ABUSE & VIOLENCE IN THE CHURCH, Doug Wilson, Narcissistic Pastors, Personal Stories, Sexual Abuse/Assault and Churches, Spiritual Bullies, Women and the Church

Doug Wilson Responds to Rod Dreher Article, Defends Perpetrator, Shames Sex Abuse Survivor and She Responds Back

Julie Anne

Doug Wilson, Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho, CREC, Jamin Wight, Natalie Rose Greenfield, Sex Abuse, Rod Dreher

Yesterday, Rod Dreher wrote an article about the Doug Wilson fiasco in The American Conservative. Today, he quoted Doug Wilson’s ‘Reluctant Response.’

In the beginning of the article, Doug Wilson refers to a timeline of events of convicted pedophile, Steven Sitler. Then Wilson complains Rod Dreher not contacting Wilson for appropriate sources. (If you want primary sources and facts on Wilson, here is the place to go.) About half way through the article, Doug Wilson discusses the Jamin Wight sex abuse case. Doug Wilson’s words are in block quotes, my commentary in green font (bolding added).

The Wight Situation

The other main object of attention in Rod’s post was the situation with Jamin Wight and Natalie Greenfield. We are in the process of reconstructing a detailed and documented time line for that situation as well. But in brief, Jamin was one of our Greyfriar ministerial students who was exposed in 2005 as having been engaging in criminal sexual behavior with Natalie Greenfield a few years before. His behavior was criminal, hers was not.

Ok, that’s the very brief background. Let’s watch Wilson as he pulls the woe-is-me card:

But since others have been spreading the hurt for me, and the letter that I wrote to the officer investigating the crime has now been posted online,

And now Wilson plays Superman:

it has now gotten to point where if I speak, I might be able to help minimize the hurt that is careening around the Internet.

Please, take note – – -whose “hurt” is he referring to?

Wilson continues:

As my letter makes plain, Jamin was guilty of sexual behavior with a girl who was below the age of consent. She was underage. Our letter acknowledged fully that Jamin was guilty of criminal behavior, and we wanted him to pay the penalty for that criminal behavior, which was a species of statutory rape.

Let’s cut to the chase. Natalie has already posted publicly that Jamin forced her to have oral sex with him. A penis forced in the mouth of a young teen is not consent. Natalie publicly stated that she had a crush on him. Let’s get a reality check – holding hands would be normal for a young crush, not forced oral sex.

In a letter to the victim’s father, dated September 15, 2005, I wrote, on behalf of the elders, that “Jamin is in no way justified . . . and we have no problem with his prosecution” (emphasis added).

But the question before the court was what kind of criminal behavior it was, not whether it was criminal.

Does he really expect us to believe that the court has difficulty deciding what kind of criminal behavior forced oral sex is on a minor? I’m sure this is not the first case of oral sex Latah County courts have seen.

We had instructed Jamin, who was professing repentance, that he needed to demonstrate it by taking full responsibility for what he had done. But what he had done was very different from what was potentially at stake in his trial. Our elders had no problem with him being charged for the crime of sexual behavior with a girl who was not capable of giving legal consent (she was 14 and he was 23). At issue was whether he was going to be charged as pedophile, and placed in the same category as one who was molesting little children. But we believed his crime was not in the same category as Steven Sitler’s crimes at all. Steven’s behavior was with young children and was simply predatory. Jamin’s crime was that of engaging in sexual behavior with an underage girl.

Oh, so now Pastor Wilson has decided that he gets to interpret civil law? Unbelievable!  It’s interesting that Wilson is so hung up on how the courts will define Jamin’s crimes.

The reason we did not want it treated as pedophilia is that her parents had bizarrely brought Jamin into the house as a boarder so that he could conduct a secret courtship with Natalie. So Jamin was in a romantic relationship with a young girl, her parents knew of the relationship and encouraged it, her parents permitted a certain measure of physical affection to exist between them (e.g. hand-holding), Natalie was a beautiful and striking young woman, and at the time was about eight inches taller than Jamin was. Her parents believed that she was mature enough to be in that relationship, and the standards they set for the relationship would have been reasonable if she had in fact been of age and if the two had not been living under the same roof.

Natalie’s response to the above is posted further in this article. She denies Wilson’s claims.

