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 »
Your opinion seems quite unaffected by facts.
It’s okay that you willfully know nothing about this matter. God knows the truth, and the truth will out. It’s clearly a painful process, but one day all will see the light. One day Douglas Wilson will have to answer to a higher power about why he worked so hard to help pedophiles and serial sex offenders, and not the lambs of his church. Praise God.
FYI: the word you were looking for is “uvula,” the doohicky at the back of the throat.
YCBS, I disagree with Doug’s support of the Sitler marriage. In terms of who might court or date one of my daughters, I do not believe I’d ever allow a like aged man, or a slightly older man, to live with us, due to the obvious concerns. That goes doubly if I found out that one of my daughters and the young man had romantic feelings of any kind for one another. In that scenario, I would also not, considering myself clever, rig an in house courtship protocol for my daughter. All of this, even if Doug came over and… Read more »
This is a VERY big “if”: ” if what Doug has described is true.”
YCBS, Why do you not have the same trepidation regarding the assertions of the other side? I can admit that pastors, and churches, are capable of hiding their sin, attacking victims of abuse, and rejecting correction? Are you willing to accept that there are people who claim to be victims of abuse but they are not? Or that, more likely in this case, there are people who really are victims of abuse, but in the process of moving further away from a Christian lifestyle, turn against those who tried to help them? Most of the people on this site, myself… Read more »
Remember, David, this is what YCBS said regarding the WomenFreed site. “I have read the nonsense the women of his “kirk” posted.” and then accused them of being brainwashed, so there clearly seems to be no desire to truly hear any side that does not fit the “Doug is evil” category.
Are you willing to accept that there are some people who claim to be persecuted, but in actuality are being held accountable for actions from years earlier? Sometimes victims take years to speak out; that appears to be the case in the Greenfield matter. Why do you think Boz Tchividjian, Ryan Sather, and Andrew Sandlin are speaking out against Doug’s actions? There is an ocean of evidence showing that Doug behaved improperly, but NONE of that is to be accepted? Are we to believe that the only acceptable evidence is that which Doug provides, when he is the one who… Read more »
YCBS, In terms of the first paragraph, yes absolutely. What I asked of you was worded to be a sword that cuts in both directions. People who either know and like, or know and dislike or suspect, either side will tend to defend that side they are already, before the fact, favorably disposed to. People who feel like they have benefited from Doug, even people who have never met him, will be less likely upfront to believe these accusations against him, and likewise people that had an earlier problem with Doug’s teachings or his attitude will be more likely to… Read more »
hey now have an opportunity to deal with someone they see as an enemy
without having to call it that. It’s akin to a craven politician who is
concerned “for the children”.
This is the dynamic I have seen play out in other spheres. Well stated.
Have you never repented of a sin only to find yourself committing it again? Or are the only sins you commit those you stubbornly refuse to repent of?
If you have children, would you hire a repentant pedophile to babysit them unsupervised? If so, how soon after his last offense? the very next day, provided he repented? How would you determine he was repentant? How quickly do you think sanctification works and how many children’s wellbeing are you willing to sacrifice to test your theory?
Have you never repented of a sin only to find yourself committing it again?
Absolutely–fornication.
How quickly do you think sanctification works
It depends on the person and the Lord.
FYI: “wants” is the word you need here; no apostrophe is necessary and is actually grammatically incorrect.
Thank you. I got it right in one and rong in the other.
myr·i·ad, adjective, 1.countless or extremely great in number. Well ‘Serious, backing up a bit, it sounds like “myriad” = 2, for you. It looks like Sitler got the maximum Criminal penalty, life in prison. “measured and limited civil penalties” sounds like it refers to cash damages Sitler might be ordered to pay. Does anyone know if Sitler paid out civil damages? Sitler recieved the maximum criminal penalty. There is a difference between “civil” and “criminal”, ‘Serious. “I can and do see the harm and hurt he has allowed to flourish within his community, hiding the sins of certain members of… Read more »
Wilson himself allowed, approved, and advocated for Sitler to marry a member of his congregation. She then had a child, an infant who has been put at risk by his father’s sexual predilections. So Wilson has allowed, approved, and advocated for this young woman’s life and that of her son to be put at risk by Sitler and his problems. Wilson would not have officiated the wedding if it occurred without his blessing, right? We have two documented cases (Wright and Sitler), another anonymous case of a border grooming and assaulting a young woman in the house — and those… Read more »
Go peddle your lies somewhere else.
The truth isn’t really that scary. I’m not lying, but if you need to think so to feel better about yourself, it’s understandable. Children behave in the same fashion.
‘Serious, now you are lying, when you say “Wilson kept sexual abusers protected”. He did not. He recommended that they be convicted and punished, and they were. I don’t know that the State professionals involved with Sitler believe that the Mrs. and the child are at risk. I understand that you do. That’s your opinion. You can speak about Mrs. Sitler and the child, but you do not speak for them. ‘Serious, it is your expressed opinions, which you treat as “fact”, that are blind. If there are “other cases”, expose them. Your opinions are closer to slander than fact.… Read more »
At no point did I state that I spoke for the Sitler family, but I did point out that Douglas Wilson protected pedophiles by officiating at Silter’s wedding. Douglas Wilson protected pedophiles by finding a wife for a known sex offender. Douglas Wilson protected pedophiles by marrying Sitler to the daughter of an elder. He helped and enabled that marriage, and when the marriage produced a child, the infant was at risk. This article shows that the state officials DO consider Sitler an ongoing, dangerous risk to his infant son: http://www.correctionsone.com/corrections/articles/9369232-Idaho-sex-offender-allowed-to-return-home-with-child/ It’s not an opinion. What is posted above is… Read more »
“So Wilson has allowed, approved, and advocated for this young woman’s life and that of her son to be put at risk by Sitler and his problems.” Here you are speaking about the Sitlers and for the idea that they are at risk. I was aware of the prosecutor’s position that you posted. The “State professionals” I was referring to were the associated mental health professionals. With Sitler, what you are calling “protection” I am calling a community rehabilitation. Also, you keep saying “pedophiles”, Sitler is just one guy. Much in life is not without some risk, I wish the… Read more »
You stated, “I don’t know that the State professionals involved with Sitler believe that the Mrs. and the child are at risk,” but claim to have read the link. The article clearly states that Sitler has become sexually aroused by his infant son and needs a chaperon, AND that his wife has (sadly) failed in this regard. With more training, somehow, Idaho’s legal system will allow her to serve as chaperon — with her own husband and son. “Community rehabilitation” isn’t going so well here. One could hope for the best, but one would also hope for some evidence to… Read more »
‘Serious, the following two Blog and Mablog links describe the chronology of Sitler events and also the motivations of Christ Church in dealing with Sitler: https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/an-open-letter-from-christ-church-on-steven-sitler.html https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/from-where-you-are.html There is a linked areticle about repeat offences and how certain programs reduce those rates. The article you link speaks of the views of the prosecutor. My recollection is of a link where Sitler’s “Drs.”, involved with his parole, did not have the same risk assesment as the prosecutor. I thought it was in the links above, but I did not see it. I do think the open letter re: Sitler from Christ… Read more »
Ah, gotcha! Douglas Wilson has proclaimed not once, but TWICE that everything he did was above board and amazing. We should certainly take HIS word on it, because he has NEVER behaved improperly or showed poor judgment in situations involving sexual predators.
Very clear, not at all loyal thinking there. Quite logical. Doug said, therefore it must be true. Do not listen to any dissenting voices, as clearly they are misinformed by not worshiping at Doug’s altar.
‘Serious, we are talking back and fourth, hence I am listening to you. You are not hearing me, or certain facts that you do not want to acknowledge.
What do you dispute about WIlson’s chronology?
Why is your word better than Wilson’s?
Especially when he has some direct knowledge of events, when you and I are not directly involved?
‘Serious said it “therefore it must be true”?
I have been providing other links to other, objective outside sources. I have not gone to Wilson’s blog, where he is always right, to try to assert his view of things. What do you dispute about the *outside sources of information*? Why do you believe Wilson so completely and so thoroughly? Why can’t you acknowledge other articles and sources? Why are you speaking for Wilson? His bloviating blog does a fine job for him; you needn’t repeat him. I don’t find him a credible source, given his history of giving sexual predators a pass (excuse me, offering them “free grace,”… Read more »
Have been to some of these other sites. Some of these folks have a personal axe to grind with Wilson, much of what these folks write is opinion. presuming to be fact, same as you. The Aquila report is Rachel Miller, another axe grinder. She is simply not an objective source, despite you insistence that she is. She embarrassed herself pretty badly with a goofy “lexical analysis” of Wilson’s writing, an “analysis that was easily refuted. ‘Serious: “I have not gone to Wilson’s blog, where he is always right, to try to assert his view of things.” You do understand… Read more »
Dude. Your reading comprehension failures: “‘Serious: “I have not gone to Wilson’s blog, where he is always right, to try to assert his view of things.” You do understand of course, that you are writing on Wilson’s blog “Blog and Mablog”, but you say you don’t go to his blog.” I don’t go to his blog to find evidence about him. Obviously I’m here, but I don’t cite him or his blog as a source. It’s his blog; it’s his perspective. He’s biased. That I don’t try to assert his view of things is still valid. You do, and you… Read more »
‘Serious, you continue to think that you are, but you are not.
You don’t write what you actually mean but blame me for:
“reading comprehension failures”
Wilson’s critics on other sites are not objective, just because they are critics.
Your own bias is a big factor in your “different perspective”.
Wilson has first person experience of the issues in question, many of his critics do not. Hearsay and personal opinion are a big part of their persective and yours. That you cite other sources does not mean that they are correct. Dude! ; – )
MY bias is a bigger problem than Wilson’s own personal bias? That is rich.
Have you found a single other source outside of Wilson’s church that supports him?
I can find plenty of far more objective sites with much more information. But please, continue to post Wilson’s own words. Clearly YOU have no bias either.
“MY bias is a bigger problem than Wilson’s own personal bias? That is rich.”
And true.
Psuedo ‘Serious, by your own admission, you won’t even read Wilson’s record of these issues. How “objective” is that?
The Bayly Blog Supports Wilson.
The sites you list are not objective and other than Natalie’s,have little or no first person information.
These sites are opinion sites. I do interact with some of these other sites.
They overreach in their accusation and intent.
I have read Wilson’s own blog — I’m clearly here, remember? Not trying to pretend like I don’t visit the blog — but I do not find him anywhere near objective. He has issues of personal bias and incredible hubris.
The other sites have researched the case through a variety of means and arrived at their own conclusions. I prefer a well-rounded and thoroughly documented presentation of an issue before deciding my opinion of the matter. Taking only Doug’s word would be quite foolhardy.
Why shouldn’t we take his word? He’s even got documentation to back things up. Not just his words, but from other people as well. And his documentation dates back too when things transpired. So not sure what the Gotcha is for.
Why shouldn’t we take Natalie’s word? This post came from that discussion, and she also has documentation.
Other, outside, objective sources can be beneficial at times like this. Douglas Wilson cannot admit wrongdoing nor humble himself. Examine this: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/scandal-in-moscow/
Or this: http://theaquilareport.com/doug-wilsons-failure-to-safeguard-children/
There are copious reports of Wilson’s inappropriate choices and behaviors. He has acted horrifically regarding Jamin Wright and Steven Sitler…and who knows who else, given that he “covers up sins for a living”?
Those are just a few reasons to look beyond Wilson’s words and try to find more evidence from more objective sources.
Doug has the more consistent and complete timeline. He has documentation of what happened when and who said what, and his has also been the most current. His position hasn’t changed. As for the two links you provided they must be tossed out as hearsay, though if they use source documents those could be included. But existing documentation backs up Doug. We can construct timelines from Doug’s documents that are supported or verified by what the legal system documents say as well. In the end we see what can be proved, and we see that Doug’s is consistent. Just because… Read more »
There is a lot of evidence there that you discount for your own reasons.
Why did God bring this story down upon Christ Church? Why would God rage at Douglas Wilson in such a fashion?
I’m just one internet commenter; this story is far bigger than me and my opinion. Even better, one day Douglas Wilson will stand before God and have to answer why he protected and defended pedophiles and serial sexual offenders in his church. I look forward to God’s judgment.
I’m sorry you don’t like Doug. But then you don’t have too. Evidence must be weighed as it isn’t all equal. Evidence from first parties has the most weight, but blog posts by themselves are nothing more than water cooler conversations until they are backed up.
You remind me of Job’s accusers who told him to just up and confess so he could die.
LIke I said you don’t have to like Doug, or the way the justice system prevailed. I’m not telling you how to feel.
Evidence is being weighed as we speak. It has nothing to do with Job. However, we could certainly wonder why Doug is being held accountable now? What does God want him and us to learn here? What is God pointing out to anyone who can think?
You can ignore the evidence I’ve presented in favor of Doug’s stories, but truth will out.
I’m sorry that you can’t see beyond Doug’s rhetoric to find the truth, but perhaps one day you shall. I’ll keep you in my prayers when I ask God that the truth prevail.
You cannot be serious.
Good work.
At no point did I state that I spoke for the Sitler family. That state officials consider Sitler’s infant son at risk is NOT an opinion. http://www.correctionsone.com/corrections/articles/9369232-Idaho-sex-offender-allowed-to-return-home-with-child/ <<– This is FACTUAL EVIDENCE. The child cannot be left unsupervised with his own father, Steven Sitler, the pedophile supported by Douglas Wilson. Douglas Wilson protected and defended the pedophile by marrying him to the daughter of an elder. He OFFICIATED at the wedding of a known sex offender. Douglas Wilson took part in creating a situation where an infant would be at risk for sexual assault by his own father by protecting… Read more »
From the link, a bit of surrounding but-nekkid, writhing, in-your-face context: (you might want to cover your eyes) In this last round of poo-throwing, quite a sinister construction was placed on a comment I made a number of years ago — “I am a pastor. I cover up sin for a living.” But some of the disgruntled people who are out there yelling about this are some of the very people I would refuse to tell stories on. And despite their current animus, they don’t need to worry about it; this is not a veiled threat. I would rather die… Read more »
“I would rather die than use information gleaned in the course of pastoral ministry against them in the course of a public fight” yet he feels no shame in sharing Natalie’s past experiences?
