steven Sitler cannot be around his own infant son without supervision because he is sexually aroused by the infant. http://dnews.com/cps-opening-investigation-into-sitler-family/article_360e7bd2-571b-11e5-a676-e314137be5dd.html I don’t know how many other sexual predators Douglas Wilson has defended and hidden. The count is already too… Read more »
You’re right, you cant be serious.
What portions of the comment do you consider less than serious?
Oh, I’ll bet there are people sitting in those pews, knowing by law they were required to report something and didn’t because Doug wants to deal with things “in house”. And knowing if Doug decides to throw them under the bus they will lose their jobs. And wondering if they look properly loyal, hoping he’ll forget, hoping things won’t get brought up. I feel sorry for you people who trust him. It’s not safe, to hide behind a bully. Eventually he turns around.
Youcannotbeserious: 2 abuse Convictions, 1 reported by Christ Church (Sitler) and 1 Conviction aided by Christ Church (Wight)
= “myriad”. Got it.
How many children need to be abused before outrage is warranted?
Clearly one abused child is not sufficient for your concern. My apologies, “A” dad; one would normally assume a father had worries about unidentified pedophiles in the midst of his church. Apparently that was an incorrect assumption.
And you send your kids to public schools? You pathetic abuser
You throw insults without knowing anything about the person you insult? You pathetic debater.
Its documented fact. Instapundits has an ongoing series of “Teach Women Not To Rape” posts.
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/?s=%27teach+women+not+to+rape%27
The bulk seem to be of female teachers raping boys. Your response to Tim Paul shows your pathetic ignorance in this debate, but! I don’t know anything about you.
The problem is he does not know if I have children, nor if I send these hypothetical children to public school, Christian school, homeschool, etc. His assumptions and name calling make him a poor debater…as occurs in your post, as well. Ignorance in this debate when he’s taken it off-course and you’re helping? Please.
“one would normally assume a YouCannotBeSerious had worries about unidentified pedophiles in the midst of his community.”
Really, YouCannotBeSerious “”How many children need to be abused before outrage is warranted?”
If your rhetorical ploys are good enough for Wilson, they are good enough for you. I applaud Tim Paul on his perspicuity and his instinct to go for your jugular.
If you mistook that for a kill shot, check again.
Did you see Tim Paul’s false equivalence upthread? That’s not perspicuity; it’s misleading the argument.
Nice try, I suppose.
Tim Paul ‘s rhetoric is persuasive; yours is not.
To you. Other people find my rhetoric persuasive. Probably has a lot to do with a mindset capable of critical thought, rather than regurgitating Doug’s words.
How many kids have you sent to gu’bmint skrools?
Isn’t this precious, I’ve touched a nerve.
Weren’t we talking about how Douglas Wilson protected pedophiles and enabled them to access children within his congregation? Let’s stay on point, because it’s the sign of a poor debater to make ad hominem attacks (see Doug’s post above) or to deflect from the true debate.
For example, have you read this: http://theaquilareport.com/doug-wilsons-failure-to-safeguard-children/
Because the whole reason I’m here to discuss how Douglas Wilson protected and defended pedophiles at the expense of innocent children.
How did Douglas Wilson protect pedophiles and enable them to access children within his congregation? Be specific as to which of his actions constituted that.
You are familiar with Steven Sitler, right? How about this specific article? Doug didn’t write it, but that doesn’t mean it is invalid: http://theaquilareport.com/doug-wilsons-failure-to-safeguard-children/
Or you might prefer this article: http://thepilgrimsdigress.com/2015/09/11/pastoral-humility-reflections-on-doug-wilson/ Most specifically, these quotes, which include a brief overview: “A few years ago at New Saint Andrews (the college Douglas Wilson started), a student named Steven Sitler was caught sexually molesting one of the kids of the family he was living with. During the investigation he admitted to Wilson and others that he had sexually molested several children. He was charged and then sentenced to life in prison. It was not until after he was sentenced to prison that the rest of the church was notified that a serial predator had been part… Read more »
Apparently you missed it the first time so
“2 abuse Convictions, 1 reported by Christ Church (Sitler) and 1 Conviction aided by Christ Church (Wight)” reads just like defended and hidden with some spelling anomalies right?
I did not miss a thing. Sitler only confessed to what he had to, if he is anything like most serial pedophiles. But thanks to six sessions with Doug, Doug was sure he was sincerely repentant. Yet despite Doug’s “wisdom,” soon after Sitler was released on parole, he was found to be inappropriately sexual with his infant son. The son which was produced from the wedding officiated by Wilson. As to the convictions, Christ Church’s lawyers were involved on BOTH sides: “The victim’s family retained Christ Church member and attorney Gregory Dickison, who accompanied them to report the crime the… Read more »
1 dodging and obfuscating doesnt play well here. Most folks actually read and write enough to catch on. You posted “I don’t know how many other sexual predators Douglas Wilson has defended and hidden”. … The answer is demonstrably none at all. But you already know that is what the evidence shows. Attempting to paint me as a supporter of anything this heinous is ridiculous on its face, but you know that as well. Since nothing I have ever posted would reflect such a position. Your post falls in the “when did you stop beating your wife” bin. Nice try,… Read more »
I answered clearly. Jamin Wright and Steven Sitler are the only two widely known serial predators that Douglas Wilson has protected and defended (including having lawyers from his church support the defendants). But Wilson is also on record as saying “I cover up sins for a living,” so who knows what other predators he’s counseled and personally deemed “repentant”? He was certainly wrong in the first two cases, and I don’t know how many other skeletons he’s keeping in the closet. Here’s more information for you to ignore: “Doug Wilson elected not to share this horrendous crime with his parishioners… Read more »
Again you attempt to twist the world on its head to fit your narrative.
How in any sane world can
1 turning an offender in to authorities and
2 aiding in the conviction of another be construed as protecting and defending?
You seem to have a very slippery grasp on reality.
Again you ignore the evidence to fit your narrative of Doug the savior. Your grasp on reality is worthy of concern. Douglas Wilson protected and defended pedophiles by assuming he was all-knowing and could see into their hearts, assuring himself of their repentance. He’s been proven quite wrong on these matters. Douglas Wilson protected and defended pedophiles by failing to inform families of the danger in their midst. You fail to understand that having lawyers from your own church defend the defendant — the predator, Wright — can be problematic…really? How about not informing the congregation about the pedophile (Sitler)… Read more »
“Douglas Wilson protected and defended pedophiles by failing to inform families of the danger in their midst.”
How did he do that?
Well, one does have to look at the situation from a source other than Doug, but here you go: “Doug Wilson elected not to share this horrendous crime with his parishioners “for fear of violating the privacy of the family of the victim.” His elders may or may not have been aware of these events. If they were aware, they carefully maintained the secrets he guarded. Two months after Steven Sitler received his sentence Wilson delivered the news (through another elder at Christ Church) during the “heads of households” meeting that a pedophile had been at work in their community.… Read more »
The falsehoods you resurrect, and the concerns you raise have been answered and debunked over and over by others with much more patience than I have.
It is now obvious to any casual observer that you
1 have only internet knowledge of this situation
2 Have an axe to grind against Doug Wilson and
3 have now graduated to troll.
My feed bucket is empty.
Watch your blood pressure it can kill you.
From your inability to think critically about solid evidence presented to you, it is clear that you are a Doug apologist incapable of rational, critical thought. You clearly have little knowledge on the situation, and refuse to read beyond Doug’s biased blog. One can lead a person to information, but one cannot make them read nor think, and unfortunately that’s the case with you. It’s possible that others out there will be able to think critically and logically and benefit from the evidence presented. Watch out for your blood pressure. It can kill you. (PS – a run on sentence… Read more »
Just 1 quick correction– soon after Sitler was released on parole, he did not have an infant son, nor a wife, for several years. He was actually caught being inappropriately sexual with voyeurism. The state amended his conditions of release by adding a “no binoculars” clause.
Thank you for the correction. It *did* take some time for Douglas Wilson to find a wife for the pedophile he protected and defended. That “no binoculars” clause is horrific. Most perpetrators only serve time for a fraction of their crimes. I wonder what else Sitler is hiding. Dreadful.
One would also assume that a father would have better sense than to allow his 13-yr-old daughter to have a romantic relationship with an unidentified pedophile, keep said relationship secret from the larger community, AND allow this unidentified pedophile to sleep in the same house with her, but apparently that’s an incorrect assumption as well.