But please note well: Things like her height, apparent maturity, and parental knowledge of the fact of a relationship are simply irrelevant to the morality of Jamin’s behavior. They are irrelevant to the criminality of his behavior. They are irrelevant to whether Jamin was selfishly manipulating a young girl, preying on her for his own selfish ends. They are irrelevant to whether it was statutory rape or not. But such things were not irrelevant to whether it was pedophilia.

Once again, it is the court who decides such matters, not a pastor who has already shown lack of judgment in the earlier case of officiating the marriage of a serial pedophile, Steven Sitler. It seems most pastors would turn the case over to civil authorities, respond to the Court as needed, and let them decide.

What we wanted the court to know was simply this: it is simply not possible to have it both ways. If you are pressing charges of child abuse, you are saying that Jamin failed to respect the fact that Natalie was a child. But this was the same failure that he shared with her parents, who thought she was a remarkably mature young woman. That fact simply needs to be recognized on all sides. I do not argue this to intimate or hint that her parents were in any way aware of the crimes Jamin was committing. What they were unaware of, Jamin did need to go to prison for.

Nevertheless Jamin was brought into the house in order to make Natalie the object of his romantic intentions, and to do so more conveniently, out of the eyes of community accountability. The arrangement became public years later, and with much harm done. Jamin was trusted by Natalie and her father. He certainly abused that trust sinfully and grotesquely—and took terrible advantage of it. He abused it in criminal ways, and the time he spent in prison for it was no miscarriage of justice. However, the time he has spent on the Internet, characterized as a pedophile, by people who were entirely ignorant of the facts of the case, and whose only interest in it was finding a rock to throw at me, is the very definition of injustice.

The first letter that Natalie posted on line from me was addressed to her father, and it admonished him for failing to protect his daughter. There was outrage that I had dared to admonish the “father of the victim.” But the father of the victim had approved an extraordinarily foolish arrangement that left his daughter vulnerable. Two weeks later I wrote her father another letter on behalf of the elders, and this letter has not yet been published online. In this second letter I said, “We simply want to make sure that Natalie is protected by you in the coming months . . . What we are doing is exhorting you to make protection of Natalie your highest priority in the months to come, because we are convinced that she will need it” (emphasis added). Unfortunately, that did not happen.

We found out about the abuse of Natalie years after the fact. In the areas where we could act, we did act right away. Jamin was disciplined for it immediately (e.g. expelled from Greyfriar Hall). We supported his prosecution. We exhorted Natalie’s father repeatedly to protect his daughter. This is yet another situation where reasonable men could easily have made different choices. But it is also a snarl where it is possible to look back with a clean conscience.

Up until recently, Natalie’s account has been dangerously incomplete and misleading. We were letting it go for the sake of others. As things have spilled out, it is much closer to the full story now. The whole thing was tragic and grievous. The damage it has done should be clear to any observer, from sea to cyber sea. In the midst of all of this, it is our heartfelt prayer that Natalie will return to Christ—the only place where the kind of wounds she received can ever really be healed.

Ok, this shows Wilson’s true colors. First, we see an excessive amount of time defending a perpetrator. Wilson wants to show the court his perspective as if his account is the correct account. No, no, no!  This is why we have a court process, so that both sides get a fair hearing. Wight had his day in court and the court decided. Wight was convicted. Wilson should now be quiet.

What’s obviously lacking is his genuine support for Natalie. How does he show her love and compassion? Did you read that last line – – their prayer is that “Natalie will return to Christ?”  Natalie hasn’t been to Christ Church for some time and he is presuming to know her spiritual state? Or that she hasn’t healed?

I have met Natalie and spoken with her on the phone at length. One of the remarkable things about Natalie is she is not vengeful or vindictive. She has dealt with her abuse in healthy and productive ways. And now she is using her tragic story to help sex abuse survivors to have a voice, and also to challenge and encourage pastors to handle sex abuse cases appropriately.

Oh, one more thing. Remember where I said to take note earlier? Can someone please identify who the hurt people are/is he trying to protect here?  “I might be able to help minimize the hurt that is careening around the Internet.”  Is it Natalie?   