He stated it, and he lacks the balls to stand by it.
Doug’s letter to the judge doesn’t ask for “leniency,” and the words he used won’t mean that no matter how many times you say it.
Are you suggesting that an ostensibly repentant offender should never have the benefit of pastoral counsel and spiritual support as he is going through his prosecution? Other people get to have pastors help them walk through the difficulties of such a situation, but some sinners get hung out to dry?
No matter how many times you say otherwise, he still wrote a letter to the judge affirming the character of the offender. That will never change. He sat on the side of the defendant; he did not support the abused teenager. That will never change. Pastoral counsel should be available to all, but most especially the victim. He chose to ignore her, and never placed Wright on any kind of church discipline. Repentant sinners need to show true repentance. Even Wilson now separates himself from Wright, an abusive and manipulative man. Wilson’s vision was clouded and his judgment and actions… Read more »
If you paint a male model in Friendship Square, you’ll also get in trouble. Wesley DIDN’T perform his art on the public square. And yes, it was available, but it was forced on no one. Big difference, dude.
“There is a diferrence between nudity being represented in visual art,and being nude and calling it “art”.”
Big difference indeed dudette. ; – )
Uh. What’s the difference?
Paint a nude? Art.
Take a picture of a nude?
Take a video of a nude?
Where do you draw the line? It may not be to your taste, it may not even be what YOU consider “art,” but you’re probably aware that the discussion of what exactly art is has not exactly been settled by unanimous vote just yet.
To be clear, I’m assuming that you, like me, have seen the “art” in question and are perfectly well aware that it is not pornographic.
“The David” is a nude, sculptural work of art. It is displayed in public.
The man, whoever it was, who was the model for “The David”, would simply be a naked man, not a work of art, if he had displayed himself naked in public.
Wes’s “art” is much more like a man displaying himself naked in public, then an artistic stone representation of a naked man, displayed in public.
See the difference? (said Tirian Lanister) ; – )
Quoting Tyrion Lannister—if you watch Game of Thrones, I have no idea how you can be protesting nudity :-P (unless there’s some way of which I’m unaware that you can watch a less excessive version of the show)
After consideralbe “research” Game of Thrones is chock full of excessive, gratuitous nudity, not needed to tell the story. Don’t know about the books. Sounds like Joseph has reached the same conclusion?
I’ve never watched the show, nor read the books for that matter! I do know it is excessive however. The Tyrion reference made me curious however!
I don’t have cable TV, so I don’t see GOT in season broadcast. There are snipets on youtube, often with people’s privates blurred out. I have however, seen portions of the show with nothing blurred out.
I don’t see the difference. He’s not in public. It’s a video of him alone in a room.
We have both seen Wes’s perfromance “art” video.
It was “public” before we saw it, it is still “public” now, as much as any obscure art is.
The concpet is:
“The David” live, is indisputibly art.
Wes’s performance “art” live, might still be “art” but would also commonly be illegal public nudity.
As Sarah anne said:
“If you paint a male model in Friendship Square, you’ll also get in trouble.”
Didn’t you just say David live wouldn’t work either?
Internet isn’t the same as a public square. It’s different.
I think “The David” works as art anywhere. The David is a stone representation of a naked man.
Wes’s is a real naked man, real naked men don’t always “work” as art.
The internet is a public media, that we typically view privately.
Perhaps the short version of what I am saying is that exhibiting one’s self naked, has an element of odd, even inapropriate exhibitionism, even when obscure, and even when called “art” by some.
I’m really confused now. To Sarah you said David as a live man doesn’t work as art in public. Then you said to me the David live is indisputably art.
Oy. My head is spinning.
I don’t think we can in good conscious say the Internet is the same as a town square.
And one mans trash is another’s art. Tomato tomato.
“The David” is the stone sculpture.
David is a real, live man.
I think I said the same thing both times.
Stone naked man = art
real naked man = real naked man (not usually art)
Time for sleep now.
Try this. Examples of brutalist architecture and Baroque architecture are both buildings. Both are subjects of serious criticism, scholarly works, have advocates and detractors. Both say something about he condition of the human soul of the men who built them; who they were is transmitted over time to people who encounter them. The Baroque elevates, the brutalist oppresses–like the homo-sadist who founded the school. What the commentators here are doing is insisting that your (quit rational) discomfort at working and ‘living’ in the brutalist space with a preference for the Baroque space is irrational and ‘phobic’ and that you need… Read more »
I think “The David” works as art anywhere.
The people who added a stone fig leaf to the statue would disagree.
He does not have one now, or in 1990 when I saw him. When was the leaf added and taken off?
Victorian era, IIRC?
http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/d/davids-fig-leaf/
Looks like the fig leaf was done for a plaster cast of the statue, given to Queen Victoria
History is interesting huh? Sounds like the original “David’s ” non-kosher, sculpted in stone plumbing has remained an uncensored part of that artistic statement. Thanks for looking that up!????????
There is not an important artist alive who has not extensively worked with nudes. And used them in their work. This is an utterly uneducated position to take and dismissible Adad. Give it up.
Randi, I don’t have a problem with nude art per se, as long as it’s actually art. “The David” is a nude male sculpture. It is also monumental, exquisitly crafted, makes a sophisticated statement and is considered art by reasonable people. (a result of their altruistic group ethics) Wes’s performance “art”, is Wes exhibiting himself and desparately trying to call it “art”. His video of himself naked is not monumental, there is no craft to it, it does not speak cearly by it’s self and it is not considered art by reasonable people. (a result of their altruistic group ethics)… Read more »
Art thankfully does not have to meet some sort of classical criteria or it would wither on the vine. That is ridiculous. Narrow minded ideologues have always tried to censor art based on their priggish values. Stravinsky’s now classic ‘The Rite of Spring’ caused a riot. Louis Armstrong was initially considered devil’s music. Michelangelo’s ‘The Last Judgement’ had loin cloths added by people who think like you. Policeman had to guard Manet’s ‘Olympia’at it’s opening. And on and on and on. Whether Wes’ art is good art is not the question. Whether it IS art is not IN question. The… Read more »
Randi, you are not getting or not admitting what I actually think and have said.
Guess I’ll have to come up with a more artful expression! ; – )
Sorry, neither art-ignorance willful or no, or the worthlessness of ‘being a reasonable people’ with regard to art is hard to get. Wes’ art is not monumental, and he may an important artist at this juncture. But that of course is irrelevant. He still makes art. It is hardly shocking, not pornographic or lewd in any way. The guy at my old subway stop in NYC used to make tiny beautiful 9/11 panoramas with matchbooks. They were moving and disposable. He was neither monumental nor that crafty. But the idea was moving. it was moving art. You are the one… Read more »
“There is not an important artist alive who has not extensively worked with nudes.” Rand man The question here is “worked as a nude” not so much “with nudes”. I think “flea” of the Red Hot Chilli Peppers plays shows in the nude sometimes. His music is “art”, some would say his nudity is gratuitous. The nudity in Wes’s work is meant to shock. It has the same shock value as a naked guy running down the street, which is not art. What value would Wes’s “work” have if he was clothed? It would not be shocking would it? Keith… Read more »
Okay Adad. That is dumb, and muddled, and anti-expression, and purposefully willfully ignorant of art and the artistic process. As if the self hasn’t always been first and foremost a major component of art, whether in self-portrait, composition, intellectual content, POV etc. Don’t be a prude. And more importantly stop shilling for an awful pastor, a leader of a flock, who would reach out and twist every knob he can however irrelevant to tar victim of a sexual predator in order to pull his own can out of trouble. Go visit Natalie’s twitter feed and read her post there linking… Read more »
ar·ti·fice, noun, clever or cunning devices or expedients, especially as used to trick or deceive others. “artifice and outright fakery” Well, as “art imitates life” I suppose “artifice imitates art”. (That last one was my own! Pretty artful huh??) Anyway, I think someone posted Wes’s “explanation” of his work. His naked human form was his “expression” that the human being is an animal, correct? I guess you and he are on the same page in that regard. Finally Randi, we disagree about the legitimacy and propriety of Wes’s “work”, I see it as artifice more than art. This does not… Read more »
Remember that Mapplethorpe pervert? He did the crucifix in a jar of urine and called it “art.” Another of his famous projects was a photo of a man with his fist and upper forearm inserted into another man’s rectum. Now, consider two Christian & Missionary Alliance* pastors viewing this photo at a museum. One says to the other, “Is that art?” And the other says, “No; Art’s left handed.”
*Or Evangelical Free. There’s not a dime’s worth of difference if you ask me.
I must have missed this one earlier, but nice use of the word ‘dudette.’ Its really hard to fit that into a conversation these days, and yet you seem to have pulled it off. Bravo sir.
We should all be glad that the 1970’s are gone. But still, they had their moments!???? thanks!
It’s called “linking”. It’s the electronic equivalent of standing in the public square and pointing at something.
If it’s pornography, then the people who made and published it are pornographers, not someone who points at it, and says “um, there’s pornography over there”.
I wonder how this argument would work for a person who shares child pornography. You can’t arrest me! I didn’t do anything wrong. Just made everyone aware there was child porn here!
Nice argument, if you can get it. “Anyone who notices and points out what I do is the guilty one, not me for actually doing it.”
I agree! That is what Wilson is doing.
Since this post is in reference to the videos let us really look at the overall issue. If the problems in our life our so small that we need to discuss if a naked man’s body is art or pornography we have it pretty well. Better question, why does America have such a hard time with nudity?
Better question, why does America have such a hard time with nudity?
It’s undignified.
Who would Doug be hurting by linking to the videos?
What does he gain by doing so? It’s a mean spirited move, not a Christian action.
“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.”
This is what he hopes to gain.
either these videos were art, or they were pornography,
You have such a limiting view! Why couldn’t they be both? /sarc
Connie, Take a look here and reconsider your opinion. God does know the motivations of people’s heart’s we can only know their fruit.
http://www.womenfreed.com/2015/11/we-speak.html
There is a theme of personal experience of abuse in a number of the members of the outrage brigade in the comment section here. I wonder if they are retaliating for what has happened to them in the past. It could be bitterness. In any case, it doesn’t appear to help them with objectivity.
Imputing motives….well, in my case, happily I am not. But my experience certainly helps me understand the dynamics of abuse. As far as Doug and his prolonged and prolific attempts to make victims look bad, etc…..well, he like the rest of us answer to a God who has no favorites. Being a pastor, Doug knows or should know he will be judged more strictly. Better to repent now and be humbled before men than to wait till God does it for him. I don’t think Doug is totally awful but on this topic and these kinds of situations he kinda… Read more »
How does Doug expose sins? He covers them up for a living, doing so proudly, boasting about it when he can: https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/a-different-kind-of-deplorable-word.html Even better, he compares pedophilia to abortion, because apples and oranges. But clearly women who’ve had abortions are FAR worse than those who sexually abuse living, breathing children with the knowledge of their clergy. But to return to exposing darkness, how many people in his “kirk” do you think knew of the pedophiles in their midst? How much of their darkness did Doug expose? How many children were inadvertently exposed to sexual predators…because those men had prayed with… Read more »
TF;DR (too feminazi; didn’t read)
And I drive, and vote, too! Smh…
So much for free speech, Doug! But if you deleted it, you saw it, and that was my goal. May the Holy Spirit give you the grace to climb out of this pit you’re digging. I say that sincerely.
A true man of Gid would end it all. NOW
I have been guilty of typos myself, but yours was pretty good! ; -)
You knew what I meant. Typing on a IPad can be awkward. Grace is needed to get through the typos. You do know what grace is don’t you?
Actually, on this topic, I think I have demonstrated it. ; – )
I do think it is time for this to end. Time in prayer would be better spent. Christ minded men and women of good will need to redirect this unedifying conversation.
LL”, I have called for “PRAYER BREAKS” in this dialogue myself, earlier this year. The result, at least for me, is that I remember to pray about this situation more. As unpleasent (sp?) as this dialogue is for some, Jesus is really Lord over it, even including any participants who may be wrong. I hope you and I talk more, let’s hope on lighter topics at some point.; – ) 2 Corinthians 10:4-6 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments… Read more »
Well maybe we should lead the way in Christian unity. There definitely needs to be some Christian leadership in this dirty business
Why are you hiding?
For the same reason most all of the commenters here,
have nom de blogs?
(boo!)
Eh, I thought you were done here? Couldn’t contain the rage I guess.
Couldn’t help myself. Overdosed on turkey and pumpkin pie.
Why are you hiding?
There we go again… Its the ” You’re guilty, so why not just confess it all now and make everyone feel better…” stance.
If everyone would just put aside their disagreements and agree with me, it would be a better world.
Really folks, there needs to be some real Christian leadership here. There has got to be some people following this blog who have the gift of discernment , the gift of exhortation, the gift of mercy and the gift of pastor. All of the rest of the gifts Let’s hear from you
How about the gift of encouragement? Seriously, I believe this has been an edifying discussion that has helped to bring clarity to murky waters.
A comment section is not a good place to look for real christian leadership.
Sadly, I must agree you are right..
