Clean Rain

All right. Three basic points, and then I think I will try to bring this in for a landing.

First, just as a practical matter we need to distinguish between anonymous scurrility and mainstream misbehavior. It is not that anonymous scurrility is okay, but you do kind of know what to expect. We are not really upset when tabloids claim that Billy Graham was found in a love nest with Hitler’s granddaughter, and we do not lose sleep over the troubling erosion of “journalistic standards.” Take, for example, @StopTheCREC’s claim that I have been “conspicuously silent.” Ze is troubled by the fact that I have not responded to their claims despite the evidence. Given that one of those claims is hashtagged #DougWilsonSupportsRape, is it truly a wonder that I didn’t join in with the spirit of investigation?

When nothing will do but mercy.
When nothing will do but mercy.

But there have been other individuals going under their own names, individuals associated with ostensibly responsible outfits and institutions, who apparently got swept up in all the excitement. Having done so, they then linked their names up with outrageous accusations, which they really ought not to have done. I am thinking here of Anthony Bradley, Ryan Sather, and Boz Tchividjian. The only thing I will do here is issue a public invitation to talk offline, or in person. I would be happy to do it.

Second, at different times in the life of the church different kinds of sins present themselves. There are times when sexual sin must be confronted for what it is, there are other times when the lust for mammon has to be addressed, and so on. This is a time when we can see why certain passages about bile are in the Bible.

“But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another” (Galatians 5:15).

“But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth” (Col. 3:8).

“For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another” (Tit. 3:3).

“Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings” (1 Pet. 2:1).

This is a common phenomenon, particularly online. People in the grip of this wickedness love to accuse and quarrel, they love to bite and devour, and they love to give free rein to their malice and envy. The end result is a carnival of rancor.

But this leads to the third point. When such a hate-fest breaks out, we see the need for sovereign grace here as well. Christ did not just die for the designated sinners, for traitors, embezzlers or cheats. He also died for the angry, the bitter, and the self-righteous. So the blood of Christ is offered to drug addicts and Sunday School superintendents, to meth heads and makers of memes, to the vilified and to the revilers both. To bring it down to the point, take the person out there who is full and overflowing with malicious hatred for yours truly, and who has done his level best to circulate every plausible lie about me that he can think of. Christ offers the blessing of free forgiveness to that man as much as He offered it to me, and for the same reason.

Look again at what Paul says in the Titus passage. “For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another” (Tit. 3:3). The recipient of slander has nothing to boast of in himself over against the one who slanders. But for the grace of God, our positions would be reversed, and I would be the one wronging and reviling him. This is why I don’t want to play Jonah to their Nineveh. This sin is not sinful because it attacks me; it is sinful because all sin is defined by the absolute words of God.

But we want to be able to fix all our problems with the words of men, with counseling or with therapy, with training or with education. This is because we want to manage our own salvation. But there is absolutely no hope to be found there. Christian pastors do provide teaching and counsel, and they should know what they are talking about, but it must be that kind of counsel which is built squarely on the fact that Christ died for sinners. There are no programs that will save us from our father Adam. There are no experts who can deliver us from that serpent gnawing on our hearts. There are no certified workshop leaders who can extract the lust for preeminence from our overheated brains. The old gospel song rightly asks, “What can take away my sin?” and replies wonderfully — “Nothing but the blood of Jesus.”

My daughter Rachel mentioned an apt comparison to me last night. A few weeks ago, the Pacific Northwest was covered with wildfires, and for a few weeks our small town was blanketed in an acrid haze of smoke and ash. It was heavy and oppressive. The blazes were elsewhere, but the smoke was everywhere. So it is with this. The open blaze is with those who slander and lie and spit venom. But this does not leave everyone else unaffected. Smoke can travel where there is no fire.

When we were in this strait, our prayer was for rain, which God did eventually send, and it cut through our smoke like wet glory, and gave us the stupendous gift of dirty rain — resulting in dirt on the ground where it is supposed to be, and not in the air, where we kept having to breathe it.

The gospel is a gospel rain, and it cuts the smoke. In some cases, it puts out the fire, but it certainly cuts the smoke. And so here is that rain.

This is a gospel issue, and it is not a peripheral gospel issue. To turn away any repentant sinner from Christ for the sake of Christ’s “honor” is to deny Christ. The right of any penitent son or daughter of Adam to come to the Table of the Lord, and to be welcomed there by a minister of the gospel, is a right purchased by a bleeding Christ on a wooden cross. As such, it is an absolute right. It is not a right that we fashioned with our hands, for our hands do not have nail prints in them. The absolute right to come is a right grounded on the invitation of Christ Himself, and that invitation is one that must be repeated by the Spirit and by the Bride.