Ok, enough from me.  So now, let’s hear from Natalie who responded to Doug Wilson’s words above.

natalie rose greenfield, jamin wight, doug wilson, crec, christ church, sex abuse,

Where The Light Belongs

by Natalie Rose Greenfield

Once again the spotlight is being taken from the only place it has ever belonged. Once again accusations against my parents for allowing a ‘secret courtship’ to occur between my 14 year-old self and my abuser have been plastered all over the Internet. Comments about my physical appearance as a young teen are being used to redefine the nature of the criminal activity. A severe and dangerous contorting of my story by people who were not there is taking place and while this means a very uncomfortable re-shaming for myself and my family, the deeper concern is what it means for future victims. The marginalization of a serious and devastating crime does not bode well at all for others who will suffer abuse in the future.

The church’s lack of acknowledgment of mishandling the situation and causing further devastation to myself and my family and to the individuals my abuser would go on to hurt is disheartening and deplorable. It is tarnishing not only Pastor Wilson’s reputation but the reputation of every pastor in the CREC denomination and every last member of those churches, for that matter.
Another such pastor reached out to me earlier this morning, one removed from this particular situation, and he expressed his severe disappointment in how I and my family were treated and are continuing to be treated. He wanted me to know not everyone in the CREC feels this way and that there is serious questioning happening from within. I have heard from myriads of others, some within the denomination and some not, who are appalled at the way sexual abuse within the church is handled.

Personally, I have experienced a wide range of emotions concerning all of this but the overwhelming emotion recently has been sadness – sadness that a pastor’s gross misunderstanding of abuse, consent, and criminal behavior has resulted in such harm and shaming and will inevitably result in harm to others who are abused. I am sad that he cannot humbly admit wrongdoing and begin to rebuild a system which is broken, a system which perpetuates abuse and marginalizes victims, which in turn creates a ripple effect of devastation and pain.

Doug was not in my home when my parents discussed allowing Jamin to court me. Doug was not in the room when they spoke about whether or not we should be allowed to hold hands. I imagine he may have something in writing from them, perhaps asking advice or seeking guidance on the situation and this may shed light on the foolishness and naivety of some of my parent’s choices. The fact that my parents trusted a dangerous and conniving criminal to respect the boundaries they had set is no secret and yes, it’s embarrassing. They have sought my forgiveness heartily over the years and I have unconditionally given it. But I would like to also point at that neither was Doug in the room when my father said, No. I am not comfortable with this. There will be no courtship. There will be no hand-holding. Do not touch my daughter and do not foster a relationship with her. 
Doug was not with my father as time dragged on and he began to become suspicious of Jamin. He was not in the hallway with my father where he sat on a chair in the middle of the night watching my bedroom door to make sure I was safe and protected. If only he had known my father’s heart, and yet he is quick to place blame on two parents who were deceived and manipulated by a calculated criminal. The fact that my parents were deceived does not change the nature of Jamin’s crime. The fact that my parents had moments of naivety does not merit letters from a pastor requesting leniency for a man who the prosecuting attorney called ‘a textbook pedophile’ and place a massive amount of blame on a father already broken by the news of his daughter’s abuse. The fact that I was beautiful and stood taller than my abuser does not lessen or change the sickening nature of what he did to me. The fact that I was infatuated with him and lived to please him does not mean that I was asking for it. Nobody asked for it.
In a response published on the widely viewed Christian publication, The American Conservative, earlier today, Doug calls what happened ‘sexual behavior’. A conveniently softened term for the abuse that took place.
Doug says about he and the elders, “we wanted him (Jamin) to pay the penalty for that criminal behavior, which was a species of statutory rape.” What Jamin did was severe far beyond statutory rape, though it did include that. Jamin targeted, groomed, and molested me for several years while manipulating and deceiving every other person around him in order to cover his crime. Jamin is a sexual predator in every sense of the word.
Doug writes:
The reason we did not want it (the crime) treated as pedophilia is that her parents had bizarrely brought Jamin into the house as a boarder so that he could conduct a secret courtship with Natalie. So Jamin was in a romantic relationship with a young girl, her parents knew of the relationship and encouraged it, her parents permitted a certain measure of physical affection to exist between them (e.g. hand-holding), Natalie was a beautiful and striking young woman, and at the time was about eight inches taller than Jamin was. Her parents believed that she was mature enough to be in that relationship, and the standards they set for the relationship would have been reasonable if she had in fact been of age and if the two had not been living under the same roof.
This paragraph is so full of untruths it makes my head spin. I’m not sure if Doug is deliberately twisting the truth or if he is basing his version of events on incomplete information (my sincere hope is that it’s the latter), but these allegations are simply false. As I said before, he was not there for any of this. There were discussions of this nature but the truth is that Jamin and I did not develop and maintain a romantic relationship under the encouragement of my parents. It is false, and from where I stand it is dangerously close to slander. Additionally and most importantly, why the hell does it matter? These grandiose and desperate attempts to take the attention away from what matters and place it where it does not belong is truly frightening and it’s hurting real people.
Doug is spending an awful lot of time and energy saying things like this:
“But please note well: Things like her height, apparent maturity, and parental knowledge of the fact of a relationship are simply irrelevant to the morality of Jamin’s behavior. They are irrelevant to the criminality of his behavior. They are irrelevant to whether Jamin was selfishly manipulating a young girl, preying on her for his own selfish ends. They are irrelevant to whether it was statutory rape or not. But such things were not irrelevant to whether it was pedophilia.”
when he should be spending time and energy saying:
“We messed up. We defended a really bad guy. I wrote to a judge and an officer on his behalf and it directly effected the outcome of the sentencing. We failed the victim, we didn’t extend to her the love of Christ and offer her the resources she so desperately needed. We blamed her parents disproportionately, we talked about her physical appearance and said it changed the nature of Jamin’s crimes. We are deeply sorry and we want to learn how we can educate ourselves and how we can do things differently in the future so that more innocent people are not hurt and shamed and subsequently driven away. We want to learn from this mishandled situation.”
Will that ever happen? I hope so very much that it will. I hope we can stop talking about the things that don’t matter and start talking about things that do, like how we can spot potentially abusive situations before they escalate and destroy lives, how we can educate our youth to have strong voices about their own bodies and sexuality, how we can create a system in which criminals are not readily trusted and given opportunities to re-offend, how we can foster an environment in which victims feel as though they are unconditionally supported and cared for, free of suffocating judgement and blame…This what truly matters.
Doug sums up the way he feels about his role in my situation “…it is also a snarl where it is possible to look back with a clean conscience.”
He has no regrets and clearly no intention of apologizing. He has twisted the truth. He has shone a light in a place where there is nothing of relevance to see, and in so doing has pushed into the shadows a hideous truth that promises to grow and swallow Lord knows how many more innocent victims.