It’s interesting that you act like the father knew, when so many say that he did not know for quite a long time. In fact, that’s how sexual predators operate: they groom their victims and ensure silence through psychological manipulation. How familiar are you with the case? Can you provide any evidence that the father knew, other than Doug’s bloviating and frantic efforts to redirect anger from himself? You know that the 24 year old serial predator was placed in the home due to Doug’s teachings and love of boarders, right? And that Doug sat on Wright’s side of the… Read more »
“…placed in the home due to Doug’s teachings and love of boarders, right?” Mr. Greenfields own words: “During this time, my wife and I remained heavily involved in Christian ministry within the Moscow community, not only as owners of Bucer’s Coffeehouse Pub but also within our home where the front door was never locked and students were free to come and go as they pleased, to study in our living room or eat at our table. Our house was always full and we always had boarders. All of these activities and more, we were involved in because of our love… Read more »
Sounds like you are doing all you can to defend Doug and work on blaming anyone and everyone else. Douglas Wilson protected and defended serial sexual predators and “covered up sins for a living.” He and his church remained deeply involved with Jamin Wright after he abused the victim for years. The church even sent Jamin to Haiti as a missionary in 2014! What a way to share God’s love. Hope he didn’t abuse anyone there, but that’d be a foolish hope: http://moscowid.net/2015/12/02/jamin-wight-kirk-missionary/
Pastor Wilson does not need me to defend him. I don’t know all the facts and I expect neither do you. I’m just trying to keep the facts, we do know, straight. Considering you seem to be unable or unwilling to actually address any arguments being made, maybe you should change your ID to “ICannotBeTakenSeriously”.
So when confronted with facts about how Douglas Wilson protected serial sexual predators like Jamin Wright and Steven Sitler, and how Douglas Wilson sent a known sexual predator to a country in crisis with church support, rather than face the facts you resort to name-calling? Very mature response. Consider the fact that many people in developing nations know missionaries as dangerous sexual predators, you should reconsider your defense of Douglas Wilson. If you don’t think that missionaries do such things, here is but one example: http://www.christianpost.com/news/teen-missionary-indicted-for-raping-children-at-orphanage-says-he-was-possessed-by-demon-named-luke-124428/ It is important because there is often a serious and dangerous lack of oversight.… Read more »
Uh yeah, thanks for proving my point.
Very good, maintain the status quo. When confronted by an avalanche of facts about the truth of one’s pastor, refuse to engage or think. Just continue to try to blindly and senselessly defend Douglas Wilson, protector of serial sexual predators.
My thanks to you for providing further evidence about the issues Doug’s followers have with critical thinking and analysis. Disturbing yet informative.
Mat 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, SLANDER.
Mar 7:22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, SLANDER, pride, foolishness.
Eph 4:31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and SLANDER be put away from you, along with all malice.
Col 3:8 But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, SLANDER, and obscene talk from your mouth.
1Pe 2:1 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all SLANDER.
Or in this case libel.
It’s neither slander nor libel when it is the truth. But if you would like to discuss slander, we could talk about how Doug is working to drag the victim of sexual abuse and her now-husband and family through the mud in an attempt to deflect from his own hideous choices. It’s not slander to assert that Douglas Wilson protected and defended serial sexual predators, because he did. He counseled them (it only took six sessions for him to “know” that Sitler was repentant, yet that man has never ceased committing horrific offenses); he showed support for them in the… Read more »
“yet that man– has never ceased— committing horrific offenses”
I’ll assume you have taken the evidence for this to the authorities? Would you share it with the board?
Here you go. This site has a lot of information about Steven Sitler’s ongoing issues with committing sexual offenses, including some court documents: http://www.tomandrodna.com/CR_2005_02027/
And of course, Sitler’s issues with his own son. Shameful and horrific: http://www.correctionsone.com/corrections/articles/9369232-Idaho-sex-offender-allowed-to-return-home-with-child/
You’ll notice in what I wrote before that the “he” in that sentence referred to Sitler, not Douglas Wilson (though Douglas Wilson is certainly involved with committing horrific acts, including the reprehensible way he’s publicly attempted to vilify the victim of sexual assault) .
Just what I thought, nothing new here. You really need to be taking it up with the Judge.
And maybe refresh yourself on Pastor Wilson’s stance:
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/an-open-letter-from-christ-church-on-steven-sitler.html
I’ve read Doug’s bloviating and excuses. He always has plenty of excuses for himself. It’s an unfortunate quality for a spiritual leader to have. Remember the caution James provided for those who would be leaders: “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.” Or this version, if you prefer: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” Douglas Wilson protected and defended serial sexual predators, and he did so repeatedly. He used his position of power to help advocate for… Read more »
Reading this I’m convinced you don’t really go much for the doctrines of Grace, do you? You’re all rocks and shoals.
My views on the doctrines of Grace are not germane to this discussion. The topic at hand is how Douglas Wilson protected and defended serial sexual predators, rather than protecting the victims of sexual abuse. He wrote an entire blog post on why it was acceptable to drag the victim and her husband through the mud when the victim challenged the way he improperly handled her sexual abuse case. He attacks victims, and defends predators. THAT is relevant and germane to this discussion. ETA: IF one were to engage in a Calvinist discussion about the elect, I would highly doubt… Read more »
Yeah, it always sucks when a pastor speaks up for a guilty party and wants to act like a counselor and ensure justice is served. I hate that, I mean that’s what pastors are supposed to do isn’t it. You could write this from any Hollywood script. The guilty simply need to be punished, and be done with them! That’s how it works in the real world. Right? That’s why a minister of Grace is paramount. Grace is offered to all in Christ. Jammin, & Natalie. Sinner and saint alike. But I think that is your problem. It really chaps… Read more »
The doctrine of grace is wonderful for the truly repentant. But Doug met with these men a few times (six in the case of Sitler, per court documents) before determining they were “truly” repentant and writing letters on their behalf. BOTH men have gone on to continue to abuse others in myriad ways. It seems that Douglas Wilson lacks true discernment of character. Or perhaps he finds admirable qualities in these serial sexual offenders. BOTH of these serial sexual offenders have continued to abuse. Do you honestly think that is true repentance? I have no problem with the Lord looking… Read more »
Stop lying!
Sitler has not reoffended or continued abuse. To say otherwise is a complete lie! Stop lying!
Continuing to post falsehoods and partial truths shows your character and your blatant attempts to discredit without knowing the actual facts. Give it a rest.
If anyone is still reading this thread, please pray for Natalie and her family to turn to God and for peace for the others involved.
There are no lies here. Sorry about your poor reading comprehension skills. Here is a link about Sitler’s violation of the terms of his parole: http://www.correctionsone.com/corrections/articles/9369232-Idaho-sex-offender-allowed-to-return-home-with-child/ Because you appear to have difficulties reading links, here is the relevant information about Sitler being inappropriately sexually stimulated by his own infant son: “A Latah County 2nd District Court judge ordered Tuesday that a convicted sex offender, Steven Sitler, must continue to have an approved chaperone present, within his direct line of sight, at all times he is around his infant child in the wake of new disclosures of ‘contact resulting in actual… Read more »
NotSerious, stop lying. Sitler did not reoffend. If he had, he would be back in prison. Those who want to use this situation to attack Wilson keep pushing every button they can just trying to have Sitler placed in prison. There is no true concern for the Sitlers — instead, their concern is only get Wilson. The transcripts are sealed and the Daily News used one quote out of context to make the article. Those in Moscow who hate God, Christ Church and Wilson use that article out of context; they use out of context court records and just plain… Read more »
No court records here are “out of context.” ALL these court records have a basis in TRUTH, which seems to be sadly lacking in Doug’s kirks. Sitler cannot be with his wife as a chaperone any longer because he was inappropriately sexually aroused by his OWN INFANT SON. How does that sound okay, appropriate, or legal to you? I’m not trying to hound anyone into prison, but Sitler has abused and damaged enough children already. He can and should be under the most prohibitive restrictions available, as his OWN SON sexually arouses him. This is a man with a SERIOUS… Read more »
I’m so glad you have no problem with God looking into men’s hearts. That said you are holding final judgement for yourself. The matters have been settled, but that’s not good enough for you. If you have new info about crimes committed by these people, why have you not reported it? You clearly don’t have a good understanding of what grace is, yet are in desperate need of it, like all of us. But mostly I’m wondering who you are that you spend so much time tilting at windmills… Are you part of the Moscow intolleratti, or a concerned citizen… Read more »
I’m holding final judgment for God, but stating that Douglas Wilson cannot and does not see into men’s hearts for their true repentance. He has asserted that these two men repented and were safe for society, when clearly neither had nor was. ETA: Does Doug speak for God on this earthly plane? Given his history of extremely poor choices, the evidence emphatically states NO. These matters are NOT settled, or we would not see problems with Sitler’s chaperones in Sept. 2015, as we have, due to his sexual arousal from his INFANT SON. The Truth is the Truth. Douglas Wilson… Read more »
You’re holding final judgement for God, well that’s courteous of you. What becomes of Sitler? Shall he be consigned to a leper colony? He’s under both the US Constitution and a microscope.