Let the games continue
We see a tug of different leaders leading to different places. I see team SJW saying “go this way” I see Doug Wilson saying “Jesus is our Way” Because thoughtful people agree with Doug and Doug’s scriptural reasoning is rock-solid, this eats into the SJW power base–its narrative and its only weapon–the power to shame. American Christianity (501-c3 inc.) has a narrative and a character that has run its course. It is a lie and anti-thetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The character of its practitioners is, in very significant ways, anti-christian. It seeks accomadation with this world and… Read more »
Maria’s comment seems to have disappeared. Odd that. It wasn’t offensive. Oh well.
Doug has gotten us to change the convo off of him by showing us some videos. What’s all of this about again? Art? Attacking someone’s character because you can’t justify your own actions?
Just remember — it’s NOT an ad hominem attack, as he warns about above. He’s just calling into question the character of the witness. TOTALLY different. Doesn’t have to do with attacking the person AT ALL — just their character. SO different.
He admits to the ad hominem and argues that it doesn’t invalidate his argument/position
I think we can safely say we disagree with his argument of this not invalidating his argument.
Isn’t that useing his ad hominem as an ad hominem against him?
It’s like double ad hominems all the way accross the web.
But I don’t think my using an ad hominem invalidates my argument. ;)
Do you understand that his claims are completely illogical and therefore invalid, despite his arguments otherwise?
Doug has made several claims and although this ad hominem post is questionable not all his claims are illogical.
Life’s full of complexity and nuance, isn’t it? Sheesh, you fundamentalists …
One is a logical fallacy and the other isn’t. Obviously.
Which one? The known logical fallacy of the ad hominem is just that — a logical fallacy. Doug talking circles around his logical fallacy does not suddenly make it logical.
If one is a logical fallacy, and the other isn’t, and the ad hominem is a logical fallacy, then, naturally, calling the witness’ character into question isn’t.
This is basic stuff, Serious, if you had any grounding in logic you should have been able to reason this out for yourself.
The basic stuff is that an ad hominem attack is exactly that: an ad hominem attack. There is no “other” here.
Seriously, ARwen, if you had any grounding in logic you should have been able to reason this out for yourself.
Defending oneself from the charges of totalitolerance priestess-hood and speaking the Gospel boldly in the face of the mob. A similar scenario happens quite a bit in Scripture.
St. Stephen, St. Paul, Christ. Christ told us to expect this and here it is.
“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 »
From wes’ drscription of the videos what he was artfuly taking aim at was human decency, which could say something about his character.
I’m gonna need a quote from him saying that. Direct me to it? Link it?
What’s wrong with taking aim at our concept of human decency? He’s an atheist so whose definition of human decency are you assuming he’s taking aim at?
Your argument doesn’t invalidate Dougs explanation of how this art is ok to be shared.
I don’t have the direct link I’m going off of a description of the videos that was posted here somewhere. According to that wes’ work deals with the ideas that humans are inherently agressive and violent animals. He probably wouldn’t say he was taking aim at anything, that was my infering what he could be taking aim at. I think exploring the ideas is the propor terminology.
Great! Thanks for clearing that up.
Each time Doug posts, I feel less confidence in him and greater sympathy with Natalie. I have never seen a Christian clergyman respond with such vitriol to a person who, whatever her faults may be, has been deeply wounded and who dares speak publicly about her experience. Doug writes as if he believes that once we know “the truth” about Natalie, every good Christian will recoil in horror. I never once supposed that Natalie currently holds all the values and beliefs with which she was raised; it would be remarkable if she had. But, she could have joined the Manson… Read more »
Natalie doesn’t live in Portland. Doug just wants to connect her to Portland because he wants to link her to everything liberal he can think of. So-gay marriage, Portland, transgender issues, etc. She’s never said anything about any of this.
Oh my goodness, I hadn’t realized that Portland was a hotbed of depravity. What would he think about Los Angeles?
Huh. Right there on Natalie’s Facebook bio, it says: “Current Location: Portland, Oregon”. How you can claim otherwise in the Age of Google is beyond me.
https://www.facebook.com/NatalieGreenfieldSoul/info/?tab=page_info
It’s old. I don’t need google, thanks.
You know her personally, then?
Doug knows very well she isn’t in Portland.
Anyway, since you’re so handy with google, go ahead to the actual music page and see where her performances are being advertised. Not a big secret where she is. Doug knows it full well. But Portland is so much more scandalous and all. Cause we all know every one is gay and walks around with glitter beards. Right.
Jillybean, thank you. So very well said. You consistently show true thoughtfulness and love in the christian values you espouse. It is so easy to see judgmental hatred disguised as ‘love’ from most here, and I am never doubt where you are coming from. It is inspiring to this atheist. I also have been reading this post with my jaw on the floor. What a mess. How terribly desperate and what an awful leader. Natalie was a child who was targeted and used by a predatory adult. Look at the language, disdain and disgust he (Wilson) has for her, thinly… Read more »
Rand, you are completely incorrect.
Excellent summary.
Jilly, I completely understand your concerns. And, being human, we are sorely tempted to judge everyone’s motives, which clouds our ability to line up and judge the words and deeds. It seems to me that God is putting them all through the wringer, and, through the wonders of a digital age, we get to see them respond in their weakness under enormous pressure. My prayer is not that any one party will come through as having been blameless, but that they will come through and be made clean. David and Bathsheba, her husband, the woman at the well, her kids,… Read more »
Jillybean, hopefully Christians won’t recoil in horror but will understand this situation and will pray for Natalie”s healing and a return to Christ. There aren’t bazookas and flame throwers being used. Instead the details are brought to light and it causes pain to all involved and those reading about it. Gary Greenfield hid the entire situation from the elders and the church until after Natalie was abused. Wilson found out after the fact and is taking heat because he is an easy target and not because of his actions. The elders attempted to reconcile the situation in private but Natalie… Read more »
I’m not sure that this kind of venom is entirely unheard of among ministers who claim the name of Christ. But I do find it remarkably like the invective produced by Scientology. That’s why I keep making the comparison. Having read the drivel put out by David Miscavige, it’s hard for me not to see the similarities. Wilson’s a bit craftier and has a better vocabulary, but at root his response to his critics is really no different. And like Miscavige, I suspect that at heart, he knows he’s losing the battle. As I like to say about Scientology: Desperate… Read more »
Typical feminazi doubletalk. Your smoke and mirrors act isn’t fooling anybody.
“Each time Doug posts, I feel less confidence in him and greater sympathy with Natalie.”
Each time Natalie posts, I have more confidence with Pastor Wilson and lesser sympathy with her. As a former “Natalie”, praise God, I see much of the manipulation that the abused can use to excuse their own sin. I wish my church at the time loved me enough to try restore me to Christ then.
I think we can’t agree about this but I am thankful that your story has had a happy ending. God bless.
Jillybean, my ‘confidence path’ mirror’s MrsMac; the behavior of the accusers is the reason.
We don’t always agree but I always like you, Timothy.
Until this post I had heard parts of the story, all from Pastor Wilson’s retelling at various times or from the links he posted, and was still withholding judgement because I wasn’t sure if it was fair to give Pastor Wilson that much responsibility for the sins that occurred. But after this post (I hadn’t seen the previous post that spurred it), I’m not the least undecided. Pastor Wilson has chosen to engage in character assassination of a sexual abuse victim in order to deflect from his own culpability. There is nothing relevant about the videos, and there is nothing… Read more »
Rose, you’ve just done the same thing. Why “toss in” one particular part of this girls history? Why call her a sexual abuse victim? Is that her only identity or is it a useful way to heighten the horror in favour of your perceptions? Why call it an assisination? Why not call it at expose on all fronts? Why guess his motives? Another way for us who are one the outside to view this is to simply take all parties at their words and deeds, past and present, then line up their words and deeds and see where we land.… Read more »
A pastor writing an expose. Bad taste thus the outrage.
What if a Prophet or Apostle did the exposing, pointed at the Asherah pole or named names instead of a Pastor?
What if a Jesus did it? What if a monkey did it? Is Doug a prophet or apostle?
Try and stay on track, HM. You think it’s outrageous that a pastor should do it. I am asking you, if you think it’s ok if Jeremiah or Amos or Paul the Apostle do it.
David, the entire issue at hand is how pastors and churches appropriately love both the perpetrators and victims of sexual abuse. If Natalie isn’t a sexual abuse victim, then she wouldn’t be being talked about at all.
Unlike her husband’s art videos or age, which could have been omitted from the discussion with absolutely no effect on the merits of what anyone else has done or said.
This post puts things in terms of Doug vs Natalie which is entierly the wrong way to look at the situation. I understand this is messy and complicated and moreso due to sludging through it on the internet, but if this degenerates into Doug says vs Natalie says everyone involved will be worse off than they started.
An illustration: Crowd: A hurt dog! Help! Doug: Don’t pay attention to that dog. I ran her over. It’s ok though. Here’s why. When she was a puppy I helped her cross this very road. She thanked me profusely for my help. Today I was just driving along minding my own business when I see her here again. Years later. She’s trying to cross this road again! Of course I ran her over. You shouldn’t be appalled at me running her over. She’s a SINNER (gasp! Horror!) and I warned her this would happen! Crowd: oh my gosh. This is… Read more »
Is not an accurate illustration of this situation.
The sun is purple. We can all make statements. Gonna need a little more.
For your analogy to work, the puppy would need to be injured by an older, exploitative dog, who was enabled by the puppy’s father to do so. Then an angry mob decides it’s the veterinary doctor’s fault.
The road is symbolic of the sexual abuse. Natalie is crossing back over that road dealing with the issues as an adult. Wilson is pointing back to her thanks of his help when a puppy. Running her over with a personal attack.
But the argument against Doug is that he didn’t help the puppy.
I don’t think anyone is denying he counseled her. And in the analogy it is Doug is saying he helped her.
From everything I’ve read about the situation (and yes I’ve read both sides), it sounds like David’s analogy is more apt.
The analogy is more about how Doug is handling things now. I don’t think Doug molested Natalie. But he is running her over now.
Here’s how the emerging story looks to me: Act I: Girl gets molested. Church deals with the situation. Girl (I’m thinking at the time it all went public, she was 17 or 18, right?) thinks the church did a fine job. Act II: Girl is interested in dating/marrying an unbeliever. Church does what any good church should do in the situation and tells her “NO!” When she goes ahead with the relationship, she is put under church discipline. Once again, what any good church ought to do in the situation. She leaves the church. Act III: Years later after having… Read more »
I hold pastors to a higher standard. I have no problem with him sharing his stance. But what he’s done is an attack. Backed into a corner or no. The analogy works for what he’s done here. Blog. After blog after blog.
See Act IV above. Doug *has* held himself up to a higher standard, and I think that’s what’s so irritating to people. He’s not a passive target, he doesn’t do ‘nice’. He does do fair, compassion, just. He’s proven himself to be hard *FOR* his people, and this includes Natalie too. Not hard on his people.
He who has ears to hear, and a mind to think.
Alphabet, the whole affair over the past few months has nothing to do with Greenfields, Sitlers or anyone else. A noisy, nosy individual precipitated the current uproar to attack Wilson and destroy Christ Church. Those of us who live in Moscow know what is going on, however, you and the others are just ignorant pawns being used in the current attack. The defense is for Christ not Wilson. Every time one of these outside offenses is launched the result is that more fence sitters are drawn to church and more of those who hate God read scripture in vain attempts… Read more »
They are denying that his counsel was helpful.
Ok. Doug is saying he helped. Read the analogy and my above comment again. He’s counsel being helpful or not is not the debate or subject at hand.
Crossing the road is a bad illustration for dealing with sexual abuse. And I don’t think running a dog over accuratly illustrates Dougs current actions.
Chris, As you and I know, every analogy has limits and every analogy “breaks down” at some point when pressed too far. So, since we are on a puppy motif, let me point out that when Doug warned Natalie not to marry an unbeliever, he was trying to help her. However, sometimes, abused animals mistake an extended hand of help as a threat, and they snap. In this case, after being suspended from the Lord’s Table, it appears the puppy actually bit that extended hand. If Doug’s assertions are true, and Natalie’s accusations against him occurred after church discipline, then… Read more »
What appears to me to have happened (I can’t say with any certenty that it’s what did happen) is that Doug worked to prevent Jamin from going to trial in order to protect Natalie. She saw this as Doug trying to protect Jamin and became disalusioned with the church.
That’s probably an easy conclusion for her when Doug sits on Jamins side of the courtroom and writes letters for him.
HM,
The letter was not a letter of recommendation. The letter simply asked for justice, but justice measured, justice dispassionate, and not the kind of frenzied belligerence you and I observe on the internet.
Why does Doug feel he should intervene in the legal system?
Your definition of intervening seems quite broad. He knew all the parties involved, intimately, and his input might be helpful to the process.
How is it broad!? Was it not an intervention of some sort for Doug to put himself in the legal process?
It’s broad because Doug sent the judge a letter, which the judge was not obligated to even read. The implication is that the letter somehow swayed the judges decision as the strongest force in the case. Yet the letter was not exculpatory for Jaimin in any way shape or form. I read the letter several weeks ago and it did not paint the criminal as anything other than a criminal. And so what keeps happening with regard to this letter is that the subject of the letter keeps being brought back up and the discussion of the letter is divorced… Read more »
An intervention is still an intervention. Still sticking your nose in business even if the judge doesn’t have to read it….. The intention of intervention is still there. How is this confusing? And if you think it’s fine for him to write the letter why is it so wrong to call it intervening? What exactly would you call it?
Its not confusing its that you’re trying to draw a connotation from the word intervention that really isn’t called for based upon a reasoned review of what the letter actually said and the course of events in this whole process. Your drawing the connotation that somehow Doug was involved in manipulating the court and you simply don’t have evidence for that. Yes someone who was involved as a pastor in a church who was now involved as one of many actors in a legal proceeding sent a letter to a judge which in no manner attempted to make light of… Read more »
Why are you intervening here when you don’t know these people, you don’t live in Moscow and you don’t go to church here?
