The purpose of a judicial process is not, in the first place, to side with the victim. The point of judicial process is to determine, carefully and without jumping to conclusions, who the victim is. Once the truth is established by due process, the Bible everywhere and always sides with the victim.
But we live in a fallen world, and everyone wants the good things without the process that provides us with those good things — which means that men want the acquittal and vindication, only without the trial. Some men want the trial, but all men want the verdict . . . provided the verdict goes their way. If it looks like the verdict will not go their way, guilty men want a trial also, but not as a means of determining the truth. They want a trial as something that will help postpone the day of reckoning.
This is why the Bible is not on the side of any particular person a priori. You shall not side with the many to pervert justice, and you shall not side with a poor man to pervert justice.
“You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit” (Ex. 23:1–3, ESV).
If one of your kids runs in from the backyard with a tale of woe, saying that her brother hit her on the head with a stick, this is certainly grounds for an indictment. Mom really should inquire. But in the course of the trial, what if she discovers that he did so because she had been poking him with that same stick for the previous half an hour? All accusations and all defenses are contextual.
This causes angst with those who want all their trials framed beforehand with a nice, robust guilty verdict. Helps them know where they are. Helps them know how to frame the issues. “Nothing can justify hitting your sister on the head with a stick!” This is quite right, which is why in a godly household he would get swats . . . right after his sister got hers. Then they would hug each other, and the backyard play area would be reconsecrated with the oil running down from Aaron’s beard.
Dispensing with trials is in effect to say that due process, the defendant confronting his accuser, cross-examining witnesses, the presumption of innocence, are all irrelevant. But in reality such practices are the only possible way to preserve the category of victim. If we do not do this, we no longer have victims, we simply have “sides.” And thus we have laid the foundation of endless blood feuds, and we have bid farewell to actual biblical justice. By the time we get to the facts as they actually happened, too many activists are already fully invested in their partisan account. Can you imagine Al Sharpton ever saying, under any circumstances whatever, something like, “We are very grateful to discover that this tragedy in Poughkeepsie was not a racially-charged incident at all. As you know, we do retain our concerns about other incidents, but are grateful that this is not one of them.” One smiles as one writes a sentence like that.
And last, in order to conduct an orderly investigation, it is necessary to create and zealously defend a zone where such protections for the yet-to-be-determined victim actually exist. And while this may come as a shock to some, Twitter is not that place. Say that someone has thrown chum in the water — one third of the relevant facts usually works — and a bunch of players and witnesses have been called out by means of cyber-subpoenas. Just want to ask Jane Doe some questions. That’s all.
If you cannot defend yourself with 140 characters or less, then, clearly, you are guilty
And if you CAN defend yourself with 140 characters or more, then, clearly, it’s all about you!
http://bit.ly/1jQL5GN
Seems like something a guilty person would write…
And this seems like something someone unconcerned with justice would write.
Was Gary being serious or telling a pretty good joke? I was going with the latter.
Lacks the smiley emoji, therefore serious ;)
Gary rubs his chin and wonders, I was serious, wasn’t I? Notice, if he was a kind of chick, she’d double down into irrationality all night long, which he doesn’t. Which makes me believe Rand Man is actually a WooMan. Beautifully brilliant wise woman hang here as well. Thank you.
‘Let the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’
Lewis Carroll was a prophet.
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/carroll/lewis/alice/chapter12.html
Shoot first; ask questions later…
This fails to take into consideration the heightened discernment that internet warriors have.
Get with the times brother!
I read Catch-22 by Joseph Heller not long ago, around the time of a different internet lynching with many of the same parties involved, and the following had me laughing out loud, like, for reals:
“The case against Clevinger was open and shut. The only thing missing was something to charge him with.”
The necessary facts in these two cases are in. You made bad decisions in both cases that put certain people in physical and psychological harm’s way. You were wrong there. If you have some other ‘context’ we haven’t heard yet in the bouquet of double-down posts you have laid on our doorstep, by all means let’s have it. It’s all implications with you.
To address one of the issues here, I much prefer Natalie’s honest and heartfelt blog posts to your labyrinthian deflections. Are you saying that she is not being truthful?
If it’s okay to claim Doug’s not being truthful, then why wet your pants at the prospect of someone saying that about Natalie? Is her word sacrosanct? Does your impression of the sentimental effect of her writing compared to Doug’s “labyrinthine” explanations settle the issue regarding facts?
Well, heartfelt always wins, doesn’t it?
I am impressed with her directness and courage. Have you bothered to read her blog?
I won’t address your frankly ugly implication that her story is somehow false or sentimental. I guess depictions of oral rape are sentimental to you both?
I would remind you compassionate christians that Natalie was the child victim of statutory rape. Her abuser was convicted and sentenced.
Douglas has implied blame to her and applied blame directly to her family. He advocated for her rapist and literally took his side in court.
Oh, I wasn’t criticizing *her*.
If all the necessary facts are in, perhaps RandMan can now identify the specific charges that are supposed to constitute a scandal. RandMan says: You made bad decisions in both cases that put certain people in physical and psychological harm’s way. This is too vague. Every time such a sinner is not immediately executed and sent on to God’s judgment, there is the possibility that others are put in harm’s way. There is a possibility of repeat offenses, but we don’t, therefore, insist on execution for every instance where someone was harmed. The State routinely tolerates some risk for the… Read more »
Spot on, katecho.
Now, can we ALL stop postulating about what happened, hypothesizing over who should have done what, and imagining that we have a clue?!!
As Natalie just said on Twtter: What is the other half? “my parent’s half?? Where they say they allowed it? The part where I say I liked it???”
“the victim is lying”. I’m the kid who got hit & is only telling her half…
“heartfelt” does not equal “true”.
However, if her story about her sexual abuse is true, and I’m inclined to think it is, that still doesn’t mean her characterization of the church’s handling of it is accurate. This is something that will come out in the CREC investigation.
Yes, the crec investigation led by Doug’s pals, chaired by his co-author. Looking forward to this blog on that day.
Methinks you secretly look forward to this blog on every day.
Your assumption is that Rev. Booth and the other ministers and elders involved in the investigation are men without honor, who will deny the oaths they took as office-bearers, and who cannot in any way judge rightly. This is based on what exactly? The fact that Rev. Booth co-authored a book with Rev. Wilson? You are being unfair to the men involved in the investigation; indeed, you are slandering their reputations on no evidence.
Based on the fact that they are human beings. That they are christians doesn’t excuse them from the same tendency to bias and politics of any other man or woman.
I don’t recall speaking ill of anyone in that group, Booth included. Just stating the obvious.
And… enough with spraying the slander/gossip/bitter hose already. Seriously christians, it is transparent tired as to be laughable. What a peculiar and specific internal code that is.
So, in fact, you have judged that they are–or will be, when they issue their report–liars, dishonorable, and unfaithful to oaths sworn before God.
Huh. Are you reading another post? Go look again.
Would you take an Obama investigation seriously by his own cabinet members? The pope being investigated by the bishops in the vatican? Kissinger investigating Nixon? Rumsfeld and Cheney investigating Bush? Yogi Bear investigated by Boo Bear? Batman investigated by Robin?
That is how seriously I take the expectation of non-bias in this small insular in-group. If this is at all important to this organization to be taken seriously, they should have selected out-of-circle participants.
One man’s sland… uh opinion.
As a Christian who believes the Bible is the inspired Word of God, I disagree with RandMan on most of what he posts here. However, in this case he is right. The idea that this matter can be impartially addressed from within the CREC is highly unlikely. If I were the type that used emphasis on words in my writing, e.g. all caps, I would have used it on the words “highly unlikely” in the previous sentence. But I’m not, so… This isn’t intended as a statement about the character of the men involved, it’s a statement about the reality… Read more »
But how does one “change venue” in terms of pastoral oversight and church discipline? In Reformed Church Polity, one can’t put together a Blue Ribbon panel of outsiders. And where would get such a panel that subscribes to the standards and polity of the CREC. It is a matter of pastoral oversight and discipline within the CREC. One cannot farm this out and still be faithful to, e.g., articles 30-32 of the Belgic Confession.
The standards that ought to be applied are biblical ones, if it is necessary to go outside the CREC to be faithful to those standards, I see no conflict with the Belgic Confession. In the Doug Phillips situation not so long ago, Wilson suggested, strongly as I recall, that one of the peacemaker ministries be employed to sort out that mess. That being the case, I doubt he would have an objection to something similar here. Impartiality is a biblical standard that needs to be applied. There are numerous reasons, as RandMan has pointed out, that raise legitimate questions about… Read more »
I am not a minister in the CREC, but in the Church Order to which I am bound, ecclesiastical matters have to be dealt with in an ecclesiastical manner. That would preclude going to a parachurch organization such as one of the peacemaker groups. Further, it would preclude going out of the bounds of the federation of churches in which the matter arose. If Rev. Booth et al. cannot be trusted to judge impartially on biblical grounds, then the CREC has a bigger problems than pastoral decisions made by Christ’s Church. If these men cannot be trusted to judge to… Read more »
The church essentially abandoned matters of discipline about 200 years ago. There has been an effort in the last 40 years or so to recover what has been lost, but it doesn’t seem like much ground has been gained in those efforts. Are there any churches capable of competently and conscientiously carrying out a judicial process? If so, they are few and far between. Our secular courts have a much better memory, of what a biblical judicial process looks like, than does the church; Reformed or otherwise. You say “we ought not doubt” those who we believe to be faithful… Read more »
If you are correct that the (many/most) churches have essentially abandoned matters of discipline some two centuries ago, then they are not true churches. One of the essential marks of the church is discipline (see article 29 of the Belgic Confession and the Scripture cited there). If there is no true discipline to be found in the CREC and elsewhere, then you are indeed saying these men are false shepherds and the CREC (and many–most?–other federations of churches) are synagogues of Satan. Otherwise, calling people to doubt faithful office-bearers runs contrary to I Corinthians 16:16 and Hebrews 13:17.
First, I want to clarify what I said earlier, I am not directing my agreement with RandMan at anyone in particular. His statements about closely knit groups investigating themselves, or an individual within the group, are reasonable. Secondly, the verses you mentioned deal with submission to elders, not doubting. To pay attention to how elders handle disciplinary situations, and then examine the scriptures to see if they are being faithful to them is what I’m talking about, and that is most certainly not contrary to scripture. Last. Elders who believe themselves to be immune from biases in handling situations like… Read more »
First, you made an over-arching claim about the lack of discipline in the church(es) for the last 200 years. Since discipline is a non-negotiable mark of the true church, you are saying that the CREC and most (all?) other churches lack an essential mark of being a faithful church of Jesus Christ. Second, to say you should submit to those whom you are to doubt is double-speak. If you doubt someone’s judgment and ability to be just, you should not submit to them. But, then, in your historical paradigm, these men are false shepherds, as have all so-called elders been… Read more »
I think this will be more impartial than you imply (having seen how much disagreement can be within a church, let alone, between churches), but your point is taken.