Good that you have your opinion, and good that you live in a country that cherishes and values such a thing.
It’s not courtesy; it’s a lack of hubris. I don’t imagine that I could truly judge a pedophile’s “repentance,” as Doug thought he could…and especially after only six meetings, I would not write a letter to a judge arguing that the pedophile was truly “repentant,” as Doug did. Again, given that Sitler cannot or will not be reformed, I would not try to sway the judicial system in his favor, as Doug did with his letters attesting to Sitler’s “character.” I have no problem with Sitler serving the life sentence he earned and was given. It seems best that he… Read more »
Even David had Shimei to tag along, cursing, throwing stones and casting dust, and David showed him grace. Shimei lives.
You think to compare Doug to King David? He is quite the cult leader to win such comparisons. Let us not fool ourselves to think that Doug could ever equal David.
Faulty analogies, logical fallacies, AND more name-calling. Is this all they teach at the CREC kirks?
NotSerious, give it a break. You just listed a known attack website as your reference source. That is the same as using the National Enquirer as a source for a serious thesis. You keep harping that Wilson didn’t protect Natalie yet you don’t mention the fact that her Dad set up the situation and allowed it to continue until it was brought to Wilson who took immediate action. Just stop. You aren’t involved and are the perfect example of Proverbs 26: “Like one who takes a dog by the ears Is he who passes by and meddles with strife not… Read more »
I think you need a reality check. Stop blaming the father for the abuse committed by Jamin Wright. Natalie said that she was upset about Doug supporting Wright instead of her (including in the courtroom) and that she needed more support from the church (oh, wait, “kirk”) after the abuse was known. She said that he should not have later questioned her alone about sexual activity. She said that he needs education about counseling sexual abuse victims. What is so hard about that? Why can he not apologize for his repeated poor choices? Give your keyboard a rest and everyone… Read more »
NotSerious, our court rooms are small and if you are not early you sit where there is a seat. I’ve been in them and sat where there was an opening. There is no truth to sitting on one side gave support to Wight and detracted from Natalie. That is completely incorrect. You need to realize that the entire situation was set up by Gary Greenfield in the Greenfield home. Wight took advantage of the situation set up by Greenfield. There is no way around that. Not when it was made public. Not now years after the fact. You are correct.… Read more »
So Doug is a man who runs late and HAS to sit beside the predators, not the prosecutors? Repeatedly? Quite the fine character, and certainly not the way the young victim interpreted the situation. Nor did Doug approach the victim to show or lend support to her, though he did write letters in defense of Wight. Stop blaming the father who knew nothing until it was far too late. Douglas Wilson was the one who counseled the predator (not the victim), wrote letters on behalf of the predator (but didn’t communicate with the victim), and later ensured that his character… Read more »
Quite right. Natalie’s dad (Gary) was her first line of defense. And reinforcements weren’t brought in until things were way out of control.
Why are you accusing Doug of what Toby Sumpter did?
You’ll notice I wrote “the church” above, not Doug. But is Doug not involved with the kirk’s actions? Is Doug NOT involved in helping select and fund people going on missions with kirk involvement? He is instrumental in all of these “kirks,” and without his assistance, Wright would have likely been locked away for much longer (as he should have been). You don’t think that Wright’s good standing with Doug at that time helped influence the poor decision to send Wright abroad?
When one works tirelessly to set serial sexual predators free, one bears some responsibility for their future actions.
I don’t know how involved Doug was with Tobys drcision. Is Doug responsable for the actions of every member of the kirk?
You didn’t define who ‘the church’ was.
I have no idea what involvement Doug had with Tobys decision.
Is Doug resposable for the actions of every member of the kirk?
If Doug goes on the record to write letters to testify to someone’s “character” and “repentance” (as he did with Wright and Sitler), then yes, he bears some responsibility when they violate more victims (as both of these men did).
Being a leader is difficult and the responsibilities of a leader are greater. When one leads poorly, one is responsible the poor outcomes.
So does Toby have any responsability for sending Jamin to Hati?
Toby bears responsibility here as well, of course. But Douglas Wilson’s support of the serial sexual predator set the stage for these problems.
In warfare, is a leader responsible for the wins and losses of the troops? All are involved and engaged, but ultimately, we look to the leader for praise or condemnation. Douglas Wilson identifies as a spiritual leader; his responsibility to the community is greater and should be held to a higher standard.
FYI: “responsibility” does not have an “a” in it.
Have you informed Toby of his responsibility in these problems?
I assume he identifies as a spiritual leader as well.
Since Douglas Wilson is the one actively attacking and attempting to vilify the victim here on his public blog (and after he actively and publicly supported the sexual predator), he seems most problematic. Doug is also the leader of the CREC, which puts him in a greater position of power than Sumpter.
If you are concerned, you should to go Toby’s blog and let him know.
That’s what I thought. If you had any concern for Jamins victims you would try to protect them from him instead of Doug.
That is the duty of the law and the leaders.
Douglas Wilson protected the serial sexual offender, Jamin Wright, by writing letters to support him to judiciary officials. Douglas Wilson protected another serial sexual offender, Steven Sitler, by supporting him in myriad ways.
When a spiritual leader abuses his power in such a way by protecting predators instead of victims, he can and should be held responsible for such actions.
The law and leaders care for victims so you don’t have to? That’s convenient.
You’re the one defending Douglas Wilson, who defended serial sexual predators on multiple occasions. How do you care for victims? This is a blog defending Douglas Wilson’s willful and deliberate attempts to vilify the victim of sexual assault and her husband. Victims of sexual assault do not need the names of their family members dragged through the mud. That is not a way to show support for victims of repeated sexual assaults. And yes, it is the duty of the law to identify, prosecute, and confine serial sexual predators for the public good. Douglas Wilson helped allow these serial sexual… Read more »
I am not defending Wilson merely stating that you have no concern for the victims of Jamin or Sitler.
You most certainly are defending Wilson’s actions, and you most certainly do not have the authority to say anything about me. You do not know me.
But as you are defending Wilson and his actions, you are showing support for a person in a position of power who used his position to help abusers instead of victims. You are joining the crowd who supports Doug rather than the victims of sexual abuse. In fact, I would say that your words show that you have no concern for the victims of Wright or Sitler.
lol kthxbye
How witty, but I suppose it’s preferable to the run-on sentence from the last reply.
I’m pretty sure you edited that, because my initial reaction when I first read it was, “Doug doesn’t send people on mission trips, though the church might.”
While I do sometimes edit for clarity or to add information within the allowable time frames, “the church” was what I originally wrote. Doug, who heads the CREC, would still bear responsibility for the missionaries sponsored by various CREC churches.
Actually, zero. Those were two “cases,” but zero “coverups.”
It’s likely, though someone in the know could clarify, that Wight is no longer on good terms with Pr. Wilson after the attempted strangulation and perjury thing.
But you didn’t mention any coverups.
Don’t need to — Douglas Wilson already admitted to “covering up sins for a living.” Who knows what else he’s chosen to cover up? And there is also this, when he put the children of the congregation at risk for months: “Doug Wilson elected not to share this horrendous crime with his parishioners “for fear of violating the privacy of the family of the victim.” His elders may or may not have been aware of these events. If they were aware, they carefully maintained the secrets he guarded. Two months after Steven Sitler received his sentence Wilson delivered the news… Read more »
For crying out loud, the guy was in jail BECAUSE WILSON CALLED THE COPS. If your account is accurate, delaying informing everyone was wrong IMO, but since he was in jail, nobody was actually put at risk. And calling the cops on a guy is not a coverup, believe it or not. I don’t think he should have officiated at the wedding, but his performing the wedding did not actually enable them to marry when they would not otherwise have been able to. And whatever that is, it’s not a “coverup.” Don’t move the goalposts. I’m not even going to… Read more »
You don’t think Wilson had a responsibility to tell the congregants that their children had been at risk? Or that they should talk to their children about Steven Sitler, and ask if anything untoward had happened? Abused children will often be silent and ashamed of the abuse. Parents and spiritual leaders should be looking out for them, protecting and defending them. Douglas Wilson helped Sitler get married every step of the way: finding a mate through the church elders; speaking up for him at legal events; encouraging Sitler to have children, when as his spiritual leader, he could and should… Read more »
Your reading skills are terrible, or else you are willfully ignoring things I wrote. I didn’t have to read past your first sentence to discover that.