That is the story we need to listen to. That is what we should be talking about.

54 thoughts on “Doug Wilson Responds to Rod Dreher Article, Defends Perpetrator, Shames Sex Abuse Survivor and She Responds Back”

  2. What influence does the victim’s beauty and stature have by way of justifying a horrific assault?

    Would the cad have us believe she would be more deserving of sympathy or justice if only she was short and ugly?

    How would the courts measure such intangibles?

    Liked by 6 people

  3. i only read the first part of the article, but do note that he places some reliance on the pedophile/hebephile distinction. So is Wilson one of those who wish to lower age of consent laws? Does the distinction really matter given the victim’s account of the circumstances surrounding the crime?

    Like

  5. A great response, Natalie!

    Some years ago, a man was convicted of abducting, raping, and murdering an 11 year old girl. The abduction was caught on security tape and the forensic evidence left no doubt of his guilt. Nevertheless his indignant mother called a press conference to chide the media for calling her murdering rapist son a pedophile. “That girl looked much older!” she insisted. Another person hoping to misdirect just like Wilson. It won’t work this time either.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. I truly believe that Wilson a) wants to roll back age of consent laws to allow for transfer of underage wives as chattel property, and b) create an atmosphere in which one of his Greyfriars protégés (Wight) can eventually be forgiven and allowed to pursue ministry. He’s so transparent it’s just silly.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. One of the parts of Wilson’s response that irked me the most was:

    We invite you to visit us here in Moscow. We will pay the plane fare, and have you speak in some public forum on a subject of your choosing with a suitable honorarium. We will treat you kindly and show you around. I would hope that it might help place some of the things you have read in a better and far more accurate context.

    Oh, I’m certain they’d treat Dreher like royalty. They’d attempt to make an impression of what “nice people” they are. That still wouldn’t change the fact that Wilson supported “a textbook pedophile” (prosecutor’s words) while continuing to throw the victim under the bus.

    You can’t schmooze your way out of this, Doug.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. i only read the first part of the article, but do note that he places some reliance on the pedophile/hebephile distinction.

    It all depends on what the meaning of “is” is…

    Like

  10. @opinemine

    Would the cad have us believe she would be more deserving of sympathy or justice if only she was short and ugly?