Truly awful what you imply. You show your true nature Bryan. It is ugly.
BJ inspired me to offer a few more illustrative quotes I found on tvtropes.org. (It’s a long post, but worth it.) May the godly among us be amused and may those whose feet fit perfectly in the shoe be ashamed: ♫ “The justice is swift in the court of miracles I am the lawyers and judge all at one We’d like to get the trial over with quickly Because it’s the sentence that’s really the fun!”♫ — Clopin, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, “The Court Of Miracles” “500 years ago, military officers would upend a drum on the battlefield. They’d… Read more »
What would a Thursday be without a reference to General Burkhalter?
Much of what Wilson is being criticized for is based on his own testimony in the matter. In other words, taking everything he has said as true, one still walks away wondering how anyone could behave as he did in the Sitler and Wight matters. Why would Iverson and Wilson recommend Sitler to Katy Travis. Why would they encourage a marriage that would almost certainly result in a broken home. In the Wight case, why would they discipline Wight and spank the Greenfield family in the same breath. Other men involved have apologized. But even more disturbing are Wilson’s blogs… Read more »
“Why would Iverson and Wilson recommend Sitler to Katy Travis.”
When and how did this occur?
MikeColucci asks why the Greenfield parents were exhorted to guard their daughter in such direct language. Rather than see this as it was explicitly intended, as basic concern for Natalie, MikeColucci seems to be assuming that there are no conditions under which the parents would ever have needed such an admonition. I don’t claim to know the particulars, but I can imagine lots and lots of situations where parents could be gravely negligent toward their teenage daughter. I’ve known situations where parents practically have an open door policy to any boys to come and go from the house any time.… Read more »
Not assuming that at all. For the sake of argument, let’s assume they were negligent. Why would the session send them a written admonition (with a warning shot to the effect they strongly considered formally disciplining them) after everything the family had just been through? Something like 3 years of repeated statutory rape and all the pain and humiliation that entails. Put yourself in the Greenfield’s position for a second. The letter from the session seems to be an instance of kicking someone when they’re already down, and way down at that. Wouldn’t it have been better to offer comfort,… Read more »
“Not officially, with church letterhead and judicial threats, but pastorally, with an arm around the shoulder?”
You know for a fact that wasn’t done?
MikeColucci seems to be saying that even if Natalie’s parents were grossly negligent that it was inappropriate for their pastoring session to say so while they were still grieving. Perhaps, but this also seems to assume that the negligence was not ongoing at the time the letter was written, and that Natalie was beyond any further danger due to the negligence. What if this wasn’t the case? What if the negligence was of an ongoing nature that would rise to the level of church discipline? Would MikeColucci concede that this would change his impression of the letter? If not, why… Read more »
Wight had been kicked out of the Greenfield house long before the session letter was sent. So what negligence? Your hypothetical wants me to assume that the session actually gave the Greenfields a pass on something that demanded serious discipline. I don’t think there’s any reasonable reason to go there, do you? What the record does show is more important, and it gives me reason to doubt the Wilson account. Two things stand out here that impeach wilson’s credibility in my opinion: (1) The Leithart letter, which states that Wight played them for fools and caused them to disbelieve the… Read more »
Notice that MikeColucci didn’t answer my questions. Instead he seems to be implicitly acknowledging that he just doesn’t know if the Greenfields may have been negligent in an ongoing way that would make the Christ Church admonition appropriate. MikeColucci tries to turn the question back on me by saying, “So what negligence?”, as if Wilson is guilty until I prove his innocence. Is that how justice works? Again, I ask MikeColucci, could there have been some ongoing negligence that would have made the admonition letter appropriate at the time it was sent? Is it possible? If so, then isn’t it… Read more »
Your example of two children playing is not remotely analogous to either of the situations at hand. A better comparison would be a child or young teen outside playing when an adult man walks into the yard and hits the child with a club. The parents saying the child could play in the yard does not mean they or the child are culpable for the kid getting clubbed. Even if the parents said had, say, hired the man to be in the yard to do yardwork, that would still not mean they were negligent in allowing a situation where their… Read more »
Where did he say that his example was analogous to those other situations?
He didn’t. He does however state in defense of Wight that Jamin was not a sexual predator. Which of course he is. That is what she is referring to I believe.
Wilson thinks of himself as one of the poor misunderstood kid. Of course never directly- never that. Just a general story… Pathetic.
And the facts make a compelling case that he wasn’t a sexual predator, at least, not in the sense Sitler was. He was certainly a sex offender, but based on that situation alone (I don’t know the rest of his criminal history to speak to other actions by Jamin), it seems reasonable to argue he was not a sexual predator. That may not be true, but reasonable people should be able to disagree on that point.
If he, past 21 years of age, took advantage of a fourteen-year-old girl’s innocent schoolgirl crush to seduce her into performing intimate sex acts on him for his physical gratification, that strikes me as fairly predatory.
Possibly, but according to the technical definition of the term, not necessarily.
Obviously, he was very different from Sitler.
yes, he was much more violent. and probably smarter.
Yeah. Like a shark is different from a lion.
In legal terms, it matters. Clearly, neither of you are familiar with law, but the difference between predator and offender is huge, particularly in some states (some states have unfortunately blurred the lines).
Here’s the legal terms: Wight and Sitler were both charged with the same thing: Lewd Conduct with a Child Under 16 (I18-1508). Here’s the law: http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH15SECT18-1508.htm. Sitler was found guilty on that charge. Wight was also charged with Sexual Abuse of a Child Under 16 (I18-1506): http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH15SECT18-1506.htm. He pled out to Children-injury to a Child (I18-1501): https://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH15SECT18-1501.htm, which allowed him to plead guilty to that charge only and have the other charges dropped. So, the law considers them both in the same category. It doesn’t really matter whether you want to call it a predator or offender. The analogy of… Read more »
Well then, that’s a joke if they were charged with the same thing.
It doesn’t matter what Wight has done SINCE, since Wilson would not have known of those future acts.
What is the technical definition, and where does it come from?
And I’m curious about your use of the term “possibly” because I said “if”. “If” he did what I said, is that, or is that not, predatory?
if it wasn’t predatory, it wouldn’t be criminal.
Grooming and raping a 14 year old as a man in your mid 20’s is predatorial.
Why even bother to argue it except to try and loosen the hook for DW?Think about your position re irrelevant distinctions where children are at stake. Would you say that out loud with Natalie in the room?
Notice how RandMan and Laura assume that Jamin’s intentions were, from the very outset, malicious and hateful toward Natalie, in a way that Natalie was never anything other than just a faceless female target. They don’t say how they know that this was the case. Rather they assume that it must have been, based on the fact that there was shipwreckage. No one doubts that ships do wreck, or that this was a great shipwreck, but RandMan and Laura are assuming that ships never set sail without the intent to wreck them. It may be instructive for RandMan and Laura… Read more »
It may be instructive for Katecho to find a dictionary somewhere and look up the definition of the word “if”.
Also, it would be useful for Katecho to kind of flesh out how a man could find his erect penis in a 14-year-old girl’s mouth, under nothing more than infatuation. “Grip of lust,” really? Really?
Some 14-year-olds are basically grown women. Hebephilia is illegal for a good reason, but it is not exactly on the same level as pedophilia. For the record, a lot of 13- and 14-year-olds are perfectly willing to dispense sexual favors without being coerced, and when we get down to it, does it really matter whether a turgid penis belongs to a fellatee who’s 14 or 21?
I wish reality didn’t suck so much, but there is nothing I can do about it.
Job your ugly is showing.
Much of the argument does seem to hinge on age. I don’t think a 20 something year old male has any business having sex with a teenager (or anyone to whom he is not married).
Where is the ‘outrage’ line drawn? Two 14 year olds? 14 and 15? 14 & 16? 14 & 17? 14 & 18?
“I don’t think a 20 something year old male has any business having sex with a teenager (or anyone to whom he is not married).”
That ought to be the end of it. Weirdly, it’s not.
I’m coming to this very late. But glancing over the posts, I really don’t find much justification that what this young man did was moral, good or godly.
What I do see from 35,000 feet is people disagreeing on what the ‘end’ should be. The range is from ‘just right’ to ‘too harsh’ to ‘too soft’.
I don’t know these people and have tried to refrain from judgment. But the fact is that there was one grownup in this situation, and therefore one (1) person on whom the responsibility falls. And I don’t, seriously, get all of the stuff about how men are supposed to lead, and have authority, and be in charge, when people are falling all over themselves to find excuses for how the man in this situation wasn’t really so bad, and some 14-year-old girls are tall and pretty and offer sexual favors. Either men can be held responsible for their actions, or… Read more »
You apparently have been more engaged than I. And I don’t disagree with your statement that man is the responsible party. It clearly falls within Adamic headship. Even in the Proverbs only culpability is found for the young man ‘wandering’ by the prostitute’s house. The buck should have stopped with the young man. Period. The other part of the equation which is generating much discussion is the consent of the 14 year old girl. I’ve not seen anyone post that she was a girl of loose moral fiber who kept enticing the young man who didn’t have the moral fiber… Read more »
I don’t know what actions she ought to take responsibility for. If, at age 14, she had said to him, hey, drop your pants and I’ll blank – blank, then the proper response would have been, that is the kind of thing you need to wait and see if your husband is interested in. And then, if he’s attracted to her, take care never to be alone with her. And that is the extreme. My suspicion is that she was a sheltered virgin and an immature girl, and the responsibility lies wholly with him. As I say, I don’t know… Read more »
My suspicion is that she was a sheltered virgin and an immature girl, and the responsibility lies wholly with him.
Quite possibly.
What others are saying is that there may be details that we don’t know.
Of course that’s true, but I am struck with the apparent inability of some of the folks here to bring themselves to state that ***IIIFFFF**** he took advantage of her innocent crush to seduce her into performing sex acts on him, then that was predatory. They can’t seem to approach ever, ever, ever holding the man responsible.
And it’s actually hard to imagine details that would excuse him at all. He was, after all, a grown man.
What do you mean excusing him? Who is excusing him?
I don’t read this as an excuse. I read this as saying that a female in this situation could bear some responsibility. I assumed that Job would still think that the male would bear most of the responsibility.
It reads exactly like excusing to me. Minimizing the harm and seeking to point the finger elsewhere.