You also made stuff up. I now know how much to care about anything you write.
I only responded to the reasonable portion of your otherwise nonsensical post in loyal (but unethical) defense of Doug. Your reading skills are more than questionable, especially if you don’t think that a pastor should inform his congregants that a serial pedophile had been in their midst, unknowingly, for months. Nothing was made up. There are other sources beyond Doug. Many of them are far less biased. Most of them are thoughtful, eloquent responses and commentary on the situation. I’m not actually writing for you, so your opinion is of no consequence. There are many other reasonable people online who… Read more »
Quote from my post:
“If your account is accurate, delaying informing everyone was wrong IMO”
This is why I question your reading skills.
I have never heard anyone but you (including other anti-Wilsonites) claim that Wilson introduced the Sitlers or “helped them find” one another.
This is why I say you made stuff up.
So it was coincidental that he was very much involved in Sitler’s life and the wife was found through the elders? I’m not making stuff up, but you are unbearably naive.
Oh, I see, “if you don’t believe this plausible thing, you are naive” is now equivalent to a fact.
Nice standard of evidence you have there for accusations. Myself, I choose only to assert damaging things about people if I happen to have reason to think they’re actually true, not merely because they seem likely in light of other things I know. Does it not embarrass you in the slightest that even other people who have much against Doug and are closer to the situation have not actually made that specific charge?
For one quick to devalue another’s “reading comprehension,” you certainly are sensitive. The sources I cite are the most credible ones out there. Other reports have Doug being contacted almost immediately upon Sitler’s arrival to the church, wait, “kirk,” and choosing to keep that information private. I don’t know if that is true, so I don’t cite that source. But clearly Doug knew much more than he let on, and chose not to share a lot of information with his congregation. This line here: “Myself, I choose only to assert damaging things about people if I happen to have reason… Read more »
I believe I had a comment where I copied and pasted that context for YCBS. If I did (I am pretty sure I did) and he read it and he continues to use it as a cudgel, then that speaks to his dishonesty.
It’s not okay, it’s all forgiven, though. If you’re a Christian, you already know that. If you don’t grasp or believe the gospel, your position on who should and shouldn’t go to Heaven has no validity in this discussion.
Is it all forgiven, without a repentant heart? Douglas Wilson though both Jamin Wright and Steven Sitler had repentant hearts and souls, but he was wrong on both counts. Perhaps lowly mortals cannot truly see into the hearts of others; perhaps that is for the Holy Spirit to do; perhaps pastors should stay out of judicial reviews and courts, rather than pleading for mercy for perpetrators of violent sexual acts. My position on who goes to Heaven is of the same consequence as yours: none whatsoever. That is for the good Lord above to decide…the same Lord to whom Doug… Read more »
Stop being childish. Whether a repentant priest goes to Heaven has nothing to do with whether Doug Wilson was right about Wright and Sitler.
If you are arguing in this incoherent manner because you actually don’t understand how to follow a line of argument, please step away from the keyboard and study up on logic. If you are doing it on purpose because you are disingenuous, repent.
Childish is accusing another debater of being childish when one cannot deal with the facts. You brought the comparison back up; I responded in a perfectly coherent fashion.
I would also recommend that you study up on logic and debate, for making me into a straw man (these arguments are neither childish nor incoherent) is illogical, unreasonable, and unworthy of continued debate.
Jane, thank you for your work and efforts on this.
Stop making great comments. I’m getting embarrassed about having to upvote you all the time.
Always upvote Dunsworth comments! :)
That’s what I’m sayin’!
God will forgive the penitent priest, but he still has to face the civil consequences of his crimes. If he is truly repentant, he will turn himself in to the authorities, serve his sentence uncomplainingly, not clamor to get out of prison, and, when released, willingly avoid all occasions of sin. This means he will quarantine himself from children. That is the Catholic handle on this, and it is pity as well as a crime that so many fell short.
I think what is most important to note is that we cannot judge nor see the way the Lord does. If the person is truly repentant, then God will deal with the person. However, Doug seems to have determined for himself how “sincerely repentant” Jamin Wright and Steven Sitler were, and he was horribly wrong about those fellows and their repentance.
I agree with you about no one but God really being able to truly judge penitence. When the priest absolves me, it is entirely conditional on many factors he knows nothing about. He takes my word for it because, if I am lying, I am committing blasphemy and will have to answer to God for that. It seems to me that if a person is truly penitent, he or she will try to avoid any situation in which there is strong temptation to repeat the sin. For example, if I confess that I have embezzled from my employer while performing… Read more »
And I’m certain that would include quite a few people of whom you would not approve.
Me too, but not every pastor will be in heaven either.
Seriously, that’s why I have more morals than you, because I sit and consider my moral stands, I don’t take them because some guy in a robe stands before me and tells me that God Said It, I Believe It and That Settles It. In that way lies cultic behavior and totalitarian thought.
–Deana M. Holmes
mirele@sonic.net
Mesa, Arizona
LOL! Thanks for the chuckle. Yes, I am well known for my cultic behavior and totalitarian thought.
I wouldn’t brag about it….
Thanks for being in the arena, ME
I disagreed with several comments ME has said elsewhere in this conversation, but I have to affirm this one.
“just like the cult of Scientology, which uses things like this, ripped from their context, in order to badger and shame people. Internally, Scientology calls it “dead agenting,” but the external story is what you’ve done here, so that people have “all the facts.”
The hypocrisy of this statement is absolutely staggering. If you don’t see yourself and the rest of the Disgruntled in this statement, then your “training is complete” so to speak. I hope you find your way out of this madness.
He didn’t post them, he linked to them. It’s called “the web”.
If you are embarrassed that they exist, take them down.
Negative, at least one of them was uploaded by someone other than the creator, ostensibly for the purpose of linking them here, considering that Wesley only had one of the videos online. It’s highly likely that one of Doug’s supporters (perhaps Darren Doane) essentially pirated and reposted the content without permission of the videos’ creator.
You don’t appear to be in much danger of having to share heaven with anyone.
awwwh. And as it is such, so also as such is it unto you.
Probably one of the more hateful and ignorant comments I’ve ever seen posted on this blog. the bitterness and anger you must harboring is mind boggling and saddens the heart. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, what madness drives you people?!
Look…I calls ’em as I sees ’em. And with two decades of experience observing the gold standard of cults, I think I can draw the appropriate conclusions regarding Mr. Doug Wilson.
-Dee Holmes
mirele@sonic.net
Ah well, methinks you think to highly of yourself. Human nature I suppose.
One more thought and then I’ll let it go: There is a parallel in the New Testament to the last part of your first comment. The apostle Paul wishes himself ‘cut-off’; ‘accursed’ in Romans 9:3. The striking difference is that he wishes this for his ‘brethren’ (some of whom were most certainly his bitterest enemies) that they may be ‘saved’. You’d be hard pressed to find stronger statement of sacrificial love in the scriptures other than from Jesus himself. You would do well to think on that IMO.
What a challenging situation for Pastor Wilson and the church. I’ll keep them in my prayers. This is critical, “She has made this case in such a way as to appeal to a large number of Christians, who have simply believed her account while assuming that her definition of what is sexually normal lines up with theirs. But it doesn’t.” Victims of sexual abuse need to be told over and over again what “normal” is. That is the very nature of the injury they suffer! Their powers of discernment are now broken. To be “tolerant” or unconditionally accepting is actually… Read more »
She calls the abuse she suffered as a young girl what it is-abuse. I don’t think there are many Christians in any vein of Christianity that would disagree with that. Are you saying she can’t evaluate this and her assessment is different than the one you would make?
I’m saying she has been damaged by abuse and now her ability to discern what is normal, acceptable, and right, has been broken. God is the Great Physician however and He can repair what has been damaged and replace what has been stolen, tenfold. To deny that there has been any damage done, is to deny the very nature of abuse in the first place and does the victim more harm than good.
So you disagree-you don’t think she was abused. But she was abused because her thinking is flawed. But if she wasn’t abused her thinking must be OK. But she says she was abused. HOW DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL
My very first words were, “I’m saying she has been damaged by abuse…” Being abused renders damage. She was damaged.
Hey, that’s just the harsh and ugly truth. Abuse delivers flawed thinking, hence the need for healing.
Continue blaming and bashing the victim here.
It’s a good look for you. Very honest angle.
Doug says she can’t have any opinions on what is normal sexuality because her husband did performance art in the nude and she hasn’t criticized it. What aspect of sexuality has she said anything about other than the abuse she suffered as a young teen? Doug has, himself, tried to lessen the idea of the abuse by writing to the judge explaining that Jamin was not a sexual predator. Natalie disagreed, saying he was in fact a predator. Now, whether or not Natalie needs/needed healing, I’m sure she does and did and she said so herself-what opinion on sexuality has… Read more »
And how do you know she hasn’t experienced some healing already? What if talking about her experiences is part of her healing?