Quite correct, Doug has stated that he wanted Jamin punished.
HM, our court room doesn’t have lots of seats and you have to sit where there is an open seat. Saying loyality demands you sit on a particular side means you haven’t been to many well attended trials.
The letter was a call for justice not anothing else.
I am amazed how you can type old falsehoods when you weren’t there.
I had thought the same thing.
One of Doug’s assertions was that Natalie’s accusations against Doug did not surface until after Natalie was placed under church discipline for marrying a non-believer. For a moment, put aside whether anyone here believes that it is right or wrong to marry an unbeliever. If, IF, this assertion by Doug is true, do you not find that the least bit suspicious? I am not asking you if you believe the order of events changes the matter of fact that Natalie was abused – no one is denying that she was abused. However, during the abuse, my understanding is that she… Read more »
@ HM I think this means that your analogy has failed.
I have a question to the entire group who despises Doug – in your view, what blame, if any, does Natalie’s father have in all of this? I never hear any of Doug’s critics mention him? Do you all dispute Doug’s claim that Gary was aware of a relationship developing between his young daughter and a much older man, a relationship that was not platonic? What about the assertion that, unbeknownst to any of the leaders at Christ Church, a courtship or dating relationship of some kind, had been allowed and overseen by Gary? Why would not every negative thing… Read more »
Yes. Because Natalie disputes it. She was there.
I dispute that, too. Because Natalie does. Right here: http://natalierose-livewithpassion.blogspot.jp/2015/10/where-light-belongs.html
What about the letters that Natalie wrote to Doug and about her father? What about the multiple witnesses who are not the target of the internet who gainsay her Internet postings and would seem to have nothing to gain or lose in all of this? Do you understand the silliness of simply taking the tact whatever Natalie posts on the internet must be true? Linking to her blog or this blog as if that settles the issue is not going to provide any kind of truthful resolution to the problem that this woman faced. All you’ve done is simply cite… Read more »
How many people leaving Christ Church and saying there is a serious issue with Doug does it take for people to listen? How many witnesses do you need to see there is something wrong with this man? Do these hurt people mean nothing because Doug denies?
HM No, but again the problem with this argument is that first of all unless you live in Moscow, which I don’t, you and I have no idea why these people are leaving his church. We can certainly listen to what they claim and maybe their accusations are true. There seem to be a lot of people who attend that church who are blessed by it as well as a number of people who seem to benefit from other aspects of his ministry such as books movies etc. Maybe the man is still a bully or maybe he’s not. People… Read more »
Got big news flash HM,
Christ Church is growing not shrinking.
People coming from all over the country and world to be a part of this vibrant and dynamic community.
We don’t have those letters. We only have the snippets that Wilson has deigned to share with us. There’s no context to anything that he’s quoted.
And I find Natalie more credible than Wilson because she’s not a misogynistic, backwards-thinking creep who peddles revisionist history as scholarship. In my mind, that puts her miles ahead of him.
One letter posted in full on line, not by Doug, is the letter to the judge
I will keep you in mind when I am in need of someone to provide a poor analogy that (and this is probably a necessary redundancy) misses the point.
There is no ‘cow’ in Moscow; the correct pronunciation is “Peyton Place”.
It’s spelled Ramond Luxury Yaht. It’s pronounced throughtwobbler Mangrove.
I love those references! They never get old.
“SJW’s Always Lie” contains ideas for this type of fight that you should familiarize yourself with.
http://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Taking-Thought/dp/9527065682/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1448716376&sr=1-1&keywords=sjws+always+lie
EDIT: gfkdzdds, keep in mind that the lesson Pastor Wilson is teaching us is how to behave when (not if, when) this sort of commie mob attacks us. He is showing us how to fight back. That is something the Lord expects of us.
Reading through some of the comments I was really appalled. Wasn’t there
a time when you could tell the Christians from the rest of the world by
their fruits? You would think that those videos would shut up every
mouth, the exceptions being the case when people will start praising God
for this faithful pastor. But if people don’t have eyes to see and ears
to hear, nothing in this world will convince them. They will continue
to defend the indefensible.
They will continue to defend the indefensible.
It will get worse. They hate the good for being the good.
Not just that, but when given bread they will go off on the baker about how he is insulting the stones.
The very things that sounded so ‘High Cathedral’ in the Gospels when I was young have transpired here in the last several months. Its eye watering.
Yes, you are right! And they hate when truth and grace come together.
We are richly blessed in that the Lord has chosen us for these times. We have a great cloud of witnesses about us. It is a time of prayer and great harvest.
I believe the Lord is using this organized feminazi attack on Pastor Wilson to prepare him for bigger and much more important battles. We are at war with not only feminazi pipsqueaks and sickos who videotape their junk and put it on the internet, but also principalities and powers involved in much bigger things, like outright deception by the media and government. America is doomed if no one steps up to expose the Sandy Hook deception and other demonic media manipulation, and I believe God may be using these trials to prepare Pastor Wilson to do just that.
It’s hard to tell if Doug is a Christian. Much less a pastor. You would think him sharing those videos to attack Natalie would make people shut up. But you all can’t see and continue to defend the indefensible.
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. Mr. Wilson, I am a Christian. You don’t get to speak for me. You won’t decide for me what I can or cannot support. I will decide that for myself. For me, Wes’ videos change nothing. Artistically speaking, I don’t much care for them. But they have nothing to do with Natalie’s credibility. They are not abusive… Read more »
Feminazi ^
You have learned well! And you look just as respectful as Doug. I would gladly be called a feminazi by Doug. To be his friend would be dangerous for my soul.
You know how it is in cults — the devotees end up taking on the personality of their guru.
And no, I wouldn’t want to be “L. Ron” Wilson’s friend either.
Oh so true. His “wordsmithy” writing style, the always trying to control the conversation, the regulating people into camps so they don’t have to deal with them, the vermin infested beards…. That is manhood personified in the CREC…..
I’m a man. Can I still be called a feminist — let alone a “feminazi”?
yes
I think that actually means you are a traitor to your sex.
Heh, heh. That accusation is so pathetic, it’s almost adorable.
In fact, I think the only way you top that, would be to accuse me of being a “race traitor”, since I would gladly consider marrying someone who isn’t white. That would be only slightly more pathetic, though.
What is that saying about flung stones and yelping dogs, again…?
Feminists say that women who embrace anti-feminist principles are traitors to their sex (although they usually phrase it as “brainwashed, Stepford-wife, with internalized misogyny”), so that means that men who embrace anti-masculine principles (i.e. feminist though) must therefore be traitor to their sex.
Hey man,I don’t make the rules, I just follow them to their logical conclusion. ^_^
This, “I am a Christian. …I will decide that for myself”, is what is known as an oxymoron. When Doug uses the word, “Christian”, I suspect he is talking about people who believe the Bible and desire to submit their minds to it.
So… that means I have to accept everything that Doug says, and all the ways he interprets the Bible, and all his judgments about Natalie and Wes’ videos and everything else in the universe?
Wilson is not the Holy Spirit, David. (Gah! What a revolting thought…) And even if he calls himself a Christian, he doesn’t speak for me — especially not in this post — and won’t make up my mind for me.
Now there’s a leap. No, I don’t feel that pressure and I wouldn’t advocate anyone feel pressure to submit themselves to Doug’s entire view of the universe. Then again, I haven’t heard anyone here suggesting it.
Years ago when my wife was doing her MFA she did a series of nude charcoal drawing of yours truly that were exhibited in public gallery. Did this put in in “completely different world” then “conservative Christians”?
I don’t think people here are objecting to nudity.
But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another. Galatians 5:15
Don’t bother telling me, tell that to “L. Ron” Wilson. He’s the one touting a blog with “theology that bites back”.
ETA: Maybe he should rephrase it to “theology that comes back to bite me in the backside”.
Something that comes through loud and clear to me is that this is about trying to destroy and dismantle a church and take down a pastor, not about trying to heal from sexual abuse or bringing peace to victims. The destructive spirit and chip on people’s shoulders in this thread is unmistakable. It’s a desire for revenge over a perceived offense. The problem is, nothing will satisfy that, it is insatiable. These crimes were reported, they were convicted, they were punished. What else can you do? Draw and quarter them in the public square? Line up everyone in the church… Read more »
What is so sad is that Doug Wilson claims to be a pastor…and yet he continues nearly every week (sometimes daily) to attack Natalie (and now her husband and soon her children). If Doug was a pastor he would have covered her back from day one up to this day.That has NEVER happened. By the way you do not see John Piper coming out for DW publicly? Whats up with that? There is something so dark and heinous that would make a pastor do this. DW stop! Resign from your church and get help. Please!
” If Doug was a pastor he would have covered her back from day one up to this day.That has NEVER happened.”
Are you saying you were there from the start and have been with Natalie every step of the way and was privy to all conversions (both sides) she had with Pastor Wilson?
This article about John Piper, CJ Mahaney might be helpful for @douglaswils to also step down from his pastor/elder role at CC. as did Piper and Mahaney! Can you do it Doug–I’d respect you for doing it? Its time to take a leave and get your life together: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/julyweb-only/sexmoneypride.html
James 4
11 Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?
Your pastor has committed sander throughout this entire process seems your scripture quote fits well.
What were the slanders?
His entire post regarding the performance videos are slander. Made false statements about a personas character whoch could have been damaging to ampersons reputation.
“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… Read more »
No, he said ‘sander’ not ‘slander’. Yeesh get the facts right.
Uh-oh! What’s the punishment for “sander”? Not being allowed to buy consonants? ; – )
I mean we all know Wilson is a big jerk, but do we really need to drag power tools into this?
C’mon, you know the drill…
Somehow I don’t think Doug’s agenda is to impress you. Thanks for the link, though, I shall read it.
Anyone? I’m still waiting to hear how Dougs logic only applies to him. “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… Read more »
Hi ABC, I’ll have a crack at your logic. First, Doug was discussing those who see it, not those who make it. He was justifying the actions of Phineas, not the actions of the immoral couple. You are trying to use Doug’s analogy to argue in favour of the fornicators.
Second, “if and perhaps”. You admit you don’t know nude thrusty guy’s motives and you have no idea what, apart from the ceiling, he was taking aim at.
So, to your question, no.
Doug was discussing how it was justifiable for him to share it and not a sin for him to do so.
In a prior comment, I brought up “Boogie Nights” . Doug’s comment was that if a professed Christian had directed/acted in/ wrote the movie, then we would have good reason to doubt his judgement and character. Doug would be correct then and he is correct now.
Wes isn’t a professed Christian. And what of Dougs argument of intent?
He was speaking of Natalie and her judgement and character in marrying Wes, The Boogie Nights Boogie Boy
Natalie didn’t share them. And is she a professed Christian? Natalie isn’t in the videos.
And again. What of his intent argument?
What does it say about Wilsons character that he shared them?
You can’t make Wilson clean for sharing them and not Wes.
If a video surfaced of Doug Wilson twerking, you guys would be all over it as proof of Doug’s licentiousness and you would be right! On the one hand we would have “Pastor Doug” and the other we would have “Twerking Doug”.
Twerking Doug discredits Pastor Doug. Even somebody as rudimentary as you are should understand this. right?
Now, let Pastor Doug’s wife defend Twerking Doug. Wouldn’t you call b.s.? Of course you would.
Natalie’s judgement and character is the issue. The videos put her judgement and character in a new light as they do yours.
As a pastor Doug is held to a higher standard. And again. Intent. Doing says intent is important here in the sharing of such videos.
He did it to shed light on Natalie’s character.
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 to inform some Christians of her character…
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.
I applaud him on shining light into the darkness.
NotSerious and others: You are ignorant and both link to lies and post lies. I am not posting to change your mind but to illustrate to the other readers how Satin works and how people are drawn into false lies against Christians. The Web sites you linked to are full of lies that started years ago and unfortunately are continued online to lead ignorant individuals astray. The Web sites do not post positive information from the court files but only damaging ones. The judge supports the actions taken. Why don’t all of you who know so much get after him… Read more »
Gary didn’t cause his daughters abuse. What a horrible thing to say.
I don’t hate God. That’s why I’m willing to waste time hoping someone might read things here and know Doug is not the way to Jesus.
ABC, he set the process up. That is causal to her abuse. That is fact and cannot be avoided. It was horrible but it is also fact. It is a sad thing to say. Gary hid his actions from the elders and the others at church. We can’t change that and it is wrong to push that blame toward Wilson and the elders after the fact. Wisdom cries out to those passing by but fools continue and don’t stop to learn. Posting lies and not knowing the facts but making judgements based on false information is wrong and not wise.… Read more »
You are doing the same to us! Plank. Eye.
That is false. Readers, this is an old ploy to discredit facts when there is no substance to the opposition thoughts. Those who are playing into the Moscow God hater’s game are fools and do not care to hear the truth. They want their narrative to replace what really happened. Those of us living in Moscow have lived through these false accusations for years. Those who want to rewrite the Bible to suit current ungodly trends have failed time and time again. Each time more fence sitters are drawn to Christ. The accusers say that they love God, yet they… Read more »
Pray for the truth to be told and acknowledged.
Pray for the humility to apologize and be forgiven.
Pray for the families deeply impacted by Douglas Wilson’s protection of pedophiles.
Pray for the light of truth to shine through.
Pray for the victims of molestation and rape.
Pray that those who defend the rapists and the pedophiles discover the truth and find the light.
I HATE it when “Satin” sneaks in and fills the internet with lies about my most favoritest preacher.