Well ask Job. Does he seek to excuse the man as you propose, or is he stating that a 14-year old may be somewhat culpable? If his sentence lacks clarity ask him.
I don’t have to ask anyone. I think that minimizing the badness of what an adult does, and seeking to place responsibility for their actions on a kid, is excusing.
So a 14 year-old is a kid? Do they have any responsibility at all?
Yes, a 14-year-old is a kid. And when it comes to sexual acts between a 14-year-old and a 23-year-old, no.
So they are 100% culpable if the other person is 10, and 0% culpable when the other person is 20?
We are talking about 14 and 23, bethyada.
Do you think that females have some kind of special wickedness when it comes to sex, and some kind of power over men, that when something like this happens, it’s just not possible that the female is an innocent victim?
I think we are talking past each other. I don’t think that all women are seductive vixens. I do think that people have some culpability. I don’t know this case. I do know what a lot of school kids get up to. I know that from what I have taught my children I would not consider them completely innocent in all situations.
seriously? SERIOUSLY?? if your 14 yr old daughter had been seduced and then sexually abused by a grown ass man under your own roof you might tell her she bore *some responsibility* for that? I can’t anymore.
Not necessarily. But there are situations which I would her to varying degrees of culpability.
Because people do not know full circumstances behind this situation, they can only consider in general terms. That is why the hypotheticals. The point being that unknowns can ameliorate or change the situation.
No. They. Can’t.
unknowns can ameliorate or change the situation.
No. They. Can’t.
So Doug’s example above of the 2 kids fighting doesn’t change anything?
There is no need to cross examine in a legal case.
What looks like a murder can never be actually self defence?
And what is it with the period infested sentences?! Is that some kind of fallout from the free speech apocalypse? It’s most unnatural.
I’m referring specifically to this situation and those like it. Doug’s example is completely irrelevant to this situation.
His example is illustrative of the principle. The principle is that new information can (not will) change our interpretation of events.
This does not mean that new information is always relevant, or significantly changes the judgment. But to refuse to accept that it could, or to refuse to listen, or to allow one side a defense but deny it to the other side; these are all injustices.
right. in this case more weihht was given to 2 molesters by doug and the elders …a great injustice.
Herewego, could Natalie have had consensual relations with a young man of 17 and, if she had, would she have borne ANY responsibility for it? Do I understand you to say that when a male turns 18 the female in the couple immediately bears no responsibility for her actions? (No one’s saying that this guy, Wight, isn’t a legit creep. He is… just trying to figure out why holding HIM responsible for his actions means we can’t say anything about HER responsibility – if it wasn’t rape, i.e. non-consensual sex.
according to the law as i understand it that is correct. also if i understand correctly, natalie has stated that at least some of these encounters were cooerced.
Kids, I’m not asking (first) what the LAW says. That’s a legit conversation, but its not the principle decision to have here. I’m hoping you (or someone) can provide a theological (biblical) or even natural law case for why holding Wight *completely* accountable for his criminal activity means that Natalie (or her father) didn’t bear some responsibility for what happened. And, for that matter, DW, too. I have a 15 year-old daughter. If she went to a friend’s house for a sleepover and her friend’s older brother, a senior in college, isolated her and raped, i.e. had sexual contact with… Read more »
It is not difficult to understand, but I think people recoil a little from the idea of assigning blame (if there is any blame, which I doubt) to someone who has already been victimized and has suffered so much. Let’s take a hypothetical (not your daughter who I hope is better cared for than many, and not Natalie about whom I know very little). If we leave out the age of the victim, we still have the issue of coercion. We still have the issues of a large gap in years, maturity, and perceived power. There are other forms of… Read more »
Bravo jillybean, bravo. That had it all. The solid ring of truth, compassion, reason, thoughtfulness. Maybe the best comment since this whole awful DW thread began. Thank you for that. That really made me feel something. So very few commenters here understand the dynamics of sexual abuse, maybe even human nature and the different ways that skillful manipulators ply their trade. I know first hand many of the scenarios you describe above. I can say that I can tell to the post those who have never had any direct experience with them whatsoever. You just wouldn’t posit the ‘what if’s’… Read more »
I appreciate that. I was a teacher in a Catholic school during the 1970s. I learned subsequently that several of my students had been abused, and that at least two of the priests whom I thought I knew well went to prison for sex crimes. I remember vividly episodes in which there would be a knock at my classroom door, and the presence of one of my eighth graders would be requested over at the rectory. When I remember looking at that child and saying, “Hurry up, Danny, don’t keep Father waiting,” it sends a knife through my heart.
That is heartbreaking for you. You couldn’t have known of course. But that must feel terrible. I am sorry that you were in that position. The ripple effects of this malady are so complex. Thank you for sharing that with me. That explains your compassion here. I meant what I said. That was a most thoughtful and kind post. It spoke to my experience. I will share that with you a bit as you did with me. I was one of those kids you speak of- a little younger than Natalie was, but taken under the wing of an older… Read more »
JillyBean, You ask, “Why then are you interested in assigning additional responsibility elsewhere?” That’s a curious way to frame the question (or the issue). I’d ask, “Why aren’t you interested at all?” Now, to be sure, what you and I are doing NOW – well after the fact – would be completely out of bounds at time these heinous acts were committed. To your point, you don’t show-up at the house of the deceased child’s parents and say, “Well, he DID get into the car with him.” In that moment and many moments thereafter, its not a time to talk… Read more »
You are right, and of course I should have qualified my statement by saying that some girls are gullible. As someone who was gullible beyond belief in my younger years, it is too easy for me to generalize from my own experience. One of the reasons I specifically excluded your 15 year old from my hypothetical is that I thought it likely your child would be better protected and better equipped than many others to deal with predators who would want to victimize her. There are many elements that heighten a girl’s vulnerability, and the danger of some of these… Read more »
I don’t think you understand grooming or predation. It’s in the context of that behavior that this took place. Wasn’t natalie13 when it began? Didn’t the father, according to himself and Natalie, show Wight the door *as soon* as he realized something wasn’t right? Would the responsibility he bore be less if his daughter were unattractive, or let’s say perhaps mentally retarded? Weren’t the families directly encouraged by Doug himself to board students?
I have the same question as you do: why does this seem so difficult to understand?
also, it absolute ly is the legal definition of culpablity that is of importance and this is why the “internet lynch mob” is concerned. Doug is not the only pastor recently to show a lack of comprehension in this question. It’s a pattern, a blind spot, i would say a theology and pride issue. And the answer will always be no. Between an adult and a minor, legally, the full responsibility lies with the adult. Morally as well. A child , a minor, by law is *unable* to consent to s€x w an adult. In any circumstance, whatever the physical… Read more »
What’s to understand – unless you’d prefer to mire the conversation in modern psychobabble? The questions you ask are: 1) Didn’t dad show him the door? No, he didn’t. One of the blog entries – who can remember which one – spoke of him putting a chair in the hallway between their rooms for protection. And of course it wouldn’t lessen his responsibility if the daughter were anything other than his daughter. That’s the issue. Have you actually read the letters Wilson/Session wrote? All of them? And if Doug encouraged families to Board 20 something men when they have adolescent… Read more »
And what if your daughter didn’t so proudly do that as she told you she would? What if she was 13? What if she was initially fascinated and infatuated with a man 10 years her senior living benignly under your roof. What if his attentions were flattering beyond her wildest child-like dreams and he used this to groom and coerce her into an initial physical relationship that crossed into sex and rape? What if after she realized what she was being used for his sexual pleasure, he shamed and threatened her, saying she would be forever known as a slut… Read more »
You’re certifiably a nut. What Wight did to Natalie was wrong. Categorically and from every direction and he should’ve been prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law. No argument. We’re completely agreed on this. What you can’t seem to admit is that a girl who’s reached sexual maturity, who’s been taught the basics of sexual relationships, etc. must – MUST – defend herself. In this case, this would’ve simply amounted to saying, “Dad, Jamin is saying things that make me uncomfortable… or touching me without my permission…” or whatever. If you respond, ‘But she didn’t know they were wrong/inappropriate’… Read more »
Whenever I hear that ‘BUT’, I know some wicked garbage is coming down the pike.
I had reached sexual maturity. I had been taught the basics of sexual relationships. My parents were completely oblivious. For years. And I wouldn’t have told them about the abuse I took. Must… MUST I have defended myself? There are many reasons why people stay quiet and become mired and bound in their abuse, fear and shame. Do I need to list them again?
You don’t know what you’re taking about.
I think you are witnessing the difference between good parenting and bad parenting in these sorts of interactions. Good parents understands the difference between legal culpability and moral culpability. My three year old stole three quarters he found in a church nursery drawer a few weeks back. In the case of three year old theft, I am glad that we maintain distinctions between legal culpability and moral culpability. Did my son sin? Yes. He actually understood the concept of stealing, we explained it to him the day before, and he sought to cover his tracks with a couple of lies.… Read more »
And in a nut-shell, how christians by way of adherence to dogma slide from moral arbiters into utter wickedness, by Tim and Bonhoeffer. Moral accountability huh? I really am not sure how to explain to someone who has not been raped or sexually molested as a kid or young teen, what it is like psychologically. How you are led to it in small, unassuming stages to where the line gets crossed and you don’t even know it. At an age where things are more confusing than they have ever been or ever will be hence. But let’s apply your thinking… Read more »
For what it is worth, I am saddened to hear about your experience. I would not wish the story you described on anyone. If you do want to know how I can affirm the things I affirmed in the previous post and express genuine sorrow over your experience at the same time, I would be happy to explain.
Tim, I imagine that you are at the core a kind man like most of the christians here. However, the charge that Douglas is leading is the wrong one. Make no mistake, there is absolutely no case to be made for casting responsibility for the actions of a most likely sociopathic abuser like Wight onto the victim or her family. However attractive it becomes or conventionally-wise it can suddenly appear. Douglas has successfully insinuated that this okay by doing it himself to deflect criticism away from his failures to lead and protect. It is not. And don’t think that I… Read more »
I understand how a person with your experience would wish to tell his story and have his interpretation of his story serve as the measuring stick by which all other similar stories are judged. Unfortunately I face the difficulty of having my own messy story, as does my wife. However, I am not seeking to dogmatically impose my interpretation of my own story, nor my wife’s interpretation of her story on anyone else. Ultimately, we have to appeal to a standard outside of ourselves in determining right and wrong. This is where our disagreements lie. If you wish to more… Read more »
I am so, so sorry. What you say is so much like the pain and grief I have heard from others who went through this nightmare. When you talked about being complicit in your own destruction, I thought what a brilliant description of the worst aspect of abuse. I know you are no longer a believer, but I hope you will be okay with my praying for you. You have become a powerful advocate for children, but at too great a price.