Or do you insist (as Wilson seems to) that Natalie cannot possibly be healed as long as she’s married to a non-Christian who has made art films in the nude? In my mind, that doesn’t follow.
The fact that she cannot let go of her outrage and offense towards the church, indicates that she has not healed.
Natalie’s outrage and offense? Dear, she has shown more compassion and forgiveness than I thought humanly possible.
The fact that she speaks truth does not make her angry and bitter. I’d invite anyone to read her blog and see for themselves. Wanting this made right, wanting Doug to see what he did wrong (SO THAT he doesn’t do it again) is simply the RIGHT thing.
I have gotten to know her in recent months and have been amazed at the gentleness and calm she exhibits.
Natalie is only telling part of what happened and that is a problem.
Doug’s only telling part of what happened too. Isn’t that a problem? Especially since he is in a position of power, spiritually, over those who choose to follow him?
As Voltaire (and later Spiderman) said, “with great power comes great responsibility.”
Doug has repeatedly abused his responsibilities. He should be held accountable.
Exactly. Doug postures as one who should be able to minister to people in need. He also claims to represent the God of the universe. He pontificates far and wide on subjects he knows nothing about. There is no reason anyone should listen to him He doesn’t even have seminary training, much less any training in counseling.
Uncle Ben from Spiderman not batman.
One can heal and still hope that justice is served.
One can also heal and hope that no other children/preteens are further victimized. The best way to do that is to dismantle the system which allows for sexual predators to prey upon naive potential victims.
Sometimes seeing justice served aids in healing.
So, in other words, the only way you’d be convinced of her healing is if she… shut up and went away.
I’m sure that would be very convenient for Douggie, and for every other toxic religious leader out there. They would all just love for their victims to never talk about their experiences again. But times have changed, and these totalitarians can’t control the narrative anymore.
You aren’t winning hearts and minds, cutie.
Are we playing a game where we win hearts and minds and devalue someone’s comment based on their handle?
Or are we trying to discover the truth about what occurred and Wilson’s culpability?
Other pastors have admitted wrongdoing and error. https://www.facebook.com/Leithart/posts/10152973045111467
Why can’t Doug admit that he seriously screwed up? Why does he work so hard to blame the victim for the problems? His pride is problematic.
http://thepilgrimsdigress.com/2015/09/11/pastoral-humility-reflections-on-doug-wilson/
I’m not trying.
I completely disagree. He needs to keep standing up because haters don’t back down. They’re out to prove a point and they won’t stop.
So he doesn’t believe God has his back? So he has to defend himself? Seems legit.
Connie, The Apostle Paul appealed the false accusations against him all the way up to Caesar, God had Paul’s back through that whole long trial.
More Bible reading, less blogging?
That is good advice, if only Doug would take it.
Yeah, he should stand still so you can hit him better!
I agree
“I gave plenty of fair warning, and the point of my linkage was not to incite lust or scorn, or anything like that.” “Too many Christians think that to see such images is “automatically” sinful or corrupting, regardless of intent. But when Phineas took aim at a couple copulating, he was seeing a couple copulate. That did not make Phineas a voyeur, despite what he was seeing. He was not looking at anything for personal gratification — he was taking aim.” Couldn’t this be the argument made for it being ok for Wes making the art? If it wasn’t done… Read more »
I believe Andres Serrano once submerged a crucifix in his own urine and won an award for it. I doubt that was done in an attempt to incite lust or anything, but that does mean I must condone and approve of it under the guise of art?
What goes on here is far worse.
Lots of art in the world. What goes your comment have to do with Dougs argument of this art being ok?
You ought to be moved by it. It was done as a powerful statement on how your lord and savior submerged himself in the refuse of the world to take on all sins that you might be forgiven. It is rough and provocative and utterly effective. And I don’t even believe in jesus.
But by all means, be knee-jerk and prudish about it even though your savior was not.
You are correct that God’s love reaches all the way down, that the moral condition of man is like sewage and that he yearns for what is Good and True.
It even reaches out to those who reject Him based on the behavior of those who call themselves by His name yet are not of Him.
And I don’t even believe in jesus.
If this is still the case then the “art” piece wasn’t that effective.
While you’re free to interpret Serrano’s work as you like, please cite where Serrano himself ascribes any such meaning to it.
IIRC Camille Paglia commented on the matter and the interpretation is similar to RandMan’s
I presume you’re right, and she wouldn’t be the only one with such an… erm, “charitable” interpretation of the work. But as most artists would, Serrano himself mostly refrained from self-interpretation, meanwhile his sparse comments suggested a defense of the Biblical message of Christ’s humiliation on the cross (“submerging himself in the sins of the world”) was hardly his foremost intent, if intended at all. My question therefore remains, why Randman states it as “the” interpretation, instead of his own. Incidentally, I support both Serrano’s and Wes’ right to make whatever “art” they want, though preferably not publicly funded. Christians… Read more »
Wes’ “art” was created to vindicate the holiness of God in the face of those who were engaged in overt rebellion against Him? Care to elaborate how that applies?
I do believe, despite a broad familiarity w abusive clergy, out of control patriarchy, calvinistas and other fundamentalist sects, this is the finest example of upending the narrative i have ever seen. One can’t hope to penetrate such deeply rooted denial and self worship. It’s paat time for zero contact.
Finally, see ya later!
So, Doug won. Good.
I see a theme in many of the outrage artists in the comment section. They seem to be coming from a history of perceived or real abuse. They seem to be dragging their past long with them, and taking aim at Wilson with the assumption that he must be guilty too. Perhaps it is a way of retaliating for what happened to them? Bitterness? In any case, I have difficulty seeing how it is objective.
As a conservative Christian I am horrified at the personal attacks being flung. This is not a conversation about Natalie and Wesleys faith. She has said many times that is not something she will discuss publicly and it also has nothing to do with your role in the abuse case. you have only showed once again that this is all about you being right.
Was that a personal attack or are you just stating the “facts”?
“…you have only showed once again that this is all about you being right.”
It depends. If “being right” also aligns with doing what God has asked us to do, then being right is the only choice.
Does God ask us to write letters to judges in cases of sexual abuse, asking for leniency for the sexual predators?
It’s so weird, because the God I know does NOT encourage such behavior. The God I know loves the downtrodden and afflicted, the victims whose voices are silenced.
Where is this “silence” you speak of?
It took her years to speak out. Do you think she was the only victim? Odds are unlikely. Even worse, who knows how many children Steven Sitler abused? Douglas Wilson spoke out for him, wrote letters to judges for him, and now Steven Sitler cannot be unsupervised around his own infant son because he is sexually aroused by him. Sitler quite likely perpetuated sexual violence against others in church; he was unsupervised for years around children. How long does it take for someone who has experienced sexual trauma to speak up? Most survivors take years to open up and discuss… Read more »
Honestly Doug I think the above comment may be correct.
Want to see art that you will have a lot to say about, watch ‘Blue is the Warmest Color’ a 3 hour French film that explores the love between two women as one learns to be true to herself given the conservative ideology in which she was raised. There are graphic sex scenes yet the viewer gains a deeper understanding of their love, sees the depth and forgets it is a lesbian couple completely. However, in our culture want to deem their love as immoral even though we sense their love, happiness and sadness throughout the film. When religion restricts… Read more »
Al,
Considering that this movie was critically acclaimed, I think you can rest tonight knowing that religion isn’t restricting art.
Yes but I doubt the majority of readers here will watch it due to the controversy surrounding the film. Though watching suh films opens us to other views and opinions making us better overall.
Al, I think a person needs to first have an idea of whether there is such a thing as sexual ethics, and if there is, what a moral evaluation of the subject of lesbianism, in this case, is, before approaching this movie. If I told you there was a movie that promoted racism, but that it really showed the humanity of the slave owners in the antebellum South so that you could really see their human side as slave owners, while I can’t say you shouldn’t see that movie, I’d argue that the movie might be more of a wicked… Read more »
Shouldn’t we still observe the art and learn from it even all we learn is those who created the art are hateful (racist).
Well, yes, maybe. I wouldn’t watch that movie because of the sex scenes.
I have watched documentaries on the subject, not produced from a Christian perspective. However, when I watched, I watched as a Christian, so like all viewers, I brought a certain lens to my viewing (Romans 3:4).
I think you may be saying if a Christian watches this movie, maybe they would come away from it thinking “Maybe I misjudged this issue.”