“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17).

Have you molested children? Then come. Have you vilified repentant pedophiles? Come. Have you stolen money? Come. Are you a slave to the bottle? Come. Do you despise drunks? Come. Do you hate people who preach the gospel? Come. Does racial animosity have you by the throat? Then come. Do you sell the message of grace for ready money? Come. Do you hate the idea of coming? Then come.

To realize you are a sinner is not the one thing that prevents you from coming. Admitting you are a sinner is actually the only thing that enables you to come. Are you a wretch? You qualify then.

148
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
20 Comment threads
128 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
43 Comment authors
David ZunigaMitch PaulValerie JacobsenValerieTravis M. Childers Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
asdf
Guest
asdf

And now, to save about 2/3 of the people here the time required to post:

(shoves fingers in ears to the first knuckle)

BABY RAPE BABY RAPE BABY RAPE

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Gently tugs out asdf’s fingers very slowly . . . let’s have the proper authorities sort out who did or didn’t do what first, OK?

A.
Guest
A.

I heard over and over a plea for you to reflect back on the choices you made and to see if there was something you could have done differently. That’s it. We are called to grace yes but grace doesn’t mean there are not earthly consequences. It also doesn’t mean that the church isn’t called to protect victims while offering grace.

drewnchick
Member

Beautiful, Pastor. God’s blessings as you and your church wade through these trials.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Question for beelzedub or anyone else from the anti-Doug faction who wishes to respond:
Assuming Doug’s presiding over the marriage was in fact a colossally bad idea, can you at least acknowledge that it was an honest error in judgment rather than a moral failing? And if not, why not? (OK, that’s two questions.)

drewnchick
Member

I’d also like to hear persons in the anti-Doug camp to acknowledge that it is at the very least possible that Doug did NOT make an error in judgment, since it is not, in fact, possible for them to know the WHOLE set of facts he was dealing with. Nor do I, which is why I make no judgment either way. It’s possible Doug made a mistake by presiding over the wedding. It’s also possible he has VASTLY more and better knowledge of the situation than any of us do and that he made a very wise and godly decision.… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Truthfully, based on what I do know, had I been advising Katie I probably would have recommended against marrying Steve Sitler, just because I think she could have done much, much better in the husband department. But, even if the marriage was a terrible idea, all of us make errors in judgment; I’ve certainly and done things that in retrospect were regrettable. But those errors in judgment are ill-advised, which is not the same thing as being evil. What I’m hearing from beelzedub and others is that Doug did not merely make a bad call; he’s a bad person. I’d… Read more »

Travis M. Childers
Guest
Travis M. Childers

Thank you, K2, for fair playing. (Even if your worldview can’t account for it…Sorry; I had to throw that in there for Alex’s sake.)

: )

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Alex forgave me in advance if I ever broke my shinny, brand new, belated New Year’s Resolution NOT to discuss theology before Jan 1, 2016. Maybe this is only bending it? Just a tiny, teensy, little bit along one edge? For just a little while? But the original reason I asked both K2 and K1 (katecho) to drop the whole “materialism” thing a few weeks back was that it was based on an incorrect assumption. Namely that it’s not possible for an atheist to have, or derive, or discover a system of ethics. Sorry, Travis, but K2’s worldview CAN account… Read more »

Nord357
Guest
Nord357

Gents,

I wold not hold my breath waiting for anything resembling a measured, logical response to your query. still it should be interesting.

David
Guest
David

That is a good point. I do not see Doug’s officiating a wedding as arrogant; that action does not indicate high-handed pride. In fact, if it is the case that Katie wanted to marry Steven, while that may have been foolish, it would not have to be arrogant to acquiesce to their request (their request, not just Steven’s request).