Of course, thank you jillybean. i don’t believe in prayer but please do. From you, I would appreciate the effort knowing how you feel. I think the ‘forced complicity’ is a key ingredient. I hadn’t really thought about it in particular, but I think you are right that it is important. It is kind of the missing link in this conversation. So many opinions here go off the rails without considering it. In fact, you need no other motivation to keep quiet and go along with more abuse because a weird binding pact has been struck with the abuser. So… Read more »
actually he did. yes i know he sat by her door first bc he felt uneasy. that seems a pretty responsible action. then when he found out there was actually a problem wight was shown the door. i dont care what you think I’m trying to do. I’m glad your daughter has a strong response to your question…i have 3 daughters. 1 of them i would describe as very strong, strict personal standards etc . But as a 11-12 yr old she was abused by a church elder in our home on several occasions. it took a number of years… Read more »
Hi, Laura. No question that this Wight fellow was a sick puppy – predatory and all that. A real coward. Still… I wonder where (and why) you draw the lines as you do. My grandmother and grandfather married in 1918 when she was 15 and he 19 – illegal by today’s standards and – according to you – predatory and inherently wrong (or do I misread you?). They had 7 children together and remained married until his death for 77 years. Not every situation is like that, to be sure… including this one. But what makes the age discrepancy wrong… Read more »
You misread me. Go back and look where I used the term “predatory” and where I used the term “ought to”.
I think the law can answer that question for you, Beth. After all, it’s crime that we’re talking about here.
I think the law can answer that question for you
Except kiliing children before they are born is legal. You can’t resolve moral issues by just asking the government.
Of course not. The law isn’t supposed to define morality. But it does define what’s criminal. That’s what we’re talking about here.
its totally excusing and its pathetic. who does that??
No. No, no, no, a million times, no. If an adult man is propositioned by an underage girl, it is entirely his responsibility to refuse her. And if he doesn’t, then he is nothing but a predator.
What if she’s like, really mature, and, like, she has a fake ID, and like, he is lonely and naive?
None of that matters. The law makes no such allowances.
By the way, NAMBLA just called. They say they don’t want you using their talking points, because they’re not keen to be associated with Doug Wilson in even the slightest degree. It makes them look bad. (/sarcasm)
“he is nothing but a predator.” How is he a predator if he doesn’t know a girl is underage?
“By the way, NAMBLA just called.” Where have I supported pederasty?
You haven’t supported pederasty, but you have been repeating one of NAMBLA’s ridiculous defences. Namely, that a minor is capable of seducing a fully-functioning adult. Legally, that just wrong.
You’re trying to defend the indefensible. We can all see through it.
“Namely, that a minor is capable of seducing a fully-functioning adult. Legally, that just wrong.” I hope you understand that sexuality is not legality. Until this year the age of consent in Spain was 13. Do you mean to tell me that a 13-year-old could seduce an adult in Spain, turn 14 and seduce an adult in Germany, turn 15 and seduce an adult in France, then turn 16 and seduce an adult in the Netherlands, but when they turn 17 they are incapable of seducing an adult in the USA (unless they have their parents’ permission and a marriage… Read more »
So a promiscous girl who is late 15s propositions a naive guy who has just turned 16. He is the predator?
No, because they are both underage. If a fifteen-year-old girl comes on to a 21-year-old guy, he commits a crime if he has sex with her. The further apart they are in age, the more severe the penalties. Some states have “Romeo and Juliet” laws under which a person just over the age of consent can have sex with someone just under it without committing a felony. California has strict liability laws; closeness in age is not a defense, although it mitigates the punishment. In some states, it is not a defense to say that the girl claimed to be… Read more »
Jellybean – what about a 16 and 18 year-old? Prosecute him? If so, you should go down to the local high school and lock-up have the Senior class of boys…
I find that difficult, but there is no doubt about the law in California. My daughter’s first boyfriend was 19 when she was 15, and his parents were even more concerned about their chastity than I was. Boys and girls can (and do) go to jail for sex with underaged partners. I personally think California’s age of consent (18) is a little high. I would have been half way through college by the time I was old enough to say yes. On the other hand, kids are taught about this law, and girls are instructed that what might be casual… Read more »
Jellybean, I’m not so much asking what ‘law in CA’ says (though that’s certainly relevant in some ways) or what happens sometimes with boys and girls or what you *personally* think about an appropriate age of consent, or (most laughably) what your definition of ‘some leeway’ would like like in practice. I’m attempting to get you to state what universals exist for us on this matter.
I’m sorry but I’m not totally sure what you’re asking for. You asked whether I thought a boy of 18 should be charged for having sex with a girl of 16, and I replied with what the law says. I indicated why I am not totally on board with that law, although I am definitely in favor of prosecuting men in their twenties who have sex with underaged girls, even if the girls are willing. The existing universals are (I think): obey the law; do not seduce the innocent; do not have sexual contact with anyone who is deemed by… Read more »
In my country 16 is the age of sexual consent. That is why I choose my example. The point being that appealing to the law does not solve the moral questions because legality is not morality, as we know from the abortion laws. And I’m Cute, Too If an adult man is propositioned by an underage girl, it is entirely his responsibility to refuse her. And if he doesn’t, then he is nothing but a predator. In my country the 16 year-old male would be the adult and the 15+ promiscuous girl would be the child. Cutesy’s rules say that… Read more »
Check the law books. What do they say?
So you think that the law is wrong on abortion.
You said that the 16 year-old is nothing but a predator and that this even applies to the situation I described. And this is a legal definition you say?
So what does the legal definition mean? because it is clearly the 15+ promiscuous girl who is more morally wrong here and the 16 year old naive male is not acting in a predatory manner.
Is the 16-year-old boy considered an adult according to the statute? Is there any special consideration in the law for young people who are that close to each other in age? That’s why I told you to check the statutes for whatever state is in question.
And I’m not talking about morality here. What the law defines as predatory behaviour is predatory under the law.
You replied to me and I was making a moral argument.
You emphatically said it is his responsibility to refuse her. You saying that you mean that it is his legal responsibility to refuse her?
Perhaps that is prudent, but that is not what I was arguing.
So it seems we agree, legally the person over 16 should refuse so as he does not break the law, but morally the person under 16 may be the far more morally culpable one.
So, Cutie, tell me this… what is it that makes a young woman of 15 completely irresponsible for her sexuality if her suitor is 18, but responsible for 50-50 (in consensual situations) if it’s a day before he’s 18?
The law.
I beg your pardon. I was speaking in a general sense in response to this:
“Also, it would be useful for Katecho to kind of flesh out how a man could find his erect penis in a 14-year-old girl’s mouth, under nothing more than infatuation. “Grip of lust,” really? Really?”
I have avoided speaking about the specific case out of concern for the girl.
Now retract the claim.
I did not understand that you were responding to this exactly, but I still think that what you said is reprehensible. If this site and the commenters never claimed to be any more than heathens, it would be not completely unexpected. As it is, I’m still appalled.
I took issue with your ridiculous generality and responded with my own. That is not the same thing as excusing a crime. Now retract the claim.
Were you not minimizing the harm and seeking to deflect responsibility?
If not, maybe don’t rush to explain and enlarge upon “grip of lust”.
Then you are a liar and I will refer to you as such.
I haven’t lied.
That is precisely what a liar would claim.
And what would a person say who is telling the truth?
You would acknowledge this: My assertion that a 14-year-old who fellates a 21-year-old was not necessarily coerced* does not imply that I am excusing a particular man who was found guilty of a crime in a court of law. Then you would retract your claim.
(*There are circumstances where it is right, good, and holy for a 14-year-old to have sex with a 21-year-old – i.e. the marriage bed. There is no use conflating hebephilia with pedophilia.)
We are going to have to disagree here. A 23-year-old man who *lets* a 14-year-old do that is culpable. Period. Full stop. And I think the marriage of a 14-year-old to such a man is much, much, much more likely to be coerced than not.
i think this entire conversation is an excuse for job to say the words fellate and 14 yr old in the same sentence.
Think again, sicko.
“A 23-year-old man who *lets* a 14-year-old do that is culpable.” – Even if they are married and she was not coerced? We haven’t established the morality of such a union.
That’s the issue, Laura. This sounds much more like “Laura says…” than any moral wisdom grounded in the ages or western (eastern?) jurisprudence. Perhaps there is… I’m no expert. Make a biblical/theological and historical case. Again, no one’s arguing that Natalie wasn’t hurt/harmed/taken advantage of, etc. and that Wight shouldn’t be held accountable. Or at least I’m not. But I would like to know how she is devoid of responsibility a priori (and worse, her absolutely negligent father…).
Your last sentence reveals that you haven’t read my comments. Also, you have no idea what “absolutely negligent” looks like in a father. There are fathers who know their fourteen-year-old daughters are drinking and drugging and having sex, and don’t care. There are fathers of fourteen-year-old daughters who aren’t on the scene at all.
Laura – Can I imagine a worse father? Sure. No problem. But to have a father who 1) invites a young 20’s male into a home with teenage girls where bedrooms adjoin and a bath is shared – this already reveals a lack of discernment. But to suspect ABUSE and to not remove the guy immediately? I’m sorry, Laura… this is unbelievable. Natalie’s affection and heart will naturally be with her dad and she’ll be loathe to hold him responsible. But the reality is that it wasn’t DW who let this predator into the home (he warned Greenfield, right?) and… Read more »
Wait wait wait. DW warned Greenfield that Wight was a predator before he took him into the home?
Laura – what are you asking? If DW knew (or had ANY suspicion) that Wight would be an inappropriate fit and did not speak, he’s culpable in my mind. I was under the impression that it was the mere fact that Greenfield was putting a young man in his 20’s right next door to his teenage daughter that occasioned his concern. Am I wrong? If so, please say so.
I don’t know enough about this story to say. I was under the impression that DW never expressed concern about either about the situation or about Natalie’s father’s parenting skills until the abuse was out in the open.
That would cut the threads that allow these few DW lackeys to hold onto the more heinous garbage they are tossing out. I include Douglas in that remark. In fact he is the font of it in his letter.
I, for one, don’t excuse a thing he did… nor did DW. He’s simply saying that in demanding accountability for one party, its not impossible to assign guilt/culpability to others. Of course, how and when this is done is a matter of pastoral wisdom and sensitivity – something that arm chairing this one from the keyboard 10+ years later is not particularly effective in doing.
Let me say this is not an abstract issue for me. I believe she has some responsibility, even if she was as you describe. It is of magnitudes lower, though. Thanks for your thoughtful and kind posts.