That is fair and I can understand the sex scenes making people uncomfortable. However, we as Americans have violence or violent images portrayed far more througn war movies, action movies etc… Do you think if we showed love (sex) scenes in a similar manner and becoming more accustomed to lovimg one anothrt that we might be better off as a society? Meaning if we were more open to discuss sex, love and thse matter over war and violence we would be better?
This might have come across as liberal/hippieish but that wasn’t my intent.
I’ve lived a worldly life, prior to becoming a Christian. I wouldn’t be uncomfortable. I wouldn’t watch because I would believe it to be sinful to do so. I could watch a movie that argues for a view or a life style opposite mine, but to watch two women actually engage in a sex act, I would not view that.
In prior times, I would have, though not for the love of art.
I respect that and understand people will not watch due to the nature of the content but do we think those who do watch the movies are evil or lead immoral lives?
Well, I admit, it’s not always black and white. However, if a person already believes that two women having sexual contact with each other is sinful, and in order to even make a “detailed” love scene, the actresses have to actually have sexual contact, to me that would make a strong case that it’s not a moral positive to watch that film. Also, I think if we’re all honest, regardless of the genders involved in those scenes, they do have an effect on the audience. They are powerful, and that is why they are often used
No.
Shouldn’t we still observe the art and learn from it even all we learn is those who created the art are hateful (racist).
No.
This hypothetical movie you envision… is it anything like this very real book?
http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Slavery-As-It-Was/dp/188576717X
Somewhat off topic, I know. But then again, you did bring it up.
I’m not a fan of said book
Glad to hear it.
It is a real movie and nothing like the book.
I wasn’t referring to the movie you mentioned above, Al. I meant the “racist propaganda” one that David posited.
Oh my apologies.
We don’t because we know such things are sin and the effects it has on the people caught in them. I will not watch the move because I have seen this story time and again. You think you are ‘cutting edge’ when you are tired and old. Other examples of the genre are “Boogie Nights” “The Crying Game”. I watched them once and was struck by the depth at the time. However, having grown in Christ, they make me very sad in that they sentimentalize and diminish love. God’s gifts to us are greater than what these movies portray. See,… Read more »
I could argue the same about the teachings you are being fed; that you are well trained yet ignorant. I would only a weak mind can be changed so easily from a movie, however if you find a romantic film sinful because it is about two women’s relationship and the love they make then I don’t wish to be apart of the world you love in. My wife and I can watch such a film together enjoy the story, enjoy the sex scenes and enjoy the film yet still love one another and love our children afterwards. Lastly, if you… Read more »
You could argue it and it would fall as flat as the thud of a comment you just made. Our motives are not ‘anti-curiosity’ or ‘anti-art’ but pro-life, pro-beauty, pro-God; the devil lies and the promise of those films is as empty as the one at Eden. You are selling us a product we have already rejected. Your mistake is to assume we Christians are not intimately familiar with sin; I know I am and I am sure others on the comment board are too. I will not watch movies like that anymore out of a profound sense of gratitude… Read more »
God deems their “love” immoral. He decides, not us.
“Our” culture, in the US (and presumably in France, outside the no-go zones), is cheering it on. There’s nothing “brave” about it at all.
If you are not Christian then those rules do not abid to us. However, it is when the religious view is projected on the rest of us and we try to remove such pieces of art. I respect your beliefs but the same is often not true for the reciprocal.
Al,
I understand what you mean, though I would point out that if the Bible is true, then actually even non-Christians will be held accountable by God for His commands, and not just at the end of history, since we believe God providentially directs history here and now as well.
I suppose we will see when we die and we meet at the pearly gates. My theory is as long as you have lead a good life regardless of the teachings is that you will be blessed in the afterlife. Going a step further, I would argue there is to much time spent determining the meaning of the Bible and theology in general. The core teachings of the Bible or any religion or not difficult to grasp. Your time is better spent leading a good life over arguing about slight differences between Bibles or religions. Yes, from my perspective the… Read more »
I would like that, Al.
Do you not know the Gospel? How it differs from “as long as you lead a good life regardless of the teachings” nonsense you where taught?
Hate is a Christian discipline. It is impossible to love the good without hating evil.
Don’t care if there was a secret courtship, don’t care there was a naked video, don’t care what Natalie believes now or does not believe now. I do care about how this whole thing was mismanaged, and to know that I only need to see how you keep posting and posting and posting and posting instead of apologizing for supporting a rapist of a young girl, apologizing for asking sexualized questions of a young girl with no chaperone present, and for trying to use these videos, etc to hurt and humiliate. Even if you were in the right, which I… Read more »
Ephesians 5:10-12
11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.
Connie, it’s OK to expose fruitless deeds of darkness. As far as not “posting and posting and posting” goes, when will you lead by example?
What do you think you will be reaping from your comments?
Maybe at least show the world that Doug does not speak for Christianity at large-not even close.
That’s what I’m hoping.
G’, the light of Christ Church and Wilson shines before men.
The light of performance “art” shines before men as well.
As does yours and mine. What ever light we shine, good or bad, Jesus is Lord over it.
To re-make Wilson’s point, what “light” is Wes’s “art” shining?
It’s a fair question.
I only see shade from Wilson; no light emanates from him whatsoever. What does it matter what Wes’s art shows?
The problem is Wilson’s complete mishandling of a serious situation involving a sexual predator and a preteen. He continues to obfuscate and deny his role in this problem, rather than taking responsibility, as one would expect from a grown man and purported spiritual leader.
‘Serious, short versions: Sitler, reported by Wilson I believe. Sitler got a life sentence. Idaho let Sitler out at some point. Wilson and Christ Church ministered to Sitler. He is married and has a child. Some don’t like this, but that is not the same as “mishandled”. Wight: His crimes happened between 2002 and 2004 (?). No one (including Wilson) knew about them at the time. Sounds like the Greenfields reported Wight. Wilson told the investigating officer all that he knew at the time, and Wilson reccomended punishment. Please articulate your version of “:complete mishandling of a serious situation”. (S)… Read more »
How is writing a letter to a judge requesting leniency the same as being one who “reccomended [sic] punishment”? Wilson knew of Sitler’s heinous history and married him off to his [Sitler’s] wife. He helped aid their courtship; he acted as though marrying him off would “cure” his pedophilia. He is culpable, no matter how much you’d like him not to be. http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/07/18/the-real-doug-wilson-encouraged-presided-over-the-marriage-of-serial-pedophile/ ETA: I assume if you care enough to malign Natalie’s character that you’ve heard her version of the story. If so, then you know exactly what I mean by a “complete mishandling of a serious situation.” Also,… Read more »
NotSerious, you came in late and your false accusations were overturned previously. Justice was asked for not leniency. The situation was hidden from the church and the elders. Gary Greenfield set up this disaster. Natalie’s character is not maligned but brought to light. There is no mishandling. There was Biblical application to the situation. When the sordid affair recently came to light Natalie took it to the world on the Internet not Christ Church or Wilson. When the elders attempted to resolve this privately, Natalie went to the internet. Stop making false accusations. A large part of the problem is… Read more »
Dave, thanks for taking the time to tell me how wrong ALL my comments are. I see no evidence for your list of BS. “Biblical application to the situation” is not “hid[ing] the situation from the church and the elders.” Taking this to the internet is a form of taking it to the light, because Christ Church and Wilson are not the arbiters of truth in this world. Fact. Show me a false accusation. All you’ve got is a laundry list of nonsense. Were you there? What’s your “actual knowledge”? Did you take that knowledge to the police, or were… Read more »
NotSerious, you are trolling and express neither the truth nor a Christian desire to tell the truth.
You are wrong and your incorrect comments do not help.
Where have I lied? You are pointing fingers at me and calling me names, but show me my factual inconsistencies. “You are wrong” doesn’t cover it; provide evidence.
Declaring me a non-Christian troll whose words cannot be trusted — but failing to examine the truth of those words — is exactly what is discussed above: an ad hominem attack. The truth should be sought after, not negative and meaningless online attacks on character.
NotSerious, your false accusations were discussed and shown false throughout threads over the past several months. If you were serious you would have seen that the rhetoric about asking for leniency was a call for justice. That was in the court records which you have not reviewed but I have reviewed in the Latah County Court House rather than the partial records posted online by those who hate God and Wilson. You are a troll advocating falsehoods. Christians shouldn’t troll and they should check facts before posting online. It is obvious to the most casual observer that you don’t know… Read more »
It’s amazing how you know what I’ve reviewed. Have we met? Have you seen this site? http://sitler.moscowid.net/ I’m not here to fight but to advocate for the victims of Wilson’s cult. Sometimes people see insults and assumptions like you ignorantly throw out above and feel shamed into silence (I say “ignorantly” because you do NOT know the research I’ve done — you lack knowledge yet feel free to wax at length). I have read the nonsense the women of his “kirk” posted. Natalie’s accounts and others are not discounted because of their postings. Her word is not devalued because others… Read more »
“I have read the nonsense the women of his “kirk” posted.” Wow–just. wow.