Shame on you for accusing Natalie’s father of being the cause of the abuse. The cause was the ABUSER, Jamin Wright. The accomplice was the man who spoke for him, Douglas Wilson, the protector of pedophiles, who helped get the abuser into the 13 year old girl’s home.
You should truly feel shame, but I suspect your hubris prevents that. Oddly, that seems common amongst the followers of Douglas Wilson.
Yeah, I hate it when “Satin” does that, too. And don’t forget his henchmen, Velour and Polly Esther.
They are ALL in league with the Denim!
Your replies are immaterial to the matter at hand. You two are cut from the same cloth, trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes.
Wow, you are really good at this! I thought the first one was just a fluke, but apparently not. Consider me entertained (simple mind and all). :)
Thanks, but take heart, a mind not instinctively tuned to this type of punnery is hardly “simple”. Consider yourself blessed. I just inherited my father’s genes (along with his shirts and jackets).
Besides, I figure to lighten things up a bit, this type of blog can use the occasional injection of humor alongside the polemics and vitriol.
NotSerious, you are a troll and yes, Gary Greenfield set up his daughter. Wight did the deed, but Gary set it up. This was done without he elders or the church members knowing what he did until after the fact.
Shifting blame to Wilson years later is just wrong. Stop your lies.
Shifting blame to Gary years later is just wrong. Stop your lies.
He didn’t shift blame to Gary — years later , Gary was admonished for his negligence at the time this was all unfolding. It seems that Natalie is the one shifting blame-years later.
Did you read what he wrote above? That was absolutely choosing to shift blame to Gary to deflect from Doug. Despicable and shameful. The fault ultimately lies with the abuser. But within the larger realms of the church and the legal justice system, Doug chose to continue to support the predator, the one who took advantage of a 13 year old girl. Doug wrote letters to the judge to support the character of the predator, sat with the predator in court, and continued to counsel him. Doug turned his back on the victim, ignored her in her time of need,… Read more »
If a pastor encouraged someone to do something like take in a boarder and that boarder ended up hurting the family in some way is that pastor now responsible in some way because he set it up? I’m not saying Doug did that here or any other place. Just a hypothetical.
Spoken like a true Scientologist. Albeit with different lingo.
Seems like you know a lot more about Scientology than you do about Christianity.
Nope, I’m a Christian. But I know enough about both to understand that someone can’t act like a Scientologist and glorify Jesus.
Ryan S. you are right on!! My prayer is that Doug Wilson will do what CJ Mahaney & John Piper did when they needed to leave their pastoral role for a time of healing, renewal and examination. These words of C.J. Mahaney would be the way for DW to announce that he is taking a leave of absence: “I have various expressions of pride, unentreatability, deceit, sinful judgment and hypocrisy” therefore I have submitted my intent to take a leave of absence to get help and counsel.” Doug it is truly time for you to step down and get help.… Read more »
Where do you people get this crap? Does Haters Inc. send out a memo every morning?
Maybe YOU should take a leave of absence. Along with the horse you rode in on.
Wait JP is Ryan? Ryan is JP? Finkle is Einhorn? Cats and Dogs living together it’s mass hysteria!
Seriously though Sathers, what an utterly lame thing to do. I guess it’s not like anyone took you seriously in the first place.
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… Read more »
Pastor Wilson,
An IP address is unique to an internet connection. According to the Disqus documentation here:
https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466238-moderating-your-community
This number is viewable. If JP is Ryan then that number is the tell.
cordially,
It is possible (but highly unlikely) that he could have used a dfiferent connection to post as JP.
very true. Phone or computer or tablet with distinct connection points or the same computer from different DHCP connections.
You must really want to make sure people don’t listen to Ryan. Out of the how many comments here he’s the one you respond to…. A little too close to the truth? Knows a bit too much?
“He knows too much, we gotta whack ‘im”
Or he pushed his trolling too far.
Doug’s end game is to make it embarrassing for anyone with a name/ministry to be involved. He’s not trying prove them wrong–just embarrass them so that they’ll decide it’s not worth it. He thinks Boz, the Sathers, Sandlin are all in it for themselves like he is. He’s trying to appeal to their self-interest. Cute.
Yes, letting people comment critically at length, but calling them (and others who post on different channels) out when they don’t deal in facts is pretty self-interested….
If not dealing in facts is what gets Doug to respond I would think he would be responding to a bit more than one or two posts in a 500+ comment thread. According to Doug and other people responding those of us who disagree are not dealing in facts. Yet he hasn’t responded to me or any others from what I can see. JP/Ryan didn’t say anything outlandishly different from the majority of people here. Which seems to make it clear that Doug has some point in calling him out specifically. Btw, HM is not my real name. And the… Read more »
Sarah Anne thinks that embarrassment is Doug’s MO, and some sort of self-interested response (as opposed to principled?) is what he is looking for from his opponents. My point is that Doug’s responses, when he responds, are generally confined to facts and counters to specific assertions. That hardly seems calculated to embarrass in any other fashion, except in the sense anyone should be embarrassed when confronted with incorrect assertions or conclusions. Further, to your point, Doug doesn’t respond to critics in general for being critics. When he responds, it tends to be for the reasons above. The fact that he… Read more »
Yes! That is my counter argument. Out of the 500+ comments here there wasn’t any other “specific assertions” to which he replied. And JP wasn’t a poignant commentor. There is a very long detailed post that is not hateful by someone else on the other blog with 700+ comments that Doug has not responded to. I think it says a lot about Doug that he would respond to JP and no one else. It seems Doug let his anger get the best of him especially with that start of “listen” or he really wants to make sure people do not… Read more »
In fairness, unlike the people commenting such as you and me he’s actually writing the blog posts so he has said quite a bit about the issue over the last several months. Additionally even on subjects unrelated to this he does not frequently make comments but allows the community to interact with one another. And I imagine it’s very easy to fritter away the majority of your day responding to a very large number of persistent critics such that at some point just avoiding being drawn into that is probably necessary.
Agreed! Which makes it all more notable that he commented to JP/Ryan.
None of the comments really bring up any new information that wasn’t covered in the blog entry. Most of the comments in fact the vast majority of them really just focus on accusations about Doug’s motives and his character, with a lesser number involving accusations about poor character or low intelligence between various individual commenters. There’s not a lot for Doug to really get involved with unless there’s a procedural problem such as one person dishonestly representing himself as someone he’s not, and then when being confronted being dishonest about that. By the way that’s a little different than wanting… Read more »
Or maybe: “But other times the troll is not simply a disgruntled and disconnected soul with time on his hands — mom’s basement not being nearly the happening place he thought it would be. Sometimes trolls are well-connected, have regular ministry jobs, and other responsible people, some of them clothed and in their right minds, are affected by the conceits. So sometimes trolls are not standard-issue misfits — they are Christian men with families who love them, and who ought to be heartily ashamed of themselves, and who one day will be. And even if they do not come to… Read more »
It was interesting to see Doug break out his “dad voice” in dealing with Ryan.
The defence of Ryan here reminds me of one of Dougs posts on justification. It seems that some consider Ryan justified even if his sanctification could use some work.
Is HM actually Andrew Sandlin? Or that Poz guy?
Nope. Neither!
Hope you don’t have your real name in your email address or Doug will post that! ;)
Sarah, Christians of all stripes need to remember that every idle word will be accounted for by each of us. Christians and others tend to engage in sinful behavior on the internet, especially when we can act out anonymously. I can understand not wanting the world of the web to have your/mine email, but for someone to pretend that they left the conversation and then to re-enter under a pseudonym, and to make very serious accusations without any accountability, is sinful, even if Doug screwed up. The ninth commandment is violated by all sides quite frequently in situations like these… Read more »
It’s also noteworthy that adversaries here have called for a prayer break. For some sort of peace to be brought amongst the commentors. That isn’t worthy of your time to comment and agree and encourage peace and union. But tearing down Ryan and making sure to point out something about someone saying stuff against you is worth you commenting.
Priorities!
Doug, I did do my best to stay away, your claim that is a lie is not true. Two weeks ago, after seeing some blog posts from Natalie, I decided to engage back in commenting on this blog. I did so with the JP handle (but obviously knew you knew as I USED MY EMAIL ACCOUNT THAT YOU SEE TO CREATE THE ACCOUNT). My “heh?”yesterday was a heh of surprise that you would out my identity given you knew I wanted to keep my name out of the comments. Today, after showing my wife that you had tried to link… Read more »
You’re the victim in this? Really? Your phony tears remind of all those “grieving” parents in Sandy Hook. Get a life, pal.
“Well, I don’t want to blame it all on 9/11, but it certainly didn’t help.”
For now, let’s stay focused on Sandy Hook. Some would say that 9/11 was more important, but Sandy Hook is much more recent, and 26 deaths being an inside job is a lot easier for people to wrap their heads around than 3000 deaths. So right now 9/11 is too much of a distraction.
What about Bush??
Ryan this was pure dishonesty on your part. When I called JP out as you the other day you denied it. And remarking that you were being sucked back in today was not true because you had been here all along. Pretty shameful man.
I had no obligation to share with you my real name. That’s not dishonesty, that’s choosing to remain and anonymous. I was sucked back in and was not here all along.
Doug: “But, still, where did the lighter fluid come from?”
Trolling the commemts under an alias is dishonest.
If that’s true then shut this entire site down as a high % of all comments are made under an alias. That’s not dishonest, it’s how Doug actually has this site set up to allow for it.
It is dishonest to maintain two seperate accounts as two different people.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again https://youtu.be/eWu0wChlWjw
Doug knew he was posting pseudonymously and allowed it until it suited him otherwise. How whimsical!
Doug allowed it until he got tired of Ryans crap.
That’s a perspective, sure.
Would a good compromise be “Ryan Slither”? ; -)
Now now. Post some verse about how this wasn’t very biblical.
Proverbs 22:1
A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.
Proverbs 27:5-6
5 Better is open rebuke
than hidden love.
6 Wounds from a friend can be trusted,
but an enemy multiplies kisses.
That God just has a way with Words!
I’ll be happy to hear how The Word speaks to you as well! ; – )
Do let me know if my humor gets too pointy. ; – )(
You mean sharp tongued? ;)
I think an argument could be made that coming up with a name such as slither and what it implies isn’t very lovingly friend like. And I’m sure there’s a verse or two out there to back me up but I’m not gonna go find it.
I did mean “pointy” because there was a point to the suggestion, beyond the irony of it.
But I will take the sharp tougned thing under advisement. It’s something I do think about. Thanks for mentioning it. ; – )
Why are others cowards for posting anonymously and yet you’re a defender of the faith and of the oppressed while doing it? When someone asked what your relevance and knowledge of the situation was didn’t you imply that you lived in the immediate vicinity of DW, Christ Church or Moscow? I picked up quickly that you were JP, but I was hoping I was wrong because I could respect you for the work I assumed you do in your ministry while JP merely acted like a child who’d insult whatever man or woman dared to disagree with him (though you,… Read more »
Crazy is not a fruit of the Holy Spirit. This is the mark of crazy ‘religious’ behavior, not the mark of a living faith. The behavior is reminiscent of Saul’s actions and attitude; Saul who approved of St. Stephen’s stoning. Saul was a zealot and on a mission to destroy Christianity. Similarly, Sather is a zealot and on a mission to destroy Doug Wilson’s ministry.
Why did Saul persecute? That my be a clue. I don’t know why.
I’ll lay you a dollar to a doughnut that this JP/Ryan character subscribes to the mainstream media’s lies about what happened at Sandy Hook.
Ryan,
There may be others, but one way to have avoided all of this would have been to simply post comments in the manner you did above – using your real name.
I would have interpreted your response of “Heh” the way Doug had.
If you’d just admit your wrong doing and apologize, this whole thing would go away (or so we’re repeatedly told).
Last one I promise:
JP Sathers, Troll of the Year winner
Okay I’m done. Carry on.
That was an interesting development. We often read our own motivations into the actions of others. The more Ryan would constantly read “a stubborn unwillingness to humble oneself and admit you are wrong” into DW’s motivations the more I began to suspect that Ryan was confessing his own vice. Further, because of the frequency of this interpretation advanced by him, I wondered if this vice was a fairly significant struggle for him, a struggle which was keeping him from interacting with DW in a charitable way. Now that Ryan has been caught in a series of lies and refuses to… Read more »
Well said. I always thought of Sathers as a crazy uncle. As obtuse as he was, I did feel sympathy for him. The darkness that surrounded him was pretty apparent.
Me too. The only thing that lessens my sympathy is the tiresomeness with which, back in the day, he scolded everyone for not using their real names.
I had forgotten about that. lol.
1) I have never lied about anything or been dishonest
2) Doug continues to avoid the subject at hand…and my guess is will continue to do it until the “investigation” is done
3) Despite what Doug says, I have attempted to avoid this whole deal, and now officially will remove myself from this blog community where the only sort of craziness Doug wants is those defending his craziness.
But you posted as JP? Isn’t what Doug wants but for you to post under your own name?
1 then you should contact Doug regarding JP
2 I don’t think being patient while the investigation occurs will hurt anyone
3 see 1
Ryan, did you post as JP?
As far as I can tell there have been at least five lies (assuming Ryan is JP as appears to be the case): 1)the original decision to change names from Ryan to JP as an attempt to deceive others into thinking that Ryan had dropped the issue on this site 2) the heh? When first confronted was a form of deception 3) the ryan sather post, posted after weeks of consistent irrational posting as JP, claiming to have done his best to avoid engaging here, but this post forced his hand 4) this post point claiming to have never lied… Read more »
Ryan,
1. Denying that JP is Ryan when JP is Ryan is dishonest;
2. I have not avoided the subject at hand, but have provided a detailed accounting and timeline;
3. Posting over 4% of the comments in a 500 comment thread is a poor attempt at avoiding “this whole deal.”
Never let a good spin get in the way of your lies Doug. The scary thing is you are such a good liar it almost seems true.