I agree. As for age, clearly the participants should be sexually mature, but I doubt 18 is the magic number.
I have been told repeatedly that Joseph was probably in his twenties or thirties, whereas Mary was likely about 14. Once married it didn’t matter – they became one flesh and had full rights to each other’s body.
completely different culture w different expectations and needs
There is a push in countries with high maternal and infant mortality rates to raise the minimum age at which girls can be married off, and with very good reason.
“completely different culture”
Our culture is fluid and is defined by the diversity of immigrants that have graced our shores since its inception. Are we not a nation of immigrants yearning to breathe free? Like it or not we are no longer an Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation. Conventional notions of morality no longer typify our multi-culture.
what in the hell are you talking about?
“completely different culture”
“Conventional notions of morality no longer typify our multi-culture.”
im talking about jewish culture of jesus’ day. i have no idea what you’re talking about.
I know. Now which culture is it different from?
the one we currently live in, as well as the ones our judicial and legislative systems were formed by. unless you are advocating stoning for adultery or for having been raped?
“the one we currently live in” Like it or not, there is no longer ‘one’ culture in the country. Consent laws are a good thing stemming from the Victorian era, in which Anglo-Saxon Protestants desired to protect young girls from sex slavery. Just as WASPs no longer dominate the country, their morality is ceasing to dominate. Joseph – Mary relations are malum prohibitum today, but probably won’t be for long as the country continues to brown (e.g. more Somalis, Saudis, Guatemalans, etc.). My point is that every step must be taken to protect young girls and boys. Consent laws are… Read more »
whatever. the laws in place now are the ones being disregarded and undermined by clergy..don’t know what makes you think stiffer ones wwould be more respected.
“the laws in place now are the ones being disregarded and undermined by clergy”
Add to that politicians, schoolteachers, lady schoolteachers, Hollywood directors and casting agents, British media elites, Pakistani Muslims, most of the Third World, etc.
Laws allow retribution. It is as simple as that.
its much more concerning to me when its done by clergy.
its the legal number.
Uh, did you even bother reading Boone’s post?
“Where is the ‘outrage’ line drawn? Two 14 year olds? 14 and 15? 14 & 16? 14 & 17? 14 & 18?”
Depends on the SJW drawing it. And who he’s drawing it around.
“SJWs are widely known for demanding the death penalty for statutory rape”, said nobody ever.
(BTW, it’s us old white patriarchs who used to say “hang ’em” when this stuff happened.)
What is an SJW?
Social Justice Warrior. They are the valiant crusaders purging the last vestiges of Christianity from our dying culture and leading us to a bright tomorrow.
“Social Justice Warrior”
Do you think hebephilia is as bad as pedophilia?
***IF******
Natalie didn’t seduce Wright, but had a schoolgirl crush on him, which he worked to his advantage to get oral sex from her,
is he a predator?
Can you find it in you to hold a man at all responsible, ever, under any circumstances? or is the woman really in charge, always, even if she’s still a kid? If so, I wonder how in the world you could ever state with a straight face that the natural order is for men to be the heads of households.
“Can you find it in you to hold a man at all responsible, ever, under any circumstances?”
Was Wight held responsible by a court of law “if” or no “if”?
Is that a no?
“Is that a no?”
? It was a question.
Answer mine first, please.
I did actually by asking my question. Unless I’m mistaken, the answer to my question is yes.
“Also, it would be useful for Katecho to kind of flesh out how a man could find his erect penis in a 14-year-old girl’s mouth, under nothing more than infatuation.”
This is what I was responding to. I wasn’t referring to the Moscow case in particular.
Do you agree that hebephilia is not as bad as pedophilia?
You can’t answer my question, can you? I find that appalling and depressing.
Pardon me.
Predator? Probably. I haven’t read the court briefs. He definitely broke the law and should have been locked up. I don’t want to comment on the particulars of the case out of fairness to the girl. I don’t know anything about her character.
“Can you find it in you to hold a man at all responsible, ever, under any circumstances?” Yes.
Do you agree that hebephilia is not as bad as pedophilia?
I think that when you get down to it, every case is so individual that you can’t make a blanket statement there. If Jamin, for instance, threatened to kill Natalie’s parents if she didn’t submit, that would be traumatizing in a way that a small child wouldn’t have the capacity for. If he took advantage of an innocent crush, that ought to be manifested in secretly writing “Natalie Wight” over and over with little hearts dotting the i’s, and turned that into her dropping to her knees and servicing him, that is emotional rape that could forever affect her ability… Read more »
“I think that when you get down to it, every case is so individual that you can’t make a blanket statement”
Q.E.D. I guess. If I’m not mistaken, that is the point that katecho et al are trying to make.
Katecho’s point is that you can’t make a blanket statement about the relative evil of a grownup using a little child, or an adolescent, for sexual pleasure? I didn’t get that from him at all.
No I think his point was that in this case, there are so many factors that we don’t know, that we can’t make a blanket statement about the “predatoriness” of Wight. I’m sure I’ll get corrected if I’m wrong. :). My apologies if I missed your point earlier. Wouldn’t be the first time.
That was not the question. Do you agree that hebephilia is not as bad as pedophilia? That means, do you agree that sexual attraction to pubescent girls is not as bad as sexual attraction to pre-pubescent girls?
I think it’s not quite as deviant, if that’s what you mean.
It was not. Is it as morally indefensible?
I don’t think attractions are moral or immoral. I think actions are.
Sometimes people who were molested get sexually stuck at that age. They can’t help it and they’re not to blame for their feelings.
Thank you.
Is a 21-year-old man consummating a marriage with 14-year-old girl immoral?
Is a 21-year-old man consummating a marriage with 7-year-old girl immoral?
You are predicating a culture in which either of these marriages is legal and accepted? I don’t think people need to marry until they are adults.
The answer Laura is that consummating a marriage with a (post-pubescent) 14 year old is moral. Consummating a marriage with a 7 year old is immoral. Marrying a 7 year old or arranging a marriage with a 7 year old is immoral. Betrothal is the only option at that age.
The countries that don’t have arranged marriages tend to not have girls of fourteen getting married. That’s how it plays out when it’s not hypothetical. They aren’t ready. Their bodies aren’t ready to start having baby after baby, for one thing.
That’s right, but they still are having sex with boyfriends, friends, and buddies.
Sorry Laura, I don’t really get what you are saying here.
I was making no predictions. Since you are so reticent to answer, I will ask again:
Is a 21-year-old man consummating a marriage with 14-year-old girl IMMORAL?
Is a 21-year-old man consummating a marriage with 7-year-old girl IMMORAL?
“Predication” is not the same as “prediction”.
OK.
Yes.
Yes.
Happy now?
I’m sorry, I read your comment too quickly.
I don’t believe that ‘legal’ or ‘accepted’ have anything to do with the morality of an act. Malum prohibitum is not malum in se.
I am happy that you stated your beliefs.
I agree with you in terms of the 7-year-old. I disagree about the 14-year-old.
If Mary really was about 14, then did God sin when she became pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit? Did Joseph sin in consenting to marry such a young girl? Did their families sin in arranging such a marriage?
God does what God does. Unless you want to assume that every fourteen-year-old girl is the Virgin Mary, and every pregnancy was conceived by the Holy Spirit, then you can’t draw any conclusions there. We don’t view marriage today the way they did, which is unchanged in a lot of countries in the region. Girls aren’t married off in arranged marriages as soon as they begin to menstruate. In the US today there is not a single good reason for a fourteen-year-old girl or boy to marry. As I’ve said, in other parts of the world there are efforts underway… Read more »
“God does what God does” But you would agree that God has never broken his law, right? There is no ‘we.’ It is not a cultural matter at all, but one of moral absolutes. You equated pedophilia with [edit: hebephilia]. Unless you suggest that pedophilia is simply not ideal, then no such equation can be made. I assert that it is better for a 14-year-old to have sex with his or her spouse than have sex with a schoolmate. “As I’ve said, in other parts of the world there are efforts underway to raise the minimum age of marriage because… Read more »
Job *Is a 21-year-old man consummating a marriage with 14-year-old girl IMMORAL?
*Is a 21-year-old man consummating a marriage with 7-year-old girl IMMORAL?
Laura Yes.
Yes.
Seriously Laura? You do realise that the first example may be the case with Joseph and Mary? Do you think that was immoral?
I am talking about here and now, bethyada.
So if the law allowed a man to marry a woman at 14 (which is what Job is presupposing) would it be immoral for the husband to consummate his marriage. Clearly not.
But if the law allowed marriage to 7 year-olds the law would be wrong. And the husband would be wrong consummating the marriage; no appeal to the law allowing the marriage would excuse his behaviour.
Or are you saying that even if the law were to change to allow marriage to 14 year olds, consummation is still immoral?
The law doesn’t allow children of fourteen to marry for a reason. And the fact that something is legal doesn’t make it right.
But it does in some places.
So should the law have been different in Jesus’ day?
And if the law wasn’t different because that it is how it was, should God have waited until Mary was 18 before she became pregnant?
How old was Mary?
(Answer: we don’t know.)
No we do not. But 14 or 15 is probable and 18+ is highly unlikely.
Why do you say that?
Fair enough question.