It’s amazing what brainwashed people can think and write. How does one defend a monster? At least they’re putting their best efforts forth, I suppose.
Sadly, the sum total of their efforts is still that they are working hard to protect a man who served pedophiles at the expense of children. How dreadful that must feel. http://theaquilareport.com/doug-wilsons-failure-to-safeguard-children/
Right on cue “It’s amazing what brainwashed people can think and write”.
Wow, indeed. Anyone who questions the consistency of any of Natalie’s account is guilty of thoughtcrime against the abused. When Natalie is being spoken of, anyone who has a testimony of victimhood should be unquestioned in any detail and any violation of this principle to the smallest degree is evidence not only of misunderstanding the nature of abuse, but of being abusive oneself.
But they can slander and abuse other victims, deny them agency in speaking of their own experience, and call their testimony “nonsense” from beginning to end, and that’s somehow okay
I only see shade from Wilson; no light emanates from him whatsoever.
You cannot be serious, YouCannotBeSerious.
Not really-Wesley wasn’t trying to speak for anyone but himself.
Our “light” is our “light”. Elsewhere here someone posted the conceptual intent of Wes’s “art”.
Wes appeared to be speaking for himself and humanity,
TO humanity.
Oh good grief he is not speaking for humanity. He is making a commentary on humanity.
Again his commentary is his ” light”. What is the quality of that light?
It isn’t relevant.
I know you like to take the fatherly, lecturing, “instructing” role on this board, but it’s not going to fly with me. I am probably older than you, I definitely have more kids than you, I’ve raised more people to adulthood than you. I have probably been a Christian longer and maybe I even spent more time in the CREC camp.
Yes, Mother! ; – )
He is making a commentary on humanity.
By flopping his penis around.on the Internet.
He uses his whole body to make art. All you see is a penis. Hmmmm.
He is a very good Pastor, I am very grateful for his ministry. The Lord has/is putting Wilson to good use.
Lol, the Lord left the building a long time ago.
That was Elvis.
That’s your Lord? OK then…
I am warning Doug so he doesn’t go off a cliff with this nonsense. God knows the motivations of people’s heart, and does it really take a rocket scientist to see what the motivations are re posting this video? Have you considered that perhaps using these tactics to try to harm and embarrass people is a fruitless deed of darkness? It’s not a loving act, that is for sure. I am angry for two reasons-first, people see this and think this represents Jesus, and second, I was raped myself at 17 and never told anyone at the time so I… Read more »
One more thing-either these videos were art, or they were pornography, if the former, sharing them to hurt is ridiculous, if the latter, that makes Doug a pornographer.. perhaps they are both, in which case both points apply.
Connie, the videos were bad art.
Nudity represented in art,
is not the same,
as being nude one’self, as “art”.
This is confusing. How so? Do you get to define what’s art? I’m just curious. I don’t care about art or Wes or nudity. I don’t think the videos have any relevance. This is just an art question.
‘C, as I explained to Randman in a previous post: If I set up an easel and paint Friendship Square in Moscow ID, no one would bother me. If I performed Wes’s “art” in Friendship Square, I’d be arrested for indecent exposure and possibly as a sex offender. There is a diferrence between nudity being represented in visual art, and being nude and calling it “art”. It’s OK for “The David” to be naked in public Florence, it’s not OK for David to be naked in public in Florence. As I mentioned to others above, what sort of “Light” does… Read more »
Interesting. I need to ponder this. I don’t agree. But I’m pondering. And Wes is an outspoken atheist I believe. I’m not concerned with his light shining. I’m more concerned with a loud blogging pastor. Higher standard and all. ;)
I love it when people reference statements they’ve previously made. Always the sign of a skilled debater and writer.
Let’s ask what Wes’s art could possibly have to do with events that occurred years ago. Let’s ask what Doug gains by defaming the characters of others. Let’s ask what light Doug shines when he hides the evil of others.
Serious, Wilson compelled Sitler to write out a complete confession of every abuse act he committed. No hiding of evil there by Wilson.
Wilson also directed Wight to take full responsibility for Wight’s crimes, I don’t think the Greenfields are saying Wight did not. What did Wilson “hide” re: these two guys?
Also, don’t know that I am a skilled debater, I answered the same question about “art” close to the same way today.
The “light” WIlson shines is relevant today.
The “light” Wes’s shines is relevant today.
The “light” you and I shine is relevant today.
“No hiding of evil there by Wilson.” Yet this is the man who has stated himself (then written against his own words) that “I cover up sins for a living”: https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/the-high-mountain-air-of-public-calumny.html Wrote out a full confession, but also wrote to the judge for leniency, gave his “expert” opinion that Sitler would not reoffend (though Wilson is not trained in psychology), and sat on Sitler’s side during the trial. That’s the light he shines & and also what he covers: he hides sins for money (“a living”). His own words. Some people can behave in a nefarious fashion and impact few… Read more »
S’, you need to read the record more closely. I believe Wilson wrote that Sitler’s sentence should be “measured and apropriate”. Sitler got a life sentence. That is not lenient. (Idaho only incarcerated him for 7 (?) years. Wilson did not parole him, Idaho did.) Sounds like Sitler is chaparoned at Christ Church, so it sounds like Sitler is kept from the nurseries. Sitler’s arrest was aparently very public and published so I think everyone knew about him, not “very few”. I do question your objective connection to the actual facts. Can you? I can question my own, and do.… Read more »
Perhaps you should read the record more closely. Wilson asked for “measured and limited civil penalties” for Sitler, the serial child molester. He also wrote the sentencing judge in Sitler’s case, describing him as “most responsive” and “completely honest.” He spoke up for him; he wrote to court officials and claimed that a pedophile was now redeemed by Christ, basically. Once Sitler was out, Wilson found him a bride! He married Katie to Sitler, somehow imagining that pedophilia could be cured by marriage. http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/07/18/the-real-doug-wilson-encouraged-presided-over-the-marriage-of-serial-pedophile/ I can and do have an objective connection to the actual facts, unclouded by an obsessive… Read more »
Nice to see you supporting only half of your accusations. Sitler was allowed in the nurseries, eh? Good luck trying to find evidence for your baseless accusations. You care so much about justice that you’re willing to testify falsehood, the product of your imagination? Some justice.
Douglas Wilson supported a pedophile, Steven Sitler, by advocating for Sitler’s character to the judge. Douglas Wilson supported a pedophile by marrying him to an elder’s daughter. Douglas Wilson supported a pedophile by having his church endorse this courtship, and he further supported this pedophile, Steven Sitler, by officiating at the wedding.
Who is testifying here? This is an internet forum, not a courthouse.
Justice was unfairly swayed by Douglas Wilson’s support of pedophiles and men who target prepubescent girls. Douglas Wilson supported pedophiles by writing letters to judges arguing for their “good character.”
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/09/04/pedophile-supported-by-doug-wilson-molests-a-baby-christians-there-is-no-excuse-this-must-stop/
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/07/18/the-real-doug-wilson-encouraged-presided-over-the-marriage-of-serial-pedophile/
Whoa! He’s got wartburgwatch links! Everybody back up!
Truly. Evidence which does not come from Wilson himself MUST be discarded as angry lies.
You’re right any evidence that comes from the Internet is inherently trustworthy.
What is a wartburghwatch?
Hi Timothy. It is a website that “dissects Christian trends” with, I think, most of its emphasis on Calvinist or Reformed Christianity. I don’t think you would like it.
There’s more spin at that website than at a professional billiards match. It reads like the SPLC website if you’re famaliar with that.
I’d like us to draw and quarter pedophiles in the public square, but what people don’t seem to understand is that we are going to have to execute a whole lot of people, both men and women, and many of them reside outside of Christianity in the secular world. My point being,even after reading that website and the accusations being made, what else was Wilson supposed to have done? Seriously, you turn them over to the system for trial and you do your best to integrate them back into society wen they get out, paying special attention to keeping kids… Read more »
Indeed. If there is any scandal, it belongs to the civic magistrate, not Wilson.
He didn’t sentence either case. Why no outrage at the court’s actions? If this is a real scandal, why the lack of proportion?
“dissect” like in “deconstruction” dissect? As in ‘critical theory’ dissect?
I think so. I am so glad that my college English program happened before deconstructionism happened.