A. James
Member

Hey, K, 1. Are you committed/willing to be the moderator of sorts in this sub-thread so um…things don’t go like they usually do on this blog? 2. What is included in this assumption of “presiding”? That there was pastoral counseling before the presiding? Or he was disconnected from all the details and was just willing indeed “preside”? 3. When you say “can you at least acknowledge”, do you mean “are you willing to weigh the evidence between judgement/moral failing” or just want one to go away and leave it as an “honest error”? 4. And since you are fully aware… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Alex, thanks for the compliment but I have zero interest in moderating anything. People will either play nice or they won’t. I don’t know how much counseling Doug gave the couple before they were married; I assume there was some but I wasn’t there. By “preside” I simply meant that he conducted the ceremony. On your third point, I would be willing to ascribe moral evil to Doug if I saw any evidence for it, but as of now I don’t. Whatever mistakes may have been made don’t strike me as intentional. And that, I think, is the difference between… Read more »

Oregon Girl
Guest
Oregon Girl

1. Tim Bayly recanted his support of Wilson’s open letter regarding Sitler. http://baylyblog.com/blog/2015/09/concerning-open-letter-session-christ-church-moscow-retraction

Oregon Girl
Guest
Oregon Girl

2. Wilson KNOWINGLY, and on purpose, married a multiple times over child molester to a woman knowing that they intended to have children together, knowing that the DOC opposed, knowing that the judge said it was a bad idea for Sitler to reside with even his own child if he were to have one. So, yes, Douglas Wilson did a lot of stuff on purpose with full knowledge of the whole situation. What he did was akin to preparing food for guests while having the stomach flu and without wearing gloves while saying that he didn’t think anyone else would… Read more »

Oregon Girl
Guest
Oregon Girl

Or, is it a good idea EVER to give a murderer or a robber on probation a gun? No, it isn’t. Is it any better of an idea have him house sit for you and show him where all of your firearms are sitting unlocked? After all, you didn’t GIVE him a gun…. While Wilson didn’t go place an infant in Sitler’s arms, he knowingly married off a repeat sex offender and gladly gave him easy access to obtaining a child of his own, which gives him contact with minors. Repentant or not, this isn’t smart. Just like it is… Read more »

Matt
Guest
Matt

If it were an honest error, shouldn’t he admit it rather than write 5000 words about how he’s the real victim? For that matter, shouldn’t there be some consequences for such an error?

ArwenB
Guest
ArwenB

Depends on who he’s talking to.

If he’s talking to a Social Justice Warrior-type, no admission of error will ever be good enough, and any admission of error will be used as a bludgeon to force further apologies. Quite frankly, it’s not worth the trouble of making the first admission.

As for consequences of an “honest error”, what else would you call the baying for Wilson’s blood that is currently happening?

Or are you thinking of civil penalties and fines?

Matt
Guest
Matt

Whether an admission would be “good enough” is beside the point. If it is right to admit error then it should be done. And it isn’t all about tribal warfare. There are plenty of people out there who can figure out who’s being genuine and who is just out for blood. Consequences being something like excusing himself from marriage counseling and officiating duties for some time. That would show that he is willing to take a lump and show some genuine humility, rather than this slew of defensive posting. No more than that is needed; even I, who don’t like… Read more »

Oregon Girl
Guest
Oregon Girl

1. He made the same mistake twice. Once with Sitler, once with Wight. 2. Wilson admits no wrongdoing or any error in judgment in what he did by marrying. 3. He prayed that God bless Sitler’s union with children even after Judge Stegner advised that if they have children, Sitler not be allowed to live with the child. 4. The DOC wrote a letter specifically against the marriage of Steven and Katie. I won’t keep going on here. Honestly, it was a train wreck waiting to happen BOTH times. Yet, Douglas Wilson, true to form, refuses to listen to the… Read more »

John
Guest
John

Is #3 true? Did Doug encourage Sitler to have children, or is that hearsay?

Oregon Girl
Guest
Oregon Girl

You can watch at least part of the marriage of Steven and Katie where during one of the prayers, the blessing of children was requested on their behalf. There was certainly no opposition to this prayer from Doug, and it was a written prayer. I know, that in most weddings, the officiating pastor is aware of what others are going to say prior to the wedding day itself. This was AFTER Judge Stegner stated at 52:09 of the hearing regarding Steven getting married in the place that if there were children Steve should not reside with the children.