I think that because they were betrothed then it was inevitable that they would marry. It is generally conceded that marriage occurred at a young age, though Christianity after Christ delayed age of marriage. Figures for Christian females marrying are very small for 12, but rising by the age of 15 (to at least 40% (possibly over 50%)). As Mary was betrothed there was no waiting for a suitor (which delayed marriage)
The issue was not pregnancy but intercourse. The perpetual virginity of Mary, despite having undergone childbirth, has been believed by the majority of Christendom through the ages–including Protestants such as Luther and John Wesley. I believe that God chose Joseph to be Mary’s husband in the sense that he provided and protected. So I don’t see what we can determine from Mary’s age–even though I concede that most girls at the time of our Lord were betrothed by their mid-teens. I did a little reading on age of consent vs. average age of menarche at different historical periods. I don’t… Read more »
I’m not. I’m suggesting that if she did, in fact, consent, then she is complicit in the act (which I’m not calling ‘rape.’) – which may well land the majority age man in jail. Her guilt in the matter (doesn’t mean he’s NOT guilty…). She’s not complicit simply because she ‘was old enough’ but because she consented. (And now, a decade later, I’m not sure what to make of Natalie’s insistence that she didn’t consent… perhaps those closest to the situation should be left to worry over this). I hate to be the one to say this, but if all… Read more »
I concede that most girls at the time of our Lord were betrothed by their mid-teens. Married by mid-teens, betrothed younger. I don’t buy the perpetual virginity of Mary. Whatever various Catholics and Protestants believed, this contradicts Scripture which implies they had sex, contradicts Scripture which says Jesus had siblings, and such a command from God to Joseph to marry and not have sex would contradict what God has said elsewhere in Scripture. I agree about different ages, and 14 would seem about right in the West currently. Puberty is more than menarche, though I guess you would agree. A… Read more »
I agree that it is difficult and almost at times schizophrenic. But to break down the examples you cite: I think the 15 year old is culpable for the molestation of a younger child but not as morally culpable as an adult would be. (He or she still needs to be off the streets even if there is some developmental problem that contributes to his behavior.) I am not aware of any jurisdiction where the 16 year old is in trouble for having sex with a fifteen year old; there is moral guilt on both sides (assuming full consent) but… Read more »
Jill, I concede parts of what you are saying, but here’s my issue. If we think a girl can consent sexually at 14 or 15 to a 16 year-old (morally), and if she bears some responsibility for sex outside of wedlock, why does that change if the man is older? An 26 year old man may be more morally culpable than a 16 year old man, but some are arguing that a consensual act is culpable for a female when her partner is one age and not culpable when he is another. I don’t disagree that age may give a… Read more »
As to age differences, I think the Western approach that we see here is largely incorrect. Clearly the man who repeatedly discards a women at 20 to get another 16 year old, even into his old age, is perverted. But we cringe at age gaps that throughout history have been common but blink not an eye at our extreme promiscuity. Like I said, my friend’s grandmother married at 16 to a man over 40 whom she loved dearly until his death. Another friend’s mother married at 14 to a man who was several years her senior and they are still… Read more »
This line of discussion is rank. Why would anyone be trying to make an unethical argument on how and why a fourteen-year-old might be old enough to be ‘consummated’ in the 21st century? Oh yeah, the bible. Gotta square that circle. We also don’t kill witches, stone homosexuals, keep slaves any number of other ‘reasonable’ activities from that era. Be part of the solution.
The point being that being post-pubertal matters. If a country allowed a marriage to occur at say 7, or 9 (which we may well see as Muhammed married a 9 year old), the Christian response is that Christians must not marry their daughters this young and that men must not consummate marriages with pre-pubescent girls. They can call this sin based on what it is. But that same argument cannot be made against countries that allow marriage at 14. A man is not sinning against God when he consummates a marriage with a post-pubescent female. Given what we want our… Read more »
I get it. But the discussion in the context of a blog post about the continued rape of a girl the same age is inappropriate at best. You and job should stop. It is callous and looks like you are trying to excuse Doug’s implications of the same. I cannot for the life of me think of any other reason why you would do it otherwise. I cannot improve on jillybean’s point and certainly not with her thoroughness, calm, and class. But understand that what you are engaged in puts a pit in the stomach of someone who has been… Read more »
It is difficult for me to comment on the specific case because I do not know the people personally and I lack full knowledge of the situation (as most people do). But several persons here are making accusations. I do think some generic response can be made to accusations. That is why I am trying to deal in hypotheticals. Further, it is difficult when a victim goes public as they want people to support them (understandable), but they also want their assessment to be agreed to. But if a victim accuses another then he or she should generally be allowed… Read more »
You can be raped by someone and be infatuated with them simultaneously. You personally just can’t see it. It is hard to unless you understand how sexual abuse works. Rape, especially where children are concerned, is about for one thing, power imbalance. Not the power of physically forcing someone to your will, but a grouping of much subtler, more insidious kinds of coercion. It is complex and tailored by experts to their victims on a very instinctive level. I would expect Natalie to have been infatuated with him. He would not have been about to get to her if she… Read more »
We will likely disagree over this. I think that rape implies non-consent. It is not that I don’t think that people can sin sexually in other ways including consensual ways, but I think sins and crimes in this area are not the same. I despise players, but I wouldn’t call them rapists and it is difficult to criminalise such behaviour.
I agree that sexual abuse is serious. I think the trend to wanting everything labelled sex-abuse and not having grades of abuse can minimise the seriousness of serious abuse.
… Frequently those marriages are arranged without the consent of either. Did you read about the 13-year-old bride in Yemen whose husband raped her to death? She cried to her mother that he was hurting her and her mother told her to go back and submit, and not shame the family. She was dead from internal injuries within the week.
Are you saying Yemeni culture is incompatible with our glorious multi-culture? I will have you know that Muslim immigrants to Scandinavia have been doing a fine job of raping full-grown women to death. It is irrelevant to the question I asked.
What is wrong with you?
Have you no appreciation for the diverse customs of your fellow Westerners? Is diversity not what makes our countries strong? Or do you consider Yemen and its ancient people somehow unworthy of citizenship?
If you have a point, perhaps you’ll make it. I don’t think you do.
Are you aware that women getting raped to death is more indicative of a pagan culture than teenage marriage? That is why Sweden has such a high rape rate now.
The reference to culture and citizenship was to show the idiocy of you clinging to Western norms in an increasingly browning society.
If I am an idiot, as you say, then what would you call a person who is advocating for the USA to adopt the very third-world culture norms the third world is trying to leave behind?
And you’re comparing Yemeni Muslim-Thugs to what Bethyada is describing? Seriously? The Bible appears to have nothing to say about post-pubescent women being married (the fact that you don’t see them as ‘women’ but ‘little girls’ is owing more to Enlightenment/Modernist categories of human development, not the Scriptures) whereas a man doing what you describe would incur the death penalty in Scripture.
You think Muslims in Yemen are a different species than Israelites in ancient Palestine were?
You are talking about attraction, right? It’s possible to be attracted to something and never act.
Is hebephilia as bad as pedophilia?
unbelievable. have to start bringing my barf bag along to these comments.
I felt the same way when freshman girls at my high school argued about who was sluttier – based on the favors they had dispensed in middle school! The facts of reality in this country are not what we would like, but we have to deal with them.
Umm.. I think if you were really that outraged you’d just leave, not keep returning to the scene of the accident, barf-bag at the ready.
im glad you acknowledge it as a train wreck.
Our legal system says it matters.
You don’t argue morality referring to the law. That’s back to front.
We are 5% of the world’s population. Do you understand that the legality of an act in one jurisdiction does not dictate morality to all of humanity, most of whom do not live in that jurisdiction?
Turn it around to a teenager just expressing her own sexuality and these people would be all for it. It just happens to be the stick of the moment to swing at Wilson. Try telling Laura that the sex lives of teenage daughters should be controlled by their fathers and see if they don’t suddenly become autonomous sexual beings.
Why don’t you try, instead of guessing. Are you afraid of me? You have to build up a straw woman to guess about, because you fear that what I would really say would poke more holes in your worldview?
Yes snowflake, I’ve never encountered anyone with your unique understanding of tolerance. It’s completely unlike the trendy moralism of people I encounter on a daily basis.
“It’s completely unlike the trendy moralism of people I encounter on a daily basis.”
You have to make assumptions about what I think so you can put me in a box labeled “Barnabas disapproves”. You are afraid to find out what it really is because it might put a crack in your fragile worldview.
Ask me what I think about the sex lives of teenage daughters and who ought to control them. I dare you.
…And while we’re waiting for you to get your nerve up to ask me:
Do you think it’s immoral for unmarried men to have sex? If so, who should control of the sex lives of teenage boys, in your world?
To Barnabas: OK, not waiting any more. You have sufficiently revealed yourself. Sex is for grownups, and by grownups, I mean people past at least their 18 birthday, but ideally their 21st. A huge reason for that is that sex can easily have lifelong consequences. Having a baby is a lifelong consequence. Even if a boy’s only consequence is that he is on the hook for child support for 18 years, that still is a large financial effect. Another potential lifelong consequence is severe disease, including HIV (AIDS) and HPV (cancer). A minor kid simply cannot adequately take on these… Read more »
Kids shouldn’t have sex, good for you. Of course, when you leave it at that you are really just advocating for victims and I never said you weren’t all for that. What happens if I start restacking the victim pokemon points? What if the adult were a woman, or an immigrant from an exotic war-torn land, or even a lumberjack dyke? What if the teen was a white jock? What if you suspected that my motivations to enforce restrictions on teenage sex were based on my own bigoted parochialism instead of a righteous desire to help the children? How would… Read more »
I knew you couldn’t admit you were wrong about me. What if the adult were a woman You are the one introducing the sex of the people here. From my point of view, the adult is culpable either way. I’ve never indicated otherwise. Of course, from my POV, the mother also has responsibility for teaching and protecting the kids, so I don’t know if we are in agreement on that one. , or an immigrant from an exotic war-torn land, or even a lumberjack dyke? Are you just pulling these out of your nose? I don’t understand why they would… Read more »
This all seems very wise, Laura. My quibble would be with the word “shaming” you use. To simple raise the issue of responsibility isn’t shaming in my mind. Raising the issue and then gloating or delighting in someone’s failure to exercise responsibility, publicizing their failure, etc. would be ‘shaming.’
I agree, which is why I said I can’t see shaming doing anything positive.
Laura, Lemme ask you this: If *someone* is responsible for those under 18 (or 21?) to remain chaste, if that doesn’t happen, are they – that *someone* – to be held responsible? And how? And why do you get to define adulthood as beginning at 18? I don’t necessarily disagree with you in today’s culture, but I would say that falls into the wisdom camp, not in ‘law of nature.’ After all, wouldn’t it be strange to suggest that a woman can be (and most of the time is) sexually mature years before her 18th birthday, but you’re forbidding marriage… Read more »
Responsible for them remaining chaste? That is bizarre verbiage. And why aren’t you agitating for boys to marry as soon as they are capable of sex?
Girls nowadays enter puberty at an age when for many of them it would be a disaster to carry a pregnancy to term. What exactly is it that you are advocating for?
See my comment below.
Some of us here disagree with Laura, but she is reasoning her position. No need for us to insult her. I never got the impression that Laura was okay with school kid promiscuity.
“Try telling Laura that the sex lives of teenage daughters should be controlled by their fathers and see if they don’t suddenly become autonomous sexual beings.” I won’t speak for Laura, but it is a refrain I have heard. How can an autonomous sexual being suddenly become the sexual equivalent of a pre-schooler when her lover’s age increases a little? I mean, if she’s physically mature enough to service the defensive line, then she is physically mature enough to take a husband. Don’t these people care that we value chastity? Honestly, it is almost as if it is more taboo… Read more »
You imagine scenarios and ascribe lustful intentions to a 14 year old girl. You imply chivalrous intentions to a 24 year man who by all accounts repeatedly orally raped this girl in her parents home, was convicted and sentenced. From the style of your other posts, I will assume this is for your own continued intellectual masturbatory satisfaction. Reprehensible.