    Why, yes. Yes he would.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Pingback: » Doug Wilson Responds to Rod Dreher Article, Defends Perpetrator, Shames Sex Abuse Survivor

  12. Wilson is so used to running the whole show, including his own “ordination”, a church, a seminary, and a school, that he became deluded that he also runs the criminal justice system. The man is a narcissistic misogynist and needs to go live under a rock and repent. Then maybe he can go dig ditches or something to use up his extra energy.

    Liked by 5 people

  13. Doug Wilson seems to believe that he possesses the extraordinary rhetorical ability to convince the entire internet that he’s right and we’re wrong, now let’s never speak of this again. LULZ.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. “In the midst of all of this, it is our heartfelt prayer that Natalie will return to Christ—the only place where the kind of wounds she received can ever really be healed.”

    This is spiritual abuse!!!

    If Natalie is saying and doing things that does not please Doug Wilsons ego and agenda then she is away from Christ? How dare he! Doug Wilson thinks he is god.

    I was born and raised in conservative misogyny Christianity and it was men that talked and acted just like Doug Wilson that abused my mother, my grandmothers, and me.

    What many Christian men do not understand and are to selfish and misogynistic to care about is it is demeaning and violating for them to constantly be talking about our appearance. Maybe they are not invited or welcome to talk about our appearance.

    Many Christian men talk about women and little girls as if we are nothing but ((their)) breeding stock at an auction.

    Liked by 6 people

  16. Having re-read Wilson’s words I think Natalie’s parents should sue him for defamation of character.

    Given the economic implications of his words towards the Greenfield family, I’d say at this point they have excellent grounds for a libel suit. Wilson is an idiot to put this stuff in print.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Natalie,
    Your gracious and well-articulated response demonstrates that your heart and mind are focused on the right things. Your emotional health in spite of the abuse you suffered is a great encouragement to me and to many others. Thank you for being willing to share your story.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. So why does he even mention her stature, etc? Minmisation.

    Makes me want to scream “Morons, you can’t have sex with kids!!!” It is a felony!!!

    Liked by 3 people

  19. 1. Is Wilson really relying on the pedophile/hebephile distinction? If he was, shouldn’t he be saying things like, “Natalie was 14 and pedophiles only go after prepubescent children, ergo he was not technically a pedophile”? Instead all we’re getting is, well Natalie was tall so she LOOKED really mature, and the whole secret courtship thing. That looks more like an attempt to use the victim’s perceived age to make the predator look less pedophile-y, than a strict adherence to pedophile/hebephile.

    Though yeah, ultimately, it’s all irrelevant because what Keith said (“Morons, you can’t have sex with kids!!!”).

    2. Someone on another site also pointed out that Wilson contradicts himself here. He first contrasts Sitler and Wight to paint Wight as non-predatory:

    Steven’s behavior was with young children and was simply predatory. Jamin’s crime was that of engaging in sexual behavior with an underage girl.

    …but then later says Wight was “preying on” Natalie:

    …Jamin was selfishly manipulating a young girl, preying on her for his own selfish ends.

    If someone is “preying on” someone else, they are by definition “predatory.” That’s what the words mean. He can’t have this both ways.

    Like

  20. Pastor Wilson, I believe you are incorrect in your application of reality on this planet, please feel free to beam back up to the mothership and try another alternative reality. Thank You.

    Like

  21. Look Pastor Wilson is making a new movie, here is the clip, make sure you disconnect your irony meter.

    Like

  22. *takes a bow to Hester*

    That was me at the Wartburg Watch. You’re right, Wilson can’t have it both ways.

    “According to some near the situation (speaking to me anonymously), things are getting more and more unsettled in Moscow with some of the empire unraveling. There might be more Scotch in Wilson’s future.”

    —Warren Throckmorton

    Like

  23. “Pastor Wilson, I believe you are incorrect in your application of reality on this planet, please feel free to beam back up to the mothership and try another alternative reality. Thank You.”

    He has proven to be quite the blowhard. Maybe we can have him board a certain Airplane! with Auto and fly off into the sunset.