The truth is, you think a rapist of a 13 year old girl had an excuse because of her physical appearance…just awful.
Ryan, that is not the truth of what Wilson thinks. When debating, it is necessary to be able to state your opponent’s position in words he himself agrees with. You can see stellar examples of that in the Wilson/Anyabwile interaction. Repent of your dishonesty, brother.
Ryan, I think a good case can be made for pseudonymity. I am struggling to see that you have done this well however. You have no problems attaching your name to this controversy as you have posted similar things here before as Ryan, so the use of JP wasn’t to cover your identity for privacy, but as a weapon. And your behaviour concerning Turner changing her article. First denying she did (as if you knew), then demanding evidence (implying you did not know), then ignoring the evidence when presented to you. You were wrong (about a small thing) and everyone… Read more »
The last paragraph you wrote is very important, because without knowing and carefully vetting facts, a person cannot know if they are helping the downtrodden or trampling them under foot.
It is the perception of those like me that there is an attitude that rushes to judgment and which is virtually uncorrectable in the face of any evidence presented which raises concern that the downtrodden may not be the motive. However, even if the motives are completely pure, the process is so flawed, the result just adds to the confusion.
Who is deleting all the comments? How can we have a discussion if people aren’t wearing their big boy pants?
Psuedo ‘Serious, you are nothing if not a monument to the fact that we can “have a discussion if people aren’t wearing their big boy pants?” ; – )
FYI: You mean “Pseudo.”
Gnat strained, camel swallowed. Thanks!
I copied it wrong on another comment as well! ; – )
I’m gonna have remember that gnat strained comment for the next time you correct someone. ;)
*to
Finally, some humor returns!????????
We could probably be friends if you weren’t a crazy Wilson person ;)
Whoops! I think we are friends already! ; – )
Proverbs 15:1
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
Lol. I’m rolling my eyes at you.
So ‘C, pray for me today. It’s nice here in N E, and I need some Divine intervention to help me clean out my garage!
(and my desk too!) ; – )
Will do. Good luck with that. ????????
Their, their, its ok. I do it to.
Who knew there was a gnat epidemic?????
Ryan says he never lied and that he is honost, yet he posted as JP and denied that JP was Ryan. Ryan lied and used falsehoods to attack Wilson to the extent of hiding his identify while attacking. Ryan claims to be a Christian yet misses the basics. Wisdom says all who hate me love death. Now it is easy to see the nature of the trolls, who for their own reasons hate Wilson, and continue to plant falsehoods online. They are like the prostitute who wipes her mouth and says she did nothing wrong. These are people who claim… Read more »
One can disagree or even dislike Wilson and still love God. He’s not the way truth and light. I believe in Jesus. I love Jesus. I do not believe Wilson is a good Pastor. That doesn’t mean I’m going to hell.
You base your decision on falsehoods and refuse to see the truth here in Moscow. So, you are way off base. No one said you were going to hell, but when you post falsehoods without historical records or having been there, you are not following a Christian path of conflict resolution.
So Dave, you berate us because we weren’t there. You were? What specifics do you have that you witnessed personally and didn’t just hear from others? Oh, do tell.
Lol. “Stop at nothing” in this case equals posting comments under a pseudonym, knowing that the blog owner knows you’re doing that.
It speaks to his character. While I disagreed with Ryan Sather on some doctrinal and political stances I had a modicum of respect for him. JP was beneath contempt.
I have lost respect and trust for Ryan Sather. Trust and respect are important things in the Body of Christ. Your minimizing them in your quest to destroy Doug speaks volumes about you.
But we, the people with whom he was interacting, didn’t know. Most of us are strangers to one another, yet after spending a lot of time here, we get a feeling of familiarity and even friendship. This isn’t possible if there is no trust. We trust one another to be more or less who we say we are, and we trust one another not to invent alternative identities.
We could discuss the etiquette of it for sure. But do you really find it proof that Ryan will “stop at nothing?” That’s more than hyperbolic.
I see no reason to think he will stop at nothing.
Thanks, Jilly. My point is mainly about that kind of rhetoric. A few of the commenters here seem to think Ryan has been proved to be an incorrigible scoundrel.
I honestly understand why he chose to switch to a pseudonym (a while back, I saw some people treat him just awfully when he was posting under his real name–I would have considered switching too. I find it easier to deal with that behind the shelter of anonymity). I get why you might feel it was rude though. I don’t think it proves what Dave seems to think it does though.
Ryan is a liar and a fool. I pointed out his lies repeatedly over months and he continued posting lies. When he was banned from posting, he returned with a false handle and continued to post lies and attempt to discredit Wilson with those lies. You think it was just to use anonymity when in fact it was to cause individuals to form a false opinion of what happened in Moscow. Those of us living in Moscow are tired of the same lies being swallowed by those in Internet land who then turn around and use the lie as a… Read more »
Oh you mean like calling your brother “fool” and accusing him of lying because you don’t like what he’s saying? Like that?
Oh you mean like calling your brother “fool”
Oh Foolish Galations! cried no Christian ever.
“But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
Huh. Maybe it isn’t always a good idea. Weird.
That is from a Gospel, pre-Calvary right? Back when Jesus was teaching that we cannot be justified except through Him.
To Dave’s query, which you ignored to score your ‘gotcha’, the passage is
Proverbs 6:16-19English Standard Version (ESV)
16 There are six things that the Lord hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
19 a false witness who breathes out lies,
and one who sows discord among brothers.
Yes, someone is lying and sowing discord (hint: my money’s on Doug).
As for the “pre-Calvary” line. That hermeneutic would suggest that Paul WAS sinning by calling his brothers fools, but it’s ok because of Christ. You may have to try a different line of reasoning.
Was Paul sinning? No.
When Jesus called the pharisees vipers, was He sinning? no.
Paul and Jesus where doing different things. Jesus was turning the focus from works to faith in Him. Paul was calling Galatians foolish.
Dave is not sinning by calling Ryan a fool; your insinuation that Dave is sinning was a wrong.
Timothy, I wouldn’t see it like that. Jesus’ warning against calling men fools is a warning to watch our hearts. It is not that we are forbidden to call men fools (or yell “raca”) it is that the desire to do so frequently comes from hate and hate is associated with murder. Note that this warning is in the passage on murder (Matt 5) So calling a man a fool is often allowing murderous thoughts to arise in our hearts. We don’t murder we claim, but we call fool with murderous intent. So we can use the term “fool” but… Read more »
bethyada, thank you very much. This speaks to the heart, which is what God deals in when dealing with us and it makes perfect sense. I appreciate your interjection here.
blessings.
Sarah Anne,
See bethyada’s reply to me below concerning these verses.
“accusing him of lying because you don’t like what he’s saying?” Oh, good grief!!! He was caught here in a bald-face lie and you refuse to see that? And you wonder why people just aren’t coming around to your way of thinking?
Sarah, there is a difference between not liking an opinion and pointing out lies. I live in Moscow. Ryan doesn’t and he posted lies not just opinions based on scripture. There is a difference. Ryan deliberately continued posting lies for people like you who do not know the first hand facts who then use those falsehoods as weapons in the continuing war of good versus evil. Unfortunately those lies deceive Christians as to where the evil lies. Ryan spread descension among the brothers. Proverbs tells us that God hates those who sow discord and tell lies. Proverbs gives multiple examples… Read more »
Name one lie…you can’t…
Ryan you said that you were officially removing yourself from this blog community and yet here you are again lying and sowing discord. That’s one! I don’the have time to pull the multitude of lies you posted.
I actually changed my mind, that’s not a lie.
Dave, why do you think Christ Church has aroused this hostility over the years? Is it because it is a college town? This seems to go back years, and I wonder why such a thing started.
Putting worship as the center of Sunday services, followed by a stance against homosexuality and calling for a scripturally based families seem to be the primary issues. Here we have some who swear that they love God, yet they only attack Christ Church. They claim they are being Christian however they use unequal weights and measures to attack only Christ Church but not other churches doing the same things. For example, they never say a thing about other preachers saying homosexuality is sinful but hound Wilson. Scripture condems the use of unequal weights and measures. The movement is to the… Read more »
Thank you for explaining. God rest ye merry indeed!
Awesome. The attacks mean you are effective for Christ and the devil is targeting your ministry. God is strengthening you guys for bigger (and smaller) things.
You wrote: “Putting worship as the center of Sunday services”
What does that mean? Why is it controversial? Is it now bad form in some circles to allow God into church?
thx.
Nice lie, I was NEVER banned from posting, I left bc it seemed pointless. But hey, truth and you seem like oil and water.
“a while back, I saw some people treat him just awfully when he was posting under his real name”
I can attest to that.
I think what’s noteworthy here is how Doug has chosen to act towards JP. It wasn’t lovingly done to bring him to Christ or show him the error of his ways. It was public humiliation. JP annoyed me honestly and I ignored him. Doug is showing us who he is and I think we should pay attention.
The who he is being Doug. Not JP. I realized that was a bit confusing.
Woa.
Ryan is a professing Christian who has posted here with some disagreement for many months. There has been much discussion, most of it polite with some very sharp disagreements–all fair game and part of normal discourse.
Gradually Ryan morphed into JP. Doug has shown good patience and tolerance here over a long period of time. Your judgement of Wilson is way out of line.
JP lied and deceived everyone reading this blog. Scripture roundly decries false witnesses. Proverbs: A false witness will not go unpunished. Revelation: All liars their portion will be the lake of fire. In Proverbs things the Lord hates — a lying tounge. Yes, Jesus hates liars and would mock them. Sarah, did you know that JP was Ryan? Others asked him and he lied in response tomthem at the same time that he was pushing lies about Christ Church, Wilson and what occurred in Moscow. Long time readers will remember that Ryan was caught numerous times blogging lies and was… Read more »
I never lied…and I had no obligation to tell you my identity. Speaking of identity, what’s your identity? I’d be happy to call you on the phone and I can explain further how I did pull back (contrary to Doug calling that a lie, it wasn’t), got sucked back in, created a different handle THAT WILSON KNEW BC I USED MY SAME EMAIL THAT HE OBVIOUSLY SEES AS THE MODERATOR, and engaged back in the conversation for the past two weeks. For goodness sake I wrote him a kind Thanksgiving wish on Thanksgiving night. I knew he’d know it was… Read more »
Ryan, Why did you return to the forum under an assumed handle? I know it doesn’t directly impact on the issue between Christ Church and Natalie, but since it’s been brought up, and since you apparently have returned, again, to the forum, I ask this question. Again, I can understand for privacy and safety not divulging your or my full name, for example. One issue most everybody in the church overlooks is that when we level accusations at one another, the kind that are the stuff of church inquiries and defrocked pastors, the serious kind, Disqus rules may allow me… Read more »
when did I say he should be defrocked? I agree with the victim’s ideas for how to change/learn from past mistakes. But I’ve never heard anyone say he should be defrocked.
I honestly returned with a different handle because I didn’t want to use my real identity in the forum. That’s it. No big reason other than I wanted to be anonymous as you obviously are and many others as well.
I didn’t say that you called for Doug to be defrocked, at least by that exact wording. My point was more that the accusations you have leveled would, unavoidably, demand that if they are found true. For that reason, all of us should be careful to not violate the ninth commandment when talking about Doug, Natalie, Boz and each other. Or, to put it another way, unless a person is willing to put their full name phone number and address behind a serious accusation, or to provide some other clear identifier so that there is accountability such that accusations are… Read more »
The spin is giving me vertigo. Nice try, blaming Pastor Wilson.
Ryan, you are a liar. Stop lying because God hates liars. You are causing discord between brothers with your lies. God hates those who sow discord among the brothers. You told us several times that you were going to stop posting. You quibbled about JP, which by definition is a lie. In this thread you said you were going to remove yourself from this board. So if you aren’t lying, why are you here? Perhaps you were just — sucked back into the fray. Sarah, this is a premium example of Ryan lying. His lies are in black and white… Read more »
Nope, I am going to leave eventually (I’m posting as a guest right now), but not until I call you out for your lies.
So you are staying around until Dave stops lying?
I never lied to anyone who asked me if JP was Ryan, I simply changed the subject or responded vaguely bc who I was was not the issue at hand. You where less than forthright and forthcoming. You shaded the truth. You dealt in shadows and deception instead of truth and light. These are not the behaviors of credible men. You are not a credible man. If the name “Ryan Sather” had become so toxic that you felt you had to use a different name, you should have dealt with that as Ryan Sather, not as JP. Go repent, please.… Read more »
Agreed, Timothy. Well said.
Except that’s not why I did it. I did it because I simply didn’t want to use my real name…similar to you timothy.
As far as we know, though, Timothy didn’t build up a relationship (however adversarial) with the commenters here, then leave and loudly proclaim he was done with us, then come back under a different name that no one but the moderator knew. If you’d wanted, you completely could have started out as JP, and no one would have complained (about that, at least). It’s the dual identities that are the betrayal. If you can’t see that, I’m not sure what else we can say other than it is a betrayal, and it greatly lessens my respect for you (which, prior… Read more »
Not having your respect makes me sleep much better..I wouldn’t want a boy who supports a “child abuse enabler” to respect me.
1) I am glad you’re sleeping well, though I’m guessing this is actually a figure of speech. 2) I’m not sure what I’ve done (other than point out your laziness on twitter) that makes you think it’s okay to call me a boy. Unless, of course, it’s because you like calling all non-white people “boy.” 3) Do you sincerely think that I support ennabling child abuse? The entire point of our disagreement is that I do not believe that Doug ennabled or ennables child abuse. You are entitled to have your own interpretation of events, and I am entitled to… Read more »
Heh. Dave, Mike, what’s in a name?