John
Guest
John

So Doug did not pray for Sitler to have children, and there is speculation that he may have known about someone’s planned prayer for children and did not adequately work to stop said prayer. I have heard lots of prayers spoken that I strongly disagreed with, but did not interrupt the person mid prayer. It’s not like God might accidentally grant a bad request if we don’t correct it. But people hearing the prayer could get the wrong idea. I’ve only been in a few weddings, and I can’t say that the pastor had any idea what anyone (aside from… Read more »

Oregon Girl
Guest
Oregon Girl

However, if Doug TRULY opposed them having children, would he have wed them full well knowing their intent to have children? The DOC knew of the intent, Judge Stegner knew as well. All opposed this except for, it seems, Christ Church leaderships. I still say that marrying Steve and Katie flew in the face of the voice of wisdom, however, I also know that that community doesn’t view the law to have wisdom…. http://sitler.moscowid.net/2011/05/27/idaho-department-of-correction-re-steven-sitler-2/

And I'm Cute, Too
Guest
And I'm Cute, Too

Re #3, I don’t think it was Wilson who made that prayer. I haven’t seen the video myself, but those who have report that one of Wilson’s under-pastors or elders prayed for children on Katie and Sitler’s behalf (*spit*). Not that I think it absolves Wilson of responsibility entirely, since he doesn’t seem to have called the man out on it.

PerfectHold
Guest
PerfectHold

This is indeed a thoroughly beautiful message, pastor.

It all the more displays the power available when you remove the parochialistic fences erected around the table by our session brothers in the PCA, OPC, RCUS, & Lutherans and others.

They will not repeat His invitation so indiscriminately.

One must be a repentant sinner PLUS become acknowledged by the session as a member of a vetted / approved assembly — so for example Roman Catholics (like Chesterton & Tolkein) need not consider coming.

Thomas Achord
Guest
Thomas Achord

It seems the question some must answer is whether they or their god have any forgiveness for Doug’s (real or perceived) mistakes. For if we cannot forgive, then neither can our heavenly Father.

And I'm Cute, Too
Guest
And I'm Cute, Too

As a Christian myself, my answer is: Sure! But first, Wilson has to admit that he’s wrong and make amends. I’ve yet to see him do that in this case.

Linda Stanton French
Guest
Linda Stanton French

Amen. And I’m not going to read the comments because there’s no need to respond. You said it all.

Kemi
Guest
Kemi

“People in the grip of this wickedness love to accuse and quarrel, they love to bite and devour, and they love to give free rein to their malice and envy. The end result is a carnival of rancor.”

The subtitle of your blog is “Theology That Bites Back.” You’ve set the tone yourself.

Nopussyfootin
Guest
Nopussyfootin

You do not know what “theology that bites back” means.

John
Guest
John

Not sure how to ask this, but can someone review the facts with me here? Correct me if/where I’m wrong: 1) Sitler committed a horrible act 10 years ago involving a 2 year old child 2) Some time after the horrible thing 10 years ago, Sitler repented and became part of Christ Church 3) Someone helped match up Sitler with a girl, they fell in love and decided to get married. 4) She knew the details. 5) Doug officiated the wedding, which presumably means he did counseling with them before hand and did not see anything during that time that… Read more »

valerieab
Member

1) There were multiple offenses over a period of a few years. He was convicted and sentenced. 2) He was attending Christ Church at the time of his arrest, but was a member of another church. He repented, and has since become a member of Christ Church. 3) Correct. 4) Correct. 5) Correct. We do not know the details of that counseling, and he’s not likely to violate the confidentiality of the parties involved to tell us the details. Ultimately, however, he determined that he did not have biblical grounds for refusing to marry them. 6) Sitler failed a polygraph… Read more »

geoffrobinson
Guest
geoffrobinson

For the record, I failed a polygraph test back in the day. No one who has any experience in them should actually think they are a “truth detector.”

John
Guest
John

Thanks!

A. James
Member

Not trying to argue, trust me. I type tentatively. “Yes” or “No” will suffice :)
On 10 and 11, is this “it is also false” your opinion or direct communication with the wife and all church members or direct immediate involvement over the years (other than being a church member if you are)?

valerieab
Member

Enough information from enough people who were close enough to the events. I’ll modify my response to #11 to say that there may have been some members who were naive, but it is false that there has been insufficient oversight in the congregation. The only place where that is reasonably in question is in their home, but not in the church.

Oregon Girl
Guest
Oregon Girl

Sitler molested MANY children in multiple states before his sin found him out and he was prosecuted for his crimes in Idaho. ” We are now aware, through Mr. Sitler’s mandatory self disclosure as part of the psychosexual evaluation process, that there are other victims of Mr. Sitler.” http://newwest.net/main/article/more_on_the_steven_james_sitler_child_molestation_case/

Ian Miller
Member

An excellent summary.