    Like

  24. About that Stonewall clip…I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Is Doug Wlson that paranoid or have I been sleeping and unaware of the massive arrests being made for hate speech? And, seriously — this is what Christians are all in an uproar about? Some of us actually WANT to keep on saying ugly, demeaning, hurtful, insulting, harmful things to people? We should want to hurt people’s feelings and then mock them for being sensitive? What happened to someday having to give an account for every idle word spoken? What happened to having our words seasoned with grace, to edifying and encouraging speech, to kindness and gentleness?

    They will know some of us, it seems, by our bombastic wit and lack of compassion. God have mercy.

    I say this as someone who has, to my shame, sinned much with my unloving tongue and strident keyboard. It’s an area in my life that I want to change. The book of James talks a lot to my struggle of taming my tongue. I keep praying for more gentleness, more compassion, more love…that my words would build up rather than tear down.

    Douglas Wilson isn’t making a movie defending his right to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ. He sounds like he’s afraid that he may no longer have the right to be a loud-mouthed jerk without consequences. This is not persecution. We have fellow Believers being imprisoned, tortured, and killed elsewhere in the world just for being followers of Jesus. We in America can hold big huge events, preach in public and over the airwaves, shout the name of Jesus from the mountain tops — in perfect freedom. But Douglas Wilson doesn’t appreciate that. He wants to hurt people with words, not bring good news or bind up broken hearts.

    Do these people read the same Bible I do? Follow the same Jesus? Frankly, I’m deeply grieved that a pastor would make such a movie…and that people will no doubt applaud it.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. @rrprewett,

    About Doug Wilson…his speech, his thinking (or really lack thereof)…I would actually be SHOCKED if Doug Wilson did anything decent. That would be unusual for Wilson. Really…a guy who advocates slavery, pedophiles getting married, sex offenders having light sentences, and on and on. Doug Wilson has been too far gone for a long time. He is a disgrace to The Gospel.

    I only hope that Natalie’s mother gets out of that church and comes to her senses. To forsake your own child for this fool pastor. To forsake your own husband for this fool pastor and his friends. Just shocking.

    P.S. Scott posted a great quote a few days ago from the late J. Vernon McGee, straight talkin’ Texan, Presbyterian minister, The Bible Bus man on the radio. The quote is basically that in the Bible it was a miracle for an ass to speak; now it’s a miracle for an ass to shut up! Amen!!

    Like

  27. Oh can the lawyers please just sue Doug Wilson and his empire into the ground?
    Does somebody know who the insurance company is that is covering Christ Church and Doug Wilson’s schools? The insurance companies really need to be tipped off about this because it truly is grounds for them to cancel the coverage.

    http://www.clearwatertribune.com/news/online_only_news/idaho-supreme-court-rules-survivors-of-boy-scout-and-mormon/article_45674bbe-5035-11e5-83c1-674476584a73.html

    Like

  28. Pastor Jimmy Hinton’s excellent training video about pedophiles. Jimmy pastors a Church of Christ denomination church in PA that is about 100 years old. Jimmy turned in his father for sexually abusing children at the church they have both pastored. His father is serving a life sentence.

    https://vimeo.com/88247213#at=2

    Like

  30. Dr. Anna Salter being interviewed for CorrectionsOne/Tier Talk, a professional organization for the corrections industry, about sex offenders. This interview is in 5 parts.

    Like

  31. Velour, Some of these kinds of churches do not register as church with the government. That can mean they are not covered by liability insurance. A lawsuit of the church in that case is a lawsuit of the members.

    Like

  32. Thank you for covering this so well. Along with Botkin and Dreher and Natalie herself, the truth is becoming clearer and clearer.

    That trailer. What in the world? I got about halfway through and realized it really is a bunch of middle-class, white, American Christians arguing for the right to act like jerks.

    As rrprewett said, there are believers worldwide actually suffering for the gospel. Someone should make a mashup of their respective sufferings, side by side. When I consider what the church is encountering in Syria, the Ukraine, and parts of S. America, this movie just seems like a terrible, privileged joke.

    Liked by 4 people

  33. @sheisovercoming,

    Thanks for your post. Whether churches register with the government is a separate issue from them being insured. To rent church space, have a school, etc requires insurance.

    Like

  34. The “Stonewall” trailer is hilarious. And Doug is dead wrong. You still have the right to say whatever you want in this country; free speech is a protected Constitutional right. You also have the right to suffer consequences for what you say, if the things you say make you sound like an assh**le. It’s a perfectly reasonable arrangement.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. “In the midst of all of this, it is our heartfelt prayer that Natalie will return to Christ—the only place where the kind of wounds she received can ever really be healed.”