“The issue at hand is the horrendous handling of an abuse victim.”
And who made it your job to judge Wilson for it?
Edit to add
Oh what was all that about seeing Doug from your front room window every day?
Ryan, you were dishonest in your dealings with me. And when shown, you ignore and move on.
I don’t think Dave is your real name. But then you don’t have to worry that DW will out you because you are HIS defender.
The only person lying is you Davey.
I think what’s noteworthy here is how JP has chosen to act towards Doug.
It wasn’t lovingly done to bring him to Christ or show him the error of his ways. It was public humiliation. JP annoyed me honestly and I ignored him. JP is showing us who he is and I think we should pay attention.—-just say’n.
I expect more from a a person who puts himself in the role of pastor. I don’t know JP or what he does. Doug is a pastor. I hold him to the highest standard. When it comes to a pastor it’s not a matter of well JP did it too! The pastor needs to be the example. The pastor needs to be above reproach. The pastor needs to be the extension of Gods love and forgiveness and mercy. He can call him out all he wants. In reading how he has called our JP I have to wonder if his… Read more »
JP is a pastor also.
Then I expect more from him as well. As I’ve said before, I mostly ignored JP and moved on. That doesn’t make Dougs response more right or ok.
Oh, I was just clarifying who JP is. I would agree with your principle that two wrongs don’t make a right. However, I honestly do not understand your critique of DW on this point. DW has patiently endured with much long suffering accusation after accusation from RS/JP as it related first to racial issues and second to the current situation. If after months and months of consistent badgering on the part of a Christian who is also a Pastor, DW determines to help his readers put this badgering in context by better understanding the character of the one relentlessly criticizing… Read more »
Doug posts his views very openly for all to read. He puts himself in a position of very public authority. He lives very loudly. With that comes criticism. That’s how it works. If he doesn’t want that then stop blogging. Stop writing.
Im just saying it leaves a bad taste in my mouth for such public intentional humiliation. I don’t see Jesus repeatedly parading sinners in the streets proclaiming their sin to the world.
And if Doug has been enduring criticism so patiently why all the blogging? And what of turning the other cheek? What of forgiving 70 times 7?
“I don’t see Jesus repeatedly parading sinners in the streets proclaiming their sin to the world.”
You might want to read the gospels more closely. He talked about vipers, whitewashed tombs, sons of Satan…the list goes on. He named their sins specifically and literally called down terrible curses upon them. Mostly that was in reference to people that set themselves up as judges of others in a hypocritical manner, interestingly enough. Those who would point fingers, whether Sather or Wilson, are not coddled by Jesus.
Compared to the words of Jesus, I think DW has been fairly mild. Matthew 12:34-37 34 You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. 36 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”… Read more »
Forgiveness is not done into the void. It may be spooled up, but it is not given until the transgressor seeks it. And this pattern is to be repeated indefinitely, 70×7. Until forgiveness is sought, it is legitimate even loving to call the person on it. This can be done well or poorly, I’ll grant, but I’d say Doug has erred,if he has erred, on the side of mildness with respect to Ryan. Especially since the man is in the ministry, and more is expected. I have no doubt that if it ever came to it, Doug would gladly play… Read more »
I love the freedom to indulge in slander that comes from someone else’s public openness. It’s comforting to know that so long as my neighbor is a “public figure” or a blogger (bonus if both!), then I no longer need to worry about keeping a rein on my tongue. The fact that the only way to stop verbal assault is for the public figure to stop being public is exhilarating and empowering for millions.
I’ve never seen mob rule stated quite so succinctly. Thanks, ABC.
Oh come on.
Ryan Sather is a pastor? Good grief.
Yes sir.
The altar calls must be hellish.
Tim, do you peddle lies for a living? You know what I mean, right?
I have four or five guesses about what you mean, but I am not sure I do know what you mean.
So I will just answer your comment by answering the literal sense. I do not peddle lies for a living. No. That sounds bad.
Are you making reference to the above comment “JP is a Pastor also?”
I’m not a pastor.
What was Paul being an example of when he confronted Peter at Antioch?
Are we to be like Paul or Jesus?
Eh? Is that a trick question?
Nevermind, I see your post below to David. Paul was being a bully.
Comments are not showing up properly in my feed for some reason, so forgive me if this was already answered, but it has been pointed out that Ryan/JP is a pastor.
JP turned out to be a person who professes to be a Christian but was acting in a deceptive manner. It’s not necessarily unloving to be stern with people. A lot of it deals with your motives. By mentioning his profession of faith, I simply do this to point out what should be certain agreed upon procedural issues with respect to issues related to the ninth commandment, issues that a non believer might think irrelevant, but which fellow Christians cannot dismiss. I do not think it’s deceptive to use a pseudonym as a handle but I do think it is… Read more »
Doug isn’t just being stern. He’s being a bully and trying to publicly shame JP. What’s the point of posting the same comment three times then making sure to post it at the top of this blog? It’s not to get JP to repent. That could have been done with one posting of his comment. JP read his comment but Doug had to make sure the world knew what JP did. Several times. Christians like to point to Jesus being upset and turning over tables. He was also loving and when he corrected it wasn’t always with the whip. Doug… Read more »
And look how Dougs supporters are mocking this man. Would Jesus mock him? You shall know them by their fruit. Dougs fruit is rather cruel and mean.
I agree that Ryan shouldn’t be mocked. I do think that his behavior should be called what it is – dishonest, abusive, and nasty. I appreciate that Doug has given the community of people who comment on his blog the truth. It would be one thing if Ryan had chosen to post anonymously in the first place. If Doug had given this information in that kind of circumstance, I would agree with you that Doug was being unChristian. In this circumstance, when Ryan on twitter is continuing to post ignorantly and lazily in his outrage at Doug Wilson and anyone… Read more »
Thank you, jilly, for getting to the heart of the issue. If Ryan had first come as JP, I would have been offended by his rudeness and abuse, but I wouldn’t feel disappointed and betrayed. I didn’t agree with him on much, but I thought he was sincere and wanted to actually discuss things, even if I think he posted in deliberate ignorance too often. Coming back under a different identity is dishonest – no, it’s not a lie, but he clearly abused the “new” identity to be much more rude and disgusting than his “real” identity.
And how much do you want to bet he thinks Sandy Hook was real?
JP/Ryan was someone I just rolled my eyes at and ignored for the most part. UNTIL, Doug told me to pay closer attention. Now I wonder why Doug is so concerned with making him look bad. Why is JP so different from all the rest of us called trolls for disagreeing with Doug? HM isn’t my real name, btw. And I don’t agree with Wilson.
I don’t think it would be fair to label people who dislike Doug as trolls. I do think it is fair to label, as trolls, people who consistently repeat arguments against Doug which are not true to the facts, who make baseless accusations, who assume the worst about people, and who give the appearance of using an abuse case as cover for attacking Doug, and who do these things under assumed names (I don’t mean names like HM, but rather, I would mean if HM logged in as one or more other people and began ginning up more turbulence).
Ryan JP Sathers was trolling. I haven’t seen that from any other commenters yet.
Brb for one keeps bringing up sandy hook.
That is true.
JP was consistently abusive, rude, and ignorant. Ryan, under his own name, was occasionally abusive (telling women to shut up because they weren’t allowed to teach according to the Bible, calling people cowards for posting under a pseudonym), but on the whole, I believed him to be honest but buying into frothing outrage culture and posting ignorantly. After this, I’m convinced that not only does Ryan love outrage culture and post deliberately without thinking through things or seeking to know the entirety of the situation, but he is malicious, ignorant, lazy, dishonest, and what he has called himself – a… Read more »
Define irony:
A commentator who spends the majority of his first comments calling pseudonymous commentators cowards, takes what appears to be false name intentionally meant to deceive, and then proceeds to defend his right to use this false name without any retractions given for his previous accusations.
Yes, I am very saddened. I was recently blocked on twitter by Ryan because I repeatedly called him not only on his deliberate posting of misleading accusations and statements, but his laziness. But this news really disheartens me.
I blocked you because you made fun of my spelling and grammar on twitter. What’s the point of having a guy like you who yaps with no knowledge tell me how to write?
And in terms of “calling me out” I responded to all your “call outs” with rational and reasonable reasons for my comments that you had no answer to.
Yapping with no knowledge. It’s very difficult to take you seriously when everything you say is much more applicable to yourself.
Well, I’ve been taken seriously enough to have multiple emails from Wilson, an email to him alongside the pastors at my church offering to meet him and discuss the issue in person via phone in which he never responded, and many call outs on this blog with direct responses from him (many filled with 1/2 truths). Funny someone you seem to respect so much as Wilson would take someone like me serious if I am how you describe me to be.
Wilson takes you seriously because, having met you personally and knowing your position in ministry, he 1) wants to see if there can be fellowship between brothers in Christ, and 2) your position means that you have a platform you are abusing to spread lies to a much larger group of people than someone like me would. I would love to have fellowship with you as a brother in Christ. I don’t appreciate your laziness and ignorance in posting, and I really dislike your rudeness, abuse, and disgusting behavior as JP, but I hope that given grace, you will repent… Read more »
funny, I apologized for that, said I was wrong, and had folks like Ian accept the apology.
so, we are all on the same page, you are saying anyone posting with a pseudonym lacks integrity and is a coward? the very thing you ripped me for saying (and apologizing for)…it’s hard to keep up with your lack of logic.
The irony was in all of accusations of cowardice (your words not mine) followed by an adoption on your part of the practice you previously condemned.
However, it does appear as if my comment misrepresented you. I did not remember an apology on your part. I was wrong. Will you forgive me?
He did apologize, however, he called people cowards for the same thing just a few days/weeks later.
No I didn’t, now you are lying.
I wish I were.
In the House of Commons members are not permitted to accuse one another with lying. That is why Churchill invented the phrase terminological inexactitude. I kind of prefer, “Sir, I believe you are mistaken.”
That does seem to ring a bell now that you mention it…
Sure, apology accepted. Ian actually gave a very reasonable and clear reason why posting under a pseudonym made sense. I then agreed with him and apologized for calling those who use them cowards. He at the time accepted my apology. Now it looks like not so much.
funny, after you and discussed the pseudonym, i apologized for it and said I was wrong for calling folks with a pseudonym a coward.
I was not abusive, rude–yeah I tended to cut and paste Wilson’s own words so that got me in some trouble, but Ian if you want a definition of coward your name (along with most here) would be in the dictionary next to those who don’t stand up for victims of abuse.
This article is a great summary of the “sheep” here http://www.norvillerogers.com/the-ewe-the-wolf-and-the-shepherd/
I very much remember it – and if that had been the last time you called people who didn’t use their real name a coward, I wouldn’t have brought it up. But you did, just a few weeks later. So I must conclude your apology was insincere – unless, of course, you had forgotten your earlier apology. These things do happen, so it’s understandable. However, your perceived hypocrisy in the issue of the pseudonyms isn’t my real disappointment – it’s your abusiveness. You asked me if I did disgusting things, gleefully threw names and vitriol around, and generally abused your… Read more »
That’s not true Ian, I apologized and did not do it iagain, you are lying.
In terms of my language and strength of my arguments, your “abusiveness” comment is laughable. I simply quoted in most cases Wilson, if that disgusts you so be it. This place is for big boys and girls, and I was going hard at a very serious issue (among many here).
I have nothing to repent of, I’ve done nothing wrong. And honestly you have nothing specific to point out, just broad generalizations that don’t stick.
I’m fairly certain when you asked me, unpleasantly, if I sniffed Doug Wilson’s jock, it wasn’t a quote, or a mature comment. You were simply being abusive and nasty. You insist I’m lying, and because you deleted your account, I’m fairly certain I can’t prove it. But as I’ve said before – it’s not your perceived or real hypocrisy that’s the issue – it’s the issue of abusiveness and betrayal of others. You know we knew your online persona as Ryan, and deliberately created another and used that freedom to be nasty, immature, and abusive to those you’d claimed brotherhood… Read more »
it’s a figure of speech, do you really think saying that meant I honestly thought you sniffed his jock? you are one, like many here, who defend the guy at nauseum…and I am simply honest. it’s not abusive or nasty to use a figure of speech to describe the way you put the blinders on.
lumberjack dykes, easy lays, etc…these words are just fine…for Wilson…when I used them they were abusive…
Figures of speech can be abusive. And whether or not you agree, it’s certainly disgusting. I was extremely upset after I received that message, and it took quite a while and several rewrites before I could respond without being in kind. As I’ve also said, I’m not always comfortable with Wilson’s tone. But I don’t think that being disgusting is in any way the same as being honest. I have called Doug out when I think he’s been wrong. I defend him when I think he’s right – just as you attack him when you think he’s wrong. I try… Read more »
ok, i am sorry i used ‘smelling his jock’ as a figure of speech when describing your behavior. I am sorry you were so extremely upset and I appreciate your work at being kind despite the hurt you felt from my comment.
Thank you, Ryan. I sincerely appreciate that.
I am so glad you said that, Ryan. Ian is one of the most even-handed and courteous souls on this board, and I expect you will see this in time.
I think your self-restraint was admirable.
Coming from mild-mannered and even-handed you, those are strong words.
Uh, is that irony?
it is a complement.
I thank you.
According to Natalie’s blog, one of the questions the CREC investigation has asked her is:
“What could Christ Church do to make restitution to you as a victim for the ways they have wronged you and failed you?”
Given that this is, presumably, an investigation into whether Christ Church has wronged and failed her, doesn’t that rather beg the question?
Who wrote the question?
Pastors Booth and Lusk.