Randman. katecho is not defending a 24-year old, nor is he holding him to a lighter standard. He is saying that there may be more going on
Who among us has not been metaphorally raped at some point?
Kudos for working in masturbatory.
(I heard you giggle when you typed it)
Trust me, that was no giggle. It is descriptive language for exactly how I think of katecho and his point of view. I find him to be one of the more cold and evil posters here.
I am not talking about metaphorical rape. Do you think that is funny or relevant thing to say? Do you think we are speaking in metaphors here? Think about what you write before you go there.
I will attempt to respond in the order proffered.
I am 180 degrees from you regarding katecho.
Yes, slightly funny, and more than a little clever.
Yes, extremely relevant.
Yes, I think there are metaphors aplenty.
Honestly, your warning to “think” didn’t resonate.
And yes, you absolutely giggled.
RandMan can keep exercising his armchair internet clairvoyance all he wants, but pointing at the shipwreck of that relationship doesn’t tell us the motivations leading up to it. RandMan is just repeating himself now, and assuming what he needs to show. I think this is an indication that he doesn’t have anything else but emotional hyperventilating over the fact of the shipwreck. Again, no one disputes the wreckage of the ships in this relationship. Pointing at the wreckage doesn’t tell us anything about either of their hearts at the start of the relationship. I don’t claim to have that knowledge… Read more »
We don’t need to know anything about Wight before this occurrence. Any more than we need to know anything about Sitler before he raped a two year old. We can take Wight’s multiple repeat rapes of Natalie as they are, with no speculation about his prior character. And how do you know he didn’t do that before? I could bet the chances are high that he did. But that too is just empty speculation, just like all your callous hypotheticals. One of your problems in your ignorance of abuse dynamics, is thinking that predators need be random or need be… Read more »
I’m not the one trying to accuse Wilson of all manner of scandal though. Apparently RandMan doesn’t agree with the principle of innocent until proven guilty. I’ve never claimed to know if Wight was a malicious predator who simply saw Natalie as a faceless female victim, or if he actually was head over heals in love with her and then proceeded to fall into the pit of his own lusts to betray her trust. I simply point out that Wilson, to the best of his knowledge, was not personally persuaded to describe Jamin as that kind of predator. How is… Read more »
I think Jamin Wight is a sexual predator. I think it was wrong of Wilson to write in support of him and is ethically irresponsible. I think many people are outraged by it. That qualifies a scandal. I think Wilson’s treatment of Natalie and her parents is scandalous. I think that Wilson’s encouragement and involvement in the marriage of a convicted repeat multiple child rapist to a young parishioner, the resulting baby and the sexual stimulation of the father by the baby is also a scandal. Your hypothetical romantic straw relationship has no basis in fact. We have Natalie’s account… Read more »
Here’s a towel katecho to wipe RM’s spittle off your face. RAndMan, say it don’t spray it.
to open bold
to close bold.
But all the letters in a row
i for italics
Douglas, you must be watching with glee at the manifestation of your example here. Please see well what you have wrought.
I just can down vote you enough.
Natalie posted this on her blog today. Perhaps you and a few of your imaginative, speculative buddies here today should read it. Look at what real compassion looks like and take a second to ponder some of the points raised here. While you’re at it, contrast this with Douglas’s self-serving, vindictive prayer posted on this same blog site. A prayer for healing: Lord Jesus Christ, On the cross, you took upon yourself the suffering and pain of our wounded world. When your sacrifice was complete and your side was pierced, blood and water flowed out, mingled together in a healing… Read more »
It doesn’t matter what Wight’s intentions were. The law doesn’t care. And, frankly, neither do I.
Incidentally, Wilson certainly seems to think that Wight was a predator. In his response to Dreher’s article, he said, “They are irrelevant to whether Jamin was selfishly manipulating a young girl, preying on her for his own selfish ends.”
Even Wilson admits that Wight was preying on Natalie. If he was preying, then he must have been a predator. That’s what predators do.
a reasonable person would never have done much of anything that doug has done in either of these cases and afterwards.
You’re reading too much into it I think.
He was using that story to illustrate this point:
“All accusations and all defenses are contextual.”
I see others have taken to culture to Right Ho about the internet mob. It woud not be complete without this gem of the 70s. Paraphrasing from memory….
Georgie Tyrebiter: But Dad, how can you be my defense counsel and the prosecuting attorney at the same time?
Dad: It’s simple son. This way I can insure you are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Georgie Tyrebiter: That’s my Dad!…..
Firesign Theater
So are we all Bozos on this bus?
Sounds like the Future Fair to me…fun for all and no fair to anybody…
You guessed it… Everything You Know Is Wrong
First time someone quoted FST on here…thought I would reply in character.
cheers,
Regnad Kcin
“He’s no fun, he fell right over.”
“I said live it or live with it”
I can only help you out so far with Things FST.
In the Next World, You’re On Your Own.
“Say that someone has thrown chum in the water — one third of the relevant facts usually works …” 7 paragaphs about priciple appear to work pretty well as chum too. Any possibility of a chum free zone while the orderly investigation takes its’ course? “But we live in a fallen world, and everyone wants the good things without the process that provides us with those good things” Psalm 12 appears to agree. Psalm 12 1 Help, Lord, for no one is faithful anymore; those who are loyal have vanished from the human race. 2 Everyone lies to their neighbor;… Read more »
From this morning’s Denison e-blast:
“. . . stay faithful to the last word
you heard from God and open to the next.”
So many insipid comments from people who know nothing. They are vacuous balloons, reeling from one little pin-prick. “Pbpbpbpbpbpbpbpbpbptttttsssssssh!” they say. And I’m pointing to BOTH sides of the aisle. Niggling over hypothetical examples, imputing motives they can’t know, dissecting conversations they never heard, assuming guilt or innocence from their own inner “warm-fuzzies.” To ALL the folks who have had ANYTHING to say about Doug, Steven, Katie, Jamin, Natalie, et al: you are sinning every time you touch your keyboard. Stop it! For the sake of Christ and all His Word has ever said about gossip, slander, and riotous notions… Read more »
And here it is: The “don’t talk” rule. A pastor behaves badly, sides with abusers instead of their victims, and complains of being persecuted when he’s only being criticized. And in response to our discussions, someone says, “Shut up, shut up, shut up!! You’re defaming the Lord!!!” Sorry to tell you, Malachi, but when it comes to abuse in the church, it’s not talk that brings dishonour on Christ’s name. It’s silence. The Roman Catholic Church learned that the hard way. Neither you nor Wilson get to control this conversation by playing the “gossip” card. If anyone is keeping this… Read more »
everything you said, straight down the line.
” A pastor behaves badly, sides with abusers instead of their victims, and complains of being persecuted when he’s only being criticized.”
Is that what the internets told you?
“He can put it out anytime he wants to, by saying, “I’ve hurt people under my care. I was wrong. I’m sorry.””
Or people could use that statement from him as fodder to demand he aplogize for everything he’s ever done.
For everything he’s ever done wrong? Sounds good to me!
What makes you the arbiter of whether any of Dougs actions were wrong and why does he owe the internet an apology for all of them?
Malachi, you might want to address your comments to Doug Wilson himself as well and ask that he stop purposely “Chumming the Water,” which he tells us is exactly what he is doing with the title of this very post.
“Malachi, you might want to address your comments to Doug Wilson himself as well and ask that he stop purposely “Chumming the Water,” which he tells us is exactly what he is doing with the title of this very post.”
You mean the “don’t talk” rule?
Are you asking if I think it’s fine to talk about this? Yes, I do. Wilson is a public figure, there are mountains of public documents available, and saying nothing encourages the Catholic church effect of bad stuff getting treated as a one-off fluke instead of being recognized as part of a larger-scale problem (the Catholic church has discovered this the very hard way). I was not suggesting we all stop talking. I was suggesting that Malachi place his ire where it belongs.
Oh, so it’s okay to talk about it, as long as the ire is directed to whom it belongs. I think I get the rules now. Should we all check with you then before we post anything? You know, to make sure we get it right? *wink*
Malachi can post whatever he wants. I’m just pointing out that if he wants everyone to stop talking about this topic, which he seems to, then he might also want to apply that not only to the commenters but also to the main person who started the conversation Malachi himself is commenting on (that would be Wilson, of course). That would make Malachi’s comment a little more internally consistent.
That’s very kind of you. A benevolent dictatorship then?
Sexual abuse thrives in environments like the church. When those in positions of power and authority apologize for it and create environments that give it any kind of foothold, side with abusers, discourage discussion of the subject by victims, victims families, parishioners, and those in the field with real experience there is a problem. Then to entreat their followers to keep quiet lest they be accused of ‘gossip, ‘slander’, or ‘bitterness’ well, sorry no thank you.
You call for silence places you on a very unethical side of the fence.
I’ll take my chances there over the housing project, the college campus, and the Kennedy compound.
Also, it is very educational to listen to voices like katecho, Job, Roy and others. This gives us all a window into the mindset of the crec and is followers and adherents to that kind of doctrine. I am personally disgusted by their lack of compassion and willingness in their ignorance of the sexual abuse dynamics to blather forth recklessly with pulpit legalese. But I am also glad that these ugly ways of thinking are out there for us all to see. Free speech help us to recognize evil.
“Free speech help us to recognize evil.”
It also helps us to identify fools.
Indeed.
I have nothing to do with the CREC and disagree with its theology.
You are a snide little man. I am not Doug Wilson’s follower, but I wholeheartedly stand with him and anyone else who opposes you.
edit: Furthermore, my opinions are my own. Your attempts to Disqualify are plain as day.
To the first: good for you. I am actually glad to hear it, because the CREC doctrine seems vindictive and lacking compassion.
To the rest: You certainly seem like a follower. And that you would stand with someone like Wilson to spite anyone? Well, that tells its own tale very nicely.
“To the first: good for you. I am actually glad to hear it, because the CREC doctrine seems vindictive and lacking compassion.” On the contrary, I disagree with paedocommunion and a few other doctrines. As for the other, I will repeat myself: I am not Wilson’s follower. I just think that people like you need to be opposed. You are someone who hates God and his people. Left to your devices there is no telling what evil you would accomplish (including, but not limited to, homosexuality, pedophilia, and genocide). I do not wish to spite you, but to call you… Read more »
#standagainstrandman.
Sorry, I couldn’t stop myself. ????
Quite a list there of my projected accomplishments. Pedophilia and genocide? Homosexuality (shudder).
What about necrophila, witchcraft, satanism. Anything else you want to pull out of your hoo-ha?