    Sounds like she’s closer to the heart of Jesus than you are, Doug.

    Liked by 2 people

  36. Why does Wilson keep defending this guy? Just leave it alone. Actually Natalie seems to be a pawn in some crazy game Wilson is playing to keep his face in the spotlight. He knows that “bad press is better than no press”. I doubt he cares about anyone who is involved in this situation. Wilson probably doesn’t consider them as individuals, but rather pieces on a chessboard he can use to manipulate in order to advance his own agenda.

    Like

  39. Dash, you are a breath of fresh air. Thanks. I really appreciate you and all you say.

    You still have the right to say whatever you want in this country; free speech is a protected Constitutional right. You also have the right to suffer consequences for what you say, if the things you say make you sound like an assh**le. It’s a perfectly reasonable arrangement.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. Dash and Godith talked about lawsuits, Dash saying, “Given the economic implications of his words towards the Greenfield family, I’d say at this point they have excellent grounds for a libel suit. Wilson is an idiot to put this stuff in print.”

    Ohhh. Is it wrong of me to wish for this to come about?

    Liked by 2 people

  41. @opinemine

    Would the cad have us believe she would be more deserving of sympathy or justice if only she was short and ugly?

    Why, yes. Yes he would.

    Why, no. Because I do believe he has publicly opined that only Christian women are truly beautiful (in whatever way his spaghetti logic tries to set forth, sprinkling with appropriate grated scriptures for a nice bit of bite). Therefore someone short and ugly need no sympathy. They are destined for destruction.

    Like

  42. One of the parts of Wilson’s response that irked me the most was:

    We invite you to visit us here in Moscow. We will pay the plane fare, and have you speak in some public forum on a subject of your choosing with a suitable honorarium. We will treat you kindly and show you around. I would hope that it might help place some of the things you have read in a better and far more accurate context.

    Oh, I’m certain they’d treat Dreher like royalty. They’d attempt to make an impression of what “nice people” they are. That still wouldn’t change the fact that Wilson supported “a textbook pedophile” (prosecutor’s words) while continuing to throw the victim under the bus.

    You can’t schmooze your way out of this, Doug.

    I seem to recall this as a common tactic of… is it communists? Thinking of Jane Fonda being schmoozed by the North Vietnamese, and acquaintances of mine recounting (this was before the Wall fell) their wonderful touristy visits to Russia (and Russian ex-pats explaining how tourists didn’t see the “real” Russia. And something I read, a long time ago, about how people who illegally visited Cuba and were wined and dined and came back talking about how beautiful Cuba was, how happy and well-treated their people were, hadn’t seen the “real” Cuba.

    Come to think of it, the Nazi concentration camp, Theresianstadt (I think it was), had a false front that Red Cross observers were shown. A work camp, where the inmates were clean and clothed and fed and worked quietly and contentedly at their undemanding tasks.

    Which brings me to old western towns I’d seen when we drove around on one vacation, where the buildings had false fronts to give an impression of two-stories where there were only one. Which brings me to the memory of seeing a Hollywood film set, a street of beautiful buildings that were only fronts — there was nothing of substance behind them, just ugly structural supports.

    Like

  43. China, too, put on a bright face when they hosted the Olympics. But what goes on behind the scenes? Forced abortions, for one thing, on women who truly want that “extra” (but illegal) child.

    Like

  44. Keith said, “i only read the first part of the article, but do note that he places some reliance on the pedophile/hebephile distinction. So is Wilson one of those who wish to lower age of consent laws? Does the distinction really matter given the victim’s account of the circumstances surrounding the crime?”

    I remember reading about a patriarchal courtship between a 13yo and a 20something that ended in marriage when the girl was… 15? I think the girl’s name was Maranatha. So, yes, perhaps he wishes to lower the age consent laws.

    After all, if you get ’em young, you can raise ’em right. Transfer the girl from father to (usually much older) husband, before she matures enough to have thoughts of her own.

    Like

  45. After all, if you get ’em young, you can raise ’em right.

    As Phil Robertson said, “You got to marry these girls when they are about 15 or 16. They’ll pick your ducks.”