I noticed the wording on that as well. Given some peoples insistance that the CREC inquiry can’t be unbiased it is interesting that the assumtion of guilt is built into the question contrary to Dougs post on that subject.
There are wording problems in other questions as well. But I think they’re taking the inquiry seriously and looking for ways to improve and make restitution, if necessary. This question would have been better phrased “for the ways YOU FEEL they have wronged you…”
The question reads like textbook, question begging.
It is hard for me to believe that any CREC document would have included such phrasing.
I will give it 4 Pinocchios
You’re accusing Natalie of lying about what Pastor Booth and Pastor Lusk asked her in an email? It’s not some official CREC document, it’s an email. And if she misquoted it, they’ve already had plenty of time to correct her and ought to have done so.
To be very clear. I find it extremely difficult to believe that any CREC pastor elder or deacon would ever use that particular language when no wrongdoing by the church has been established.. It strains the bounds of credulity.
For the time being, Il stick with the 4 Pinocchios. When the investigation is over, if I am found to be in error on this, I will apologize.
Why is that hard to believe?
The simple fact that the ones that I know are trained in logic and rhetoric.
The quote at issue reads like a PC social worker.
That is not how those guys write. Nor is it how they speak.
There may be some that do, not the ones that I know.
Do you know Booth and Lusk?
Not personally as I don’t get down to Nacogdoches or Vicksburg much. I have read a bit from each of them. Hence my opinion.
I know Booth on a very personal level, and I find it quite difficult to imagine him writing a question like that.
I don’t know anyone involved so I’m just speculating, but it had occured to me that Booth and Lusk contacted Natalie about answering the questions but that doesn’t mean they wrote the questions.
Just ask him, then and let everyone know.
Why would someone post questions of an ongoing inquiry on the internet?
She refused to answer them any other way.
From her blog: “I
was emailed by two of the pastors involved in the internal inquiry,
Randy Booth and Rich Lusk, and asked if I would be willing to be
interviewed and answer some questions about the abuse and the church’s
handling of it. While I felt uncomfortable meeting with them in person
or dialoguing privately over email, I agreed to address their questions
via my blog.”
What a truly odd way to handle such a personal matter. If I were handling an official enquiry on behalf of my denomination and a respondent came back to me with, “see my blog”, I would probably find it hard to take that respondent seriously.
She didn’t want there to be any way for a he said she said. So it was all public. Given her experience can you blame her?
What about meeting with them privately with witnesses present?
She didn’t want that either. Her explanation is on her blog. What’s the issue with posting her responses online? She’s doing it to be as open and safe as possible. If it’s ok for Doug to post blog after blog in response to things and to post how someone commented under a fake name then it should be fine for her to post her answers publicly on her blog.
For one thing, it’s not a dialog if you’re responding on a blog. It’s hard to get a clear grasp of a situation without realtime conversation. I would think she would want things to be open and clear as possible, and there’s no real way to do that with alternate one-way communication, as opposed to actual two-way communication. It’s fine for Doug to post stuff on a blog; it’s fine for Natalie to do that. I’m questioning why she insists it’s the only way she will interact with those seeking to find out the truth. Is Doug refusing to meet… Read more »
Her pain and fear is reason enough to do it. This whole thing is because she claims she has been hurt. I wouldn’t want to sit and talk painstakingly face to face with people who hurt me. They are doing an investigation for themselves. It would happen with or without her. She doesn’t have to even answer the questions.
It is my understanding that none of the people doing the investigation could remotely be associated with the people whom Natalie believes hurt her. They are from other churches in other cities. Nobody is investigating “themselves.” When an investigation is being done, people are sometimes called upon to endure pain and fear. It is necessary for the sake of rightly judging that which may be judged, and is a matter of enduring unpleasantness for the sake of others. This goes for Doug, this goes for Natalie. Natalie may wish to avoid pain. Natalie is not necessarily entitled to avoid pain,… Read more »
I think randy boothe wrote a book with Doug. Isn’t he leading the investigation?
She doesn’t have to be involved in the crecs personal investigation. It’s not a legal proceeding.
No, she doesn’t have to be, legally.
However, it would be honorable and charitable to help them find the truth, since she believe she holds a part of it, don’t you think?
And she is helping. By answering their questions.
And yet…everyone has presumed guilt upon one person or the other, calls for stepping down and/or disappearing into obscurity have rung loudly, and the Internet is awash with all manner of cries for justice. It may not be a legal proceeding, but folks are definitely on trial.
Pish, posh. How do you know that’s the reason? And if it is, then it goes both ways. Who says there was ever an email sent with that question in it?
There may well have been, but who says?
If this were genuinely one of the questions, perhaps someone at CREC involved in this enquiry needs to read an excellent book called “Justice” by Randy Booth et al. Hang on, wait a minute…
From Katie Botkin’s concise, compassionate and all-around excellent blog: http://kbotkin.com/2015/11/29/4708/ “At this point, I’m wondering if Doug Wilson is just messing with his fans. I mean, surely he’s not so dense that he doesn’t realize how poorly it reflects on him as a pastor, rhetorician and educator to do the things he’s doing. Doug’s reasoning for posting videos he claims are perverse is this: posting videos of a nude man shows how depraved the man is, and therefore how depraved his wife’s character is, and therefore that she cannot be trusted when she criticizes Doug. Because both the man and… Read more »
Never heard of her until your comment. Spent some time browsing her archives. And surprise surprise, turns out she’s a feminazi. Who woulda thunk it?
That is a stupid observation to make- as in dumb. What does that even mean femenAzi? an empty limbaughism. Strong independent woman? Certainly she is a better writer, more compassionate, more insightful and to the point than the author of this free for all. He could take a few Strunk pages out of her book.
(Edited for more stridency)
Not only is she a feminazi, she’s also a hypocrite. Any other time if she heard about a guy waving his penis all over the internet, she’d be talking about how he’s a threat to women and saying he’s a potential rapist. But because he’s a male feminazi married to a female feminazi that Katie likes, he’s a hero.
“waving his penis all over the internet . . .” Wow. Um. yeah, that’s not happening (Whatever that even means). Last I checked nobody made anybody watch these videos.
write back when you have that story.
And your evidence for that fanciful tirade is…?
I’ll wait.
Wow, further in the article it says Doug had no issues with his grandkids being taught martial arts by Wes and he hired him to work on his home? Hmmm….
I’m pretty sure that’s before he put videos of his penis on the world wide web. I’m guessing Doug has a different opinion now. Generally, most people assume that a person they’re thinking of hiring to work around the house or teach their kids karate hasn’t put videos of his penis on the internet. So it’s not a common question in the pre-hire interview. “Say, you don’t happen to post videos of your penis on the world wide web, do you?” But if the person who hired them later finds out that’s the case, they’re probably not going to be… Read more »
Well all the things Doug emailed to me about them last week (things I Have no idea if accurate) would tell me he’s been keeping tabs on both of them for quite some time.
Ryan you have shown that you can’t be trusted. You have a serious credibility problem which is unfortunate for someone in the ministry.
She is an all around great journalist and even handed blogger.
That sounds consistant with what Doug has posted.
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. This is wise. The “I Want a Lamborghini” woman is, by her actions and words, showing us her soul. One group of people recoil in disgust, another rush to defend and fund. The recoil and the defense are also windows into souls. In the matter of Wes’ writhing, we see the same dynamic. My recoil happened about 4 seconds into the video; the defenders… Read more »
Maybe not the appropriate thread to comment on this, but here is the link that @Tom Hanson shared in a different thread:
http://www.moscowcares.com/CC_Debate
Money quote by Keeley Emerine-Mix (one of the more vocal opponents of Christ Church apparently):
“I don’t believe that Christ Church has a culture that promotes child abuse.”
Other money quote from Doug near the beginning: “It is always dangerous to make critical judgments at long range”
http://www.norvillerogers.com/the-ewe-the-wolf-and-the-shepherd/
What a creepy story. Ryan, within this thread there have been mentions of you involved in ministry. I hope that’s not the case.
The fact that you would link to that story here suggests to me that you are not concerned with anything mature or useful – either in ministry or in this particular struggle.
Ah, Ryan Sather, also know as ‘Jammies, how can we miss him if he won’t go away?
He must have a thing for farewell speeches?
Um, I’m not sure how to say this diplomatically, so I’m just going to say it. This post is pretty idiotic. It’s political correctness gone mad. It’s downright insane, or incredibly stupid, to say that a healthy society has nothing to fear from terrorists coming in as refugees: But the opposition has a point when it says that if we admit tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, there will be terrorists in their ranks, and we don’t want a replay of Paris here. Of course a healthy society has nothing to fear from immigrants. What is the opposite of “bravo”?… Read more »
I’m just going to respond by saying this is the wrong thread for your comment. :-)
My mistake.
Andrew Sandlin writes on his blog: For friends and supporters I want to correct a couple of factual errors. Pastor Wilson wrote: “… Andrew Sandlin has (apparently) taken down his earlier posts supporting Natalie’s story.” This is false. I haven’t supported anyone’s “story,” and I have removed no link. It has been there all along, and it took me a grand total of 4 minutes to find it. Pastor Wilson writes, “Christians like —-, —-, and Andrew Sandlin were taken in by Natalie.” This also is false. This young lady as a child was raped by one of Doug’s college… Read more »
“Doug’s college student”, and the definition of courage aside, this is a fair call and a worthwhile clarification from Andrew.
I very much disliked Doug’s use of the term “taken in”. I have no first hand knowledge of the people or the events in this tragic story. I am aware that most of the people on this board support Doug’s handling of the sexual abuse and its aftermath. Even where I disagree with some of them, I would not dream of saying they have been “taken in” by Doug. It is disrespectful both to Doug and to the people who support him in good faith. Similarly, suggesting that Christians were “taken in” by Natalie paints her as a scheming vixen… Read more »
Pastor Wilson has already made a correction “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.”
Edit to add: I saw it yesterday, don’t know when he corrected it.
“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?”
I’m not sure these videos represent what Natalie or Wes believe to be normal.
Be we can be certain that Wes’ participation in such lewdness and their mutual decision to record and publicize such things represent something entirely NOT normal. Given that they have erred in this stark and bewildering manner (and to date have not recanted and repented of this), it is altogether proper for those of us left scratching our heads to wonder whether they truly know what “normal” is, especially regarding things of a sexual outlook. Doug’s not implying that Wes and Natalie think nude gyrations aired to the public is normal; he’s implying that those who do such things might… Read more »
I agree except that I don’t know what part Natalie played in making or agreeing to make the videos. And I don’t think publishing a video on vimeo is publicizing it.
I have been struggling with the logic here. Without necessarily either believing or disbelieving the principals on either side, I simply can’t see how leaving the church and marrying a nonbeliever automatically makes Natalie untruthful about her experiences in the aftermath of sexual abuse. Speaking in general terms, victims of sexual abuse, especially when left untreated, go on to make questionable and harmful life choices. The subsequent behavior is a direct produce of the abuse and its aftermath. It should not be used to impeach the veracity of the victim. One of the reasons the statutory reporting time for rape… Read more »
The second most balanced thing that has been said in this thread so far.
Thanks Jilly. Just goes show that there is always another way to view a circumstance and always another gracious way to work through it.
John 4 16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”17 “I have no husband,” she replied. Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.” 19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.” 21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me,… Read more »
Hi A Dad. I am completely willing to believe that Natalie’s testimony is not entirely neutral. But I would be willing to believe that even without the videos. My point is that sexual abuse scars its victims so deeply that they may have trouble sorting out their perceptions. I would never say that Natalie must be right because she says so. But I wouldn’t say that Doug must be right because HE says so. Some abuse victims take years to sort out their memories and perceptions and emotions. Some abuse victims swing back and forth between justifying their abuser and… Read more »
Jilly, always a pleasure to speak with you, even if the topic is a dark thing like abuse. We both agree that dealing with abuse, with regard to the casualties and the perpetrators is a difficult thing, sometimes, apparently, insurmountable. We are both talking about healing from abuse, and how that might happen. Below are the words of some Christ Church women who tell how complete healing came to them by their experience of the rescue and redemption of Christ and the ministry of their church. “Sexual abuse leaves an indelible mark. But it does not define me. It breaks… Read more »
“[…] but perhaps she never quite understood.”
Or maybe this was a more difficult case than the others…
They are all hard and difficult, God knows better than we ever will, this case certainly seems more public than those above. : – (
I tend to believe Doug’s portrait of the situation a bit more, since he and many Kirkians have commented about knowing Natalie and her family, expressing hope for her healing – but I do think there’s an element of posturing in her posts. I don’t know how much is sincere (I’d guess a lot) and how much is calculated, but the way it falls so perfectly into ammunition against Doug alone feels false as a whole to me. I do think Doug’s tone is sometimes unhelpful, especially on this issue. I also think that the impression I’m getting from Doug… Read more »
Hard to believe folks want to help you when they sit on opposite side of courtroom, write letters to a judge asking for leniency, blame your physical appearance as part of issue for less severe punishment, and attempt to discredit you and your husband…don’t you think?
With help like that who wouldn’t run the opposite direction?
All the ladies you disrespect on Women Freed.
dude.
I didn’t read anything from them that they experienced these things. Are you teporting they did as well? That’d be a serious allegation, troll!?
Temper, temper, young man.
Temper? Ha, it takes more than an internet troll to get me upset. Have a good night sleep.
And if Doug would listen to your very rational and helpful thoughts this thing would have been dealt with long ago imho.
Still “done” I see, Mr. Sather.
Will there ever be a Sather Sabath?
You may have missed it, I changed my mind. I didn’t want you all to enjoy your echo chamber too much.
You are really not in any shape to suggest that someone else is repetative.