If I understand correctly, deconstruction is a technique of Critical Theorist.
God, I hate them.
I actually like some of the questions deconstructionism asks – but since the foundation of most of modern English literary theory is contorted Marxism, you are likely very happy indeed that you missed all that. :)
That sounds like the start of a good joke. :)
Jesus loved the pedophile. Jesus continues to love the pedophile. Jesus wants the pedophile to not be a pedophile via a sanctifying relationship with Him.
Doug want’s that too–that, in your book, makes Doug a bad man.
If Jesus’ love were all it took for the pedophile to not be a pedophile, we would have a different world. Psychology is also important in this world, not just theology.
Sanctification changes our hearts and minds.
And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you.
And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a
heart of flesh.
It works, even on pedophiles and progressives.
Truly, take a moment to study the psychology of pedophiles.
Let us pray that you are not in any position of power in your church, if that is what you think about serial predators.
For all his “repentance,” Sitler wound up sinning again very soon after his release. Even though he read the Bible, got married, and hung out with Wilson — can you believe it?
No thanks, I look at the spirit and soul of men. A recent study of the articles submitted to top psychology journals showed that ~2/3 where fraudulent; i.e. it is prudent to not trust ‘psychology’ given their proven history of blatant lies.
I will trust the Lord.
Trust the Lord, but use the brain He gave you. Douglas Wilson protected and defended two known sex offenders: Jamin Wright and Steven Sitler. He spoke for both in court, wrote letters for both to the court, and even officiated at Steven Sitler’s wedding.
BOTH times this “man of God” was very wrong that “free grace” had immediately and forever changed the hearts of these men, and they abused again quickly.
This is veering into critical thinking territory, so hang on here…but is it possible that Douglas Wilson lacks discernment? Is it possible that Douglas Wilson made mistakes?
I have found Doug Wilson’s demeanor and explanations convincing; You can use the toolbar in the upper right to search for them.
I’ve already read his self-aggrandizing and blame-shifting words repeatedly, and I know how to use a search bar.
Let’s just hope that Doug doesn’t find a pedophile to court your daughter or granddaughter.
I have read your accusations and seen them destroyed for about a month now. Keep digging. I expect you will join JP/Sather on the ash-heap of failed SJW’s ‘arguments’ soon enough.
JP/Ryan was still speaking truth, even if under an alias. The fact that everyone leaps upon posting under an alias as a fact which defiles his earlier claims completely illustrates the problems faced by New St. Andrews and its students: an inability to think critically and debate logically. Doug’s deletions of JP’s comments indicate a vulnerability to criticism and a consistent need for total control. Like JP/Ryan stated, Doug needs to admit wrongdoing and make amends for his mistakes, which are numerous and include human victims. So do you think I’m another pastor in disguise? Or do you think my… Read more »
I think one of the reasons that people have jumped on this is that, when Ryan used to be a regular here, he continually harangued us for not having the guts to use our real names. He mentioned this constantly, and he questioned the intrinsic value of opinions put forth by those who choose to be anonymous. He can’t expect to suddenly discover the benefits of anonymity without encountering some blowback from the people he berated about the very same thing. I don’t know that I would call what he did dishonest–as long as he didn’t outright deny being Ryan.… Read more »
Regarding anonymity/pseudonyms, Doxing and Swatting are real things. They are tools used by the “Progressive Left/Progressive Right’ to isolate and attack people on the Internet who do not toe the party line. It is wise to avoid these distractions and attacks and by avoiding these distractions we can discuss freely and honestly without fear.
When I see calls to drop the anonymity, I see attempts to dox/swat by default. The Internet is the wild-wild-west and a man’s got to know his limitations.
His backstory was unknown to me, which does add an interesting layer to his online persona/s. But the content of his messages was still valid and worth consideration. Since Doug does read the blog’s comments, it’s also possible that Ryan wanted his ideas to be held for their own merit, rather than immediately dismissed due to their history. I can’t truly speak for his motivations, though. I very much agreed with his comments about Doug showing humility and reconsidering his actions. I strongly dislike Doug’s attacks on the victim; they are unseemly and inappropriate, especially for his position. A shame… Read more »
Like the video, it speaks to the character of the accusers. JP was an accuser.
It is an odd drama. Regardless of who is right or wrong in this interminable business, neither Doug nor Ryan seems to me to have maintained in their discourse the degree of charity and propriety I tend to expect of the clergy.
Distressing, is it not?
I missed all the drama. Just caught the big explosion last night. Not sure what his game was. Male feminazi? Or was he actually white knighting a woman who appears to be happily married? Or was he just your ordinary garden variety mangina? In any case, good riddance.
As Ryan Sather I thought his views where wrong, but honestly held and I wished him good-will; I trusted the Lord to give me understanding and forbearance on my part was abundantly called for. . His behavior as JP was that of a troll and completely discredited the character of the man. I still disagree with him on issues and now I cannot trust him on matters of faith due to his behavior. Doug’s deletions of JP’s comments indicate a vulnerability to criticism and a consistent need for total control. Your Pop-psychology means nothing to me and your arguments mean… Read more »
You should have stated this earlier: ” I am not familiar with the details of the case.” If you don’t know the details and choose not to avail yourself of the information online, you should reconsider posting like someone with expert knowledge of the situation.
I have no doubt that one day truth will out, hallelujah! Grace will rescue the vulnerable and the oppressed. I wonder who Jesus would identify as vulnerable and oppressed: the victim of childhood sexual abuse or the pastor, Douglas Wilson, who harangued and attacked the victim and her family years afterward?
Legal matters bore me, the social dynamics/behavior and ‘spirit’ of the matter interest me. I will comment as I see fit.
As you see fit, but also as ignorant. Reading and studying, not judging by mien, can immensely improve the intellect.
The body of Christ is made of people with different gifts/talents/abilities/interests. My intellectual pursuits are not along the lines of ‘the law’ or history. I have tutored pupils who’s talents are in those fields and I have profound respect for them and their joy in their fields. There is no shame in ‘just keeping abreast of matters’ and not being a polymath I must specialize while relying on others to keep me up-to-speed on other matters. What is of paramount importance is the character of the people I rely on for information. Bethyada on scripture is very good and an… Read more »
Your reply does nothing to assuage the fears that you are uninformed and gleefully so. If one is to assert one’s righteousness online, one should be informed of the matter. Gaining information is not just looking at someone’s mien; it involves gathering information from varied sources. It’s not a matter of being a polymath; it involves knowing something about the subject before you speak publicly on a matter. Have you not been concerned with why other Christians like Boz Tchividjian, Ryan Sather, and Andrew Sandlin would speak out against Doug in this matter? Why not read what they have to… Read more »
Thank you for pointing out my grammatical mistake; expect more of them. Your reply does nothing to assuage the fears that you are uninformed and gleefully so. If one is to assert one’s righteousness online, I am a sinner. My righteousness is imputed to me by God through Jesus. I have seen these sorts of lynch-mobs before. Perhaps this one is different. Based on what I see here, I have no reason to believe it is; it behaves exactly like all the others. Ryan Sather has discredited himself with his behavior here; I do not know who Boz Tchividjian is… Read more »
All this to say that you still don’t know all the facts in the case and refuse to research it, but like a few commenters and Doug. Also, you don’t like any source except Doug, whose character you find reputable. You like Doug’s articles, but don’t even know the people he alludes to in the articles (like Boz Tchividijian or Andrew Sandlin, referenced above) and won’t do research to find out. But you still know enough to speak out at length against a victim you don’t know, whose situation you refuse to research. Enjoy your peace here. The fruit of… Read more »
Look at Dave’s discourse with you. Discuss it with him and others and I will judge based on the merits I see here. That approach is far more productive for all involved.
I do not live in Moscow, I do not attend Doug’s church. I do not know Natalie or her husband etc. I have seen Natalie’s blog and was not impressed in the slightest.
I see a bloviating herd out for blood and wonder what the heck is going on, but beyond that I am not a participant.
You have quite substantial responses for one who is not a participant. Your opinion about the merits of her blog are just that, an opinion, especially since you continue to refuse to do more research. A shame you feel you have to pass it to Dave since you can’t discuss the specifics of the case on your own, due to willful ignorance.
Yes, it is my opinion. if facts warrant it, it will change. A shame you feel you have to pass it to Dave since you can’t discuss the specifics of the case on your own, due to willful ignorance. St. Paul’s metaphor of the body and its members is instructive here. Since God made me the little doohickey that hangs down in the back of our mouths, my role is (properly) limited by my nature and interests. Since it is one body, the parts effect the whole and when/if the gall-bladder acts up, I will know and gently (or perhaps… Read more »