Oregon Girl
Guest
Oregon Girl

Sin can totally be repented, no matter what it is. There will be murderers, rapists, child molesters, prostitutes, arrogant/un-apologetic pastors, etc… in Heaven. Once again, the man hanging on the cross next to Christ landed in Heaven upon repenting of his sins. God’s grace is sufficient for ALL. However, just like that man on the cross, some people commit crimes on earth that cannot escape earthly consequence. While a repeat (multiple times over) child molester can repent and go to Heaven, I believe that his early consequence on earth should be a lengthy prison sentence followed by a life of… Read more »

jesuguru
Guest
jesuguru

“lengthy prison sentence” – definitely
“life of celibacy” – possibly, but voluntarily or by force? and if force, how to implement?
“no contact with children” – not without supervision anyway
“encouraging…wife and children is only impeding being a contributing member of society” – maybe yes, maybe no. Beyond Sitler specifically, are you (we) to say any/all convicted pedophiles should never marry/procreate, and cannot therefore be a contributing member of society if they do? Honest questions.

Leslie
Guest
Leslie

It is troubling to me that the victims of all this are an afterthought and not the focus of care and concern

geoffrobinson
Guest
geoffrobinson

Who says they are an afterthought?

holmegm
Guest
holmegm

That he can repent and come to the Lord is not in question, for Christians.

That we can divine whether he has done so, and allow or facilitate him access to his temptation, is in question, I would think.

Vishwanath Haily Dalvi
Guest
Vishwanath Haily Dalvi

“Have you molested children? Then come. Have you vilified repentant pedophiles? Come. Have you stolen money? Come. Are you a slave to the bottle? Come. Do you despise drunks? Come. Do you hate people who preach the gospel? Come. Does racial animosity have you by the throat? Then come. Do you sell the message of grace for ready money? Come. Do you hate the idea of coming? Then come.”

This is as beautiful an expression of the Gospel as I have ever encountered.

Grant Kruger
Guest
Grant Kruger

It is indeed a beautiful Gospel statement which too many have rushed past in their scramble to the comments.

mirele
Guest
mirele

“Come, but we will not stupidly allow you to marry our daughters or be alone with our children because we know that pedophiles have this very bad habit of reoffending.” You’d have it be all or nothing. Ronald Reagan said, “Trust but verify.” This is good advice!

Valerie Jacobsen
Member

Stirring the opposition against you into one pot and calling it a denial of the Gospel is one of the greater outrages in this ongoing discussion. It was God who said that some crimes should permanently exclude offenders from society (and thus from marriage and from fathering children), and He is the Author of that Gospel. Just two months before you requested measured and limited civil penalties on behalf of Sitler, you recommended on this blog that serial pedophilia in the Roman Catholic community should be handled with “a tall tree and a short rope”, explicitly recommending the death penalty.… Read more »

John
Guest
John

So this accusation hinges on what Doug meant by a “measured and limited” response. A short rope and tall tree sound like measurements. Limited could mean a slap on the wrist or could mean not chopped into pieces and set on fire. So why don’t we look at what Doug said (copied from newwest.net page): “My letter to the judge showed that I wanted real consequences, with teeth, and so the phrase ‘measured and limited’ needs to taken in the context of what the available options actually were.” I do think the Bible requires us to ask for measured and… Read more »

Oregon Girl
Guest
Oregon Girl

It certainly seems that Doug did not discourage children to say the very least. When in the wedding ceremony that he himself officiated, it was prayed that Steve and Katie’s union be blessed with children…. And, Doug knew that they intended to have children. Heck, everyone knew this, even the court. Hence so much concern. Yet, fully knowing all of this, Wilson chose to officiate the marriage with great joy anyway. http://sitler.moscowid.net/2011/05/27/idaho-department-of-correction-re-steven-sitler-2/

John
Guest
John

Thanks for posting the link – I was unaware that Sitler was clear in his intentions to procreate, at least according to Mr. Lanphier. Nonetheless, Doug may very well have strongly counseled Sitler against children. So it seems like people are saying that Doug should have refused and taken a principled stand because of Sitler’s stated intentions to have children, knowing that Sitler would go down the road and get married anyway. Perhaps they are right. But I will reserve judgement for now. One side seems wise until the other speaks. Seems to me that Doug either 1) is hiding… Read more »