I am happy to see the classic blogmablog-xtian-about-face halfway thru, where you 180 from calling names/condemning to calling for MY repentance. That is really something.
I’ll keep to my act thank you. Yours just keeps bringing down the house just fine by itself.
“Quite a list there of my projected accomplishments.” Heh, yeah. I don’t know you, but I do not trust you in the slightest or consider you a moral person. As the Overton window shifts, ideas that were thought unthinkable will become the norm – like pederasty, for instance. Maybe you are moral enough to limit your participation, but will you at least allow me to have as low a view of you as you do of pastor Wilson? “I am happy to see the classic blogmablog-xtian-about-face halfway thru, where you 180 from calling names/condemning to calling for MY repentance. That… Read more »
I don’t consider you an enemy. Nor do I take your weird insults personally. The viewpoint is one that I am unable to really take seriously. But something that is interesting to me is that you and about a half-dozen others here insult me quite roundly or get pouty, then call for my repentance and salvation. It’s really quite un-selfaware. Do you not see how that looks? Only reformedRoy has personally out done you, calling for my murder and rape. As to the Overton window fantasy “no god; no good”, I’ll let the christians like you guys and DW carry… Read more »
“Only reformedRoy has personally out done you, calling for my murder and rape.” I haven’t read those comments as I am responding on Disqus. I hope Wilson removes them. “I don’t consider you an enemy.” We are enemies positionally, though I having no feelings of hatred toward you and only pray for your repentance, which is nothing more than to admit God’s authority and submit. Your duty before God is independent of mine. If I sin against you, that is not an indictment of God, but of me. I fully admit to being prone to judgment, pride, and anger. God… Read more »
Only reformedRoy has personally out done you, calling for my murder and rape.
No he did not. Re-read what he wrote.
I have. Please spin it for me.
I am not defending him, but I think you have read him wrong. To confirm, this quote?
Yes. Give me your best Wilson.
“Give me your best Wilson” I’ll try! But first I’ll give you what’s NOT the best Wilson. I’ll do so by re-inventing my Christian testimony. Of course, some will think I’m just you, talking to yourself. Many moons ago I came to trust in Jesus Christ. It was so long ago and I’m so old, I probably forgot the details. What REALLY happened was probably like this: I’m 17 and in the Moscow High gymnasium. A bully walks by. Bully: Hey, Stooopidhead! Me: (Turns head) B: Gotcha, dummy! M: what? B: Yo mudda wears Army boots! M: No, she doesn’t!… Read more »
Now the Real “best Wilson”. Actually, in the Moscow High gym, I heard a man speak who my friends said was an evangelist (I didn’t know what that was– later found out it’s someone who brings good news). He talked about God so loving the world, Jesus rising from the dead, receive him as Lord and Savior, etc. I must have forgotten where he insulted us first. One thing led to another and I became a believer in Christ a couple weeks later. A few months later I met pastor Wilson, who was also known as an evangelist. I heard… Read more »
He is accusing you of being a one trick pony, ie. only having a singular approach to things. And he thinks that your approach to things is lame, ie. ineffective.
Agreed thus far?
Already giving him too much credit for metaphor and sly humor. Let’s move on from this. Go back to the evolution thread. I’ll meet you over there.
By what are you judging CREC doctrine?
For one thing, the quality of it’s and Wilson’s supporters here and the apparent lack of outcry from those in the church itself against the poor leadership surrounding these cases.
Also, having read much of Wilson’s output and finding it hard and without love and mercy.
This is Dougs blog I wouldn’t take it as represntative of the CRECs doctrine without checking the CRECs doctrinal statememts. Also Dougs supporters here should not be assumed to be supporters of the CREC.
Are “katecho, Job, Roy and others” part of the CREC?
Assuming this wasn’t rhetorical, no, I am not. I’m just tired of having omni-compassionate windbags such as rm bloviating over every post. I get it. Wilson is horrible. His minions are worse. Literally, to hell with this entire camp. Again, I get it. Writing it over and over and over and over and over does not bring legitimacy.
As far as katecho and Job are concerned, it isn’t fair to taint them by my inclusion.
RandMan seemed to be trying to put you and the others and even the CREC into some ‘Cult of Douglas Wilson’ which it appears does not in fact exist.
You appear to be a one trick pony. A lame pony at that. Time to put a compassionate bullet into its head.
But, feel free to rape it first.
Roy, to be clear, you are advocating killing me, but raping me first yes?
Whose working on the masturbatory fantasies now? In all seriousness, this has gotten out of hand on my end. There is a good reason I am usually a reader as opposed to a poster. I fed the trolls and fattened their bellies. Lesson learned. If you and others of your ilk can hijack this site or ministry, so be it. I’m back to reading. May God bless those who come here seeking edification. *This would be a good spot to post a scathing response. You know, a real zinger. That way, when I don’t respond, you can puff up you… Read more »
Sorry, let me unpack it for you and you can tell me where I misunderstood:
1. I am a lame, one trick pony.
2. One whose time has come for a bullet to the head.
3. But first a rape for anyone feeling up to it.
Douglas: This is the kind of defender you inspire. Take note.
I disagree for several reasons (off the top of my head) . 1. The possibility of Doug sinning is always there; if these charges where true it is incumbent on us who respect the man and teacher to call him out on his sin. We must hold elders accountable. (I believe that is in the Bible, probably in one of the letters to Timothy). 2. Evil must be confronted head on (perhaps there are exceptions) . 3. This “type” of attack is typical in the civil space (Vox Day’s “SJW’s always lie” ,the first manual on how to defeat this… Read more »
Doug, I used to enjoy your site. Can we give this a rest?
It doesn’t matter what Pastor Wilson writes about on his blog (or elsewhere) from here on out, either someone will try to make it about “abuses” or accuse him of evading. Are you suggesting he just stop posting?
It is his site to do with as he pleases. He has the power to control the dialogue even to the point of censoring posts. There’s not going to be a resolution to these issues. Opinions are settled. Time to move on.
Unfortunately I don’t think pastor Wilson has that luxury.
Meaning that he does not have the time to police his site? Or lacks the technological know how? Or that individuals will continue to hound him until he is destroyed?
From what I can tell, this issue is getting thrown in his face from all sorts of different angles. How can he not continue to address it? Particularly as a leader. He is setting an example whether he wants to or not.
There does comes a Prov 10:19 time, “When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise.” I think we are well past that.
Perhaps, but hopefully you agree that that’s not for the Internet to decide.
As I said previously, the course of this discussion is in his hands.
I quite agree, I am just saying there are those who won’t let him.
Hmm,very interesting. Something that often seems forgotten in our modern world of desired quick social justice, is that justice is supposed to be about love. Justice is love! It is not supposed to be about judgment, condemnation, and taking sides. Ultimately the goal of justice is supposed to be eventual re-connection, reconciliation. So many people want revenge, retaliation, as if they can bring order to our chaotic world, as if the bad guys always get their just desserts and the good guys always win. The problem is, bad things often happen to good people and bad people sometimes skate through… Read more »
Well, I’ll be. You chummed up over 350 comments already. Goodness, people. Go read a book. Or build a treehouse. Something.
I miss the days when there was only 10 or 15 comments on a typical article here. I cannot keep up.
Yeah. It’s gotten really messy.
This board used to be noted for elevated discourse.
Laura, I’m afraid that won’t do… at least for me. Your suspicion (which is really all you have at this point) won’t cut it, either. You must have knowledge of these things to comment one them with any authority. Additionally, we can all agree what a *proper* response on his part or her part would’ve been, but what I’m arguing for is that unless he had sexual contact/relations with her without her consent, then she bears *some* responsibility for it. Perhaps a great deal of responsibility, even as he bears the ultimate and final (and legal) responsibility – and should… Read more »
At 405 responses I’d say the water is well chummed. Now my resistance is broken, so here goes. A little thought experiment. What if the father of the family whose daughter who was horrifically abused, in response to Doug Wilson’s letter inviting them to come and talk, had responded like this: Doug, We’re in a lot of pain right now. We’re feeling angry and hurt. We’re not feeling very trustful toward you and the Christ Kirk session right now. Your letter has made us even less so. But you say you want to help, and we’ll take what help we… Read more »
Other than creating a record for a civil suit, I’m curious as to what the purpose of such a taped mass gaggle would be. Doesn’t seem like it would lead to any type of healing with which I’m familiar.
And I think that’s the case regardless of how such a taping would be seen by either Doug Defenders or by Doug Bashers.
You’re probably right. However, I was in a church once that involved Peacemaker Ministries in a long running church-wide tangle. They sent some trained Christian mediators to meet with various individuals and groups involved. It was very helpful. There was, so far as I could tell, some genuine repentance and reconciliation. I was on the outer edges of the thing, being new to the church. So maybe the video record idea is lame, but the outside, qualified observers/mediators would have been a good way to go. Thanks, Kelly, for your thoughts.
“Lame” isn’t quite the right word. Outside, neutral folks are indeed often a blessing. But the “come let us reason together” drill only works when both parties are actually interested in reaching an agreement. Moreover, there’s a Jewish tradition which forbids trying to reach a compromise, or even to offer a sincere apology, until you have reason to believe the other party is ready to listen. Every now and then I skim a bit of these threads. Seems like there’s always so many hot shell casings rolling around on the floor it’s a wonder anyone can stand up to reach… Read more »
Fascinating that a post that basically says “Hey, due process is a good and just thing” gets over 400 comments here. If people really — no REALLY — want justice, why is the idea of due process so controversial?
The very thought of process becomes an irritant if one has already rendered a verdict. What need then? Seems like plenty of verdict handed down around here. No one giving much thought to actual verdicts, orders and such. But there you go. Haters will hate. Caint stop em.
What process are you hoping for here exactly? Due process for the community to have an opinion on what passes for leadership? At what point are we allowed to weigh in on a community leader’s handling of a community issue? Ten years after the fact seem reasonable enough?
Pedophilia and statutory rape is everyone’s business. Especially as it happened in a very specific boarding school environment within a wider church community involving many families, parishioners and reflecting policy within that community.
Thank you for so clearly illustrating my point.
Justice for the victims w regard to due process in the sentencing and parole of Wight and Silter has been done, and seemingly correctly within the confines of the law of the land. In Sitlers case it is a shame that so many of the families kept silent..
I was referring above to the idea rampant here that Wilson is somehow being judged unfairly. That somehow he is not receiving ‘due process’ he is entitled to. Correct me if that was not part of your point. If no, I withdraw my objection.
Same as a liberal congressman in Washington saying “Well, I’d like to get the federal government involved in this situation but the Constitution just doesn’t give us the authority to do that.”