A. James
Member

If he (or any leaders in the patriarchy movement) would counsel anyone against children, some would be interested in knowing the when/why given his beliefs stated elsewhere such as: “The covenant is therefore consummated by the kind of sexual union that could, by God’s providential design, result in pregnancy” “The union of one flesh is explicitly connected to the possibility of procreation (Gen 1:27-28; Gen 2:22-24). Other arrangements violate this order and cannot, therefore, be marriages under God’s design.” “Expressions of sexuality intended for mere pleasure or self-gratification reject God’s design and replace the Creator with the creation” “This is… Read more »

Brian
Guest
Brian

“Measured and limited” is exactly vague enough to mean whatever Doug Wilson needs it to mean depending on the circumstance. And anyone who differs on Doug’s explanation obviously has a reading comprehension problem and should not be sitting at the adult table anyway.

valerieab
Member

Valerie, I think Doug’s post this morning answers your first sentence. He knows that there are people who have reasonable questions. Here’s my reasonable question for you: Why do you frame things in terms of “opposition against you”? If the concern is for the victims, for justice, and for protection of the community, why is anti-Dougness your focus? If your chief or first motivation is personal ill-will in that direction (and I hope it isn’t for you, though it appears to be for some people), then yes, you have a gospel problem.

Valerie Jacobsen
Member

Anti-Dougness is Doug’s focus and complaint. He characterizes those who would oppose him opposing the Gospel, and I am responding to that.

Nopussyfootin
Guest
Nopussyfootin

The problem was that Idaho State was not going to keep Sitler in prison very long no matter what and the state bureaucrats were not going to provide adequate treatment for him before they turned him loose on society. Are you sure you know what Wilson meant by “measured and limited.” Maybe you are presuming your own definition into those words and then concocting a narrative based on your presumption.

Valerie Jacobsen
Member

Wishing that this letter sounded like something other than a request for lenience doesn’t change the fact that it was written “on behalf” of a criminal asking a judge for “limited civil penalties”. Interpreting this as a request for lenience is the normal, usual interpretation of such a letter. That doesn’t change when defenders try to put the focus on parsing the meanings of “measured” and “limited”.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

Pastor Wilson, may I suggest that you move on and write about other issues. You have given these people more explanation than they were entitled to and they will continue to gnash teeth no matter what. Life goes on.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Or he could just tell them that if it makes them feel better to believe that, go right ahead. There is precedent for handling such things that way.

Grant Kruger
Guest
Grant Kruger

I think that’s been one of his purposes in writing three blog articles on this subject, drawing attention to various considerations we may be unaware of, and allowing commenting to take place.

Lil' late
Guest
Lil' late

Back in 2004 my Wife and I showed up to a Calvary Chapel in Tucson, AZ with 6 children in tow. We were “Church Hunting”, we were met at the entrance of the sanctuary with the kind of door greeters you would only expect to see on Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. As we attempted to get past these smiley faces one of the ladies put up her finger and said, “oh we don’t allow children into the sanctuary, we have a children’s church for them”. My wife and I were looking at each other as if this were a prank,… Read more »

pduggie
Guest
pduggie

So, at a distance I can know very little, but the Jamin Wight situation has been brought up again.

https://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/the-jamin-c-wight-story-the-other-child-molester-in-doug-wilsons-closet/

There are links to the victim in that case who is speaking out. Its not hard to discover, even from a distance, who the victim is.

The concerning thing to me is the idea that the victim was under church discipline, and the idea that the father was “threatened” with church discipline for failing to protect his daughter. That’s either awful, or not the whole story. Is there more to the story?

Dave
Guest
Dave

P, on that web site look at the blogger profiles. Even from afar it is easy to see which ill wind they hope will fill their sails. Of course they will not give the whole story or even an unbiased view of it.

pduggie
Guest
pduggie

Oh I can see the vitriol and tendentiousness. But tendentiousness can sometimes draw attention to valid things. Or I’d like to have an answer for others who note it.

pduggie
Guest
pduggie

worst. upvote. evar.

valerieab
Member

Better? ;^)

Mitch Paul
Guest
Mitch Paul

You appear to have conveniently left out your sins in the list earmarked with “come.” Perhaps try leading by first publicly repenting of your sins in this debacle. Perhaps even take a cue from King David and write into your church Hisory books a superscript and a poem: “a psalm of Doug, of lament, when he aided and abetted a pedophile, lied to cover up his failure to protect the weak, and sacrificed women and children on the altar he built and engraved with his own image.”

David Zuniga
Member
David Zuniga

Amen. Like apples of gold in a setting of silver.