    Like

  46. Ann,

    Actually Natalie seems to be a pawn in some crazy game Wilson is playing to keep his face in the spotlight. … I doubt he cares about anyone who is involved in this situation. Wilson probably doesn’t consider them as individuals, but rather pieces on a chessboard he can use to manipulate in order to advance his own agenda.

    Well, Wilson might think he can manipulate all the pawns as he pleases. I wouldn’t be surprised if he rates his own intelligence that high. If he does, though, he’s forgetting that these “pawns” of his have minds of their own. And he can never know for sure how one of them will react to his nonsense… and whether they might turn on him.

    He’s due for some surprises, I reckon.

    Like

  47. One thing I’ve never been able to understand about these guys, their churches and their religion is this:
    If a guy hooks up with a consenting adult of legal age and gets caught, his goose is cooked and his hash is settled, he will never again be allowed full participation in the life of his church.
    And yet if he’s a predatory pedophile, said churches will bend over backwards to ‘restore him’ and keep his crimes hidden from the civil authorities.
    I know I’m not alone in wondering about this level of cognitive dissonance because it makes no sense and it also makes one wonder how the leaders of these aberrant sects can maintain such a strangle hold on their followers.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. The Stonewall movie is being directed by Darren Doane. He is the filmmaker who made the last few Kirk Cameron movies/documentaries and the guy who wrote and directed “Saving Christmas”. He is a postmillenial reconstructionist. Wilson is a postmillenial reconstructionist. This is just the furtherance of R.J. Rushdooney….also the source of Wilson’s pro-slavery views.

    John Calvin was an amillenialist. Calvin’s interpretation of Matthew 24:34 ( Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Vol. 3, William Pringle, Eerdmans, 1949, pp. 151,152) and his explanation of Matthew 14 pp.129,130 destroys the interpretation of the Christian Reconstructionists.

    Liked by 1 person

  50. @refugee:

    I seem to recall this as a common tactic of… is it communists? Thinking of Jane Fonda being schmoozed by the North Vietnamese, and acquaintances of mine recounting (this was before the Wall fell) their wonderful touristy visits to Russia (and Russian ex-pats explaining how tourists didn’t see the “real” Russia.

    This is called a “Potemkin Village” and goes back a LOT further than the First Russian Revolution. It’s named after a court noble in 1787 Russia:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village

    Like

  51. @ refugee:

    I seem to recall this as a common tactic of… is it communists? Thinking of Jane Fonda being schmoozed by the North Vietnamese, and acquaintances of mine recounting (this was before the Wall fell) their wonderful touristy visits to Russia (and Russian ex-pats explaining how tourists didn’t see the “real” Russia).

    I had a Russian ballroom dance teacher from St. Petersburg who described exactly this. There were two department stores, one for tourists and one for the locals. The one for tourists looked like a normal department store. The one for locals only had whatever the central planning agency decided would be in it. Like it would be something like all winter coats and all toothpaste one day, all loaves of bread the next day, etc.

    Like

  52. “One thing I’ve never been able to understand about these guys, their churches and their religion is this:
    If a guy hooks up with a consenting adult of legal age and gets caught, his goose is cooked and his hash is settled, he will never again be allowed full participation in the life of his church.
    And yet if he’s a predatory pedophile, said churches will bend over backwards to ‘restore him’ and keep his crimes hidden from the civil authorities.” – Muff Potter

    Spot on, Muff! At my former Gulag NeoCal Church, the pastors/elders friend a Megan’s List sex offender was given carte blanche to the church and its children after he was released from prison, membership (without telling all adults and members), a position of leadership and trust, and even invited by the senior pastor to volunteer for 5-days at the summer basketball camp our church put on for children, without their parents (believers and unbelievers being told this). I, on the other hand, a mere woman, was ordered to be excommunicated and shunned for protesting what the pastors/elders did.

    Like

  53. “I know I’m not alone in wondering about this level of cognitive dissonance because it makes no sense and it also makes one wonder how the leaders of these aberrant sects can maintain such a strangle hold on their followers.”
    ______________________________________

    It’s quite possible that some are simply blinded followers, terrified to admit they’ve thrown in with what may possibly be a flat out malignant narcissist for a leader. But it’s also possible that some are cold-blooded predators who very much want to be in an environment where their actions will not only be covered but that they will enjoy a steady stream of young girls who’ve been trained to not stand up for themselves, knowing that even if they do, they will likely have no voice given the theology that drives this group. They may be staying to enjoy the “fun” of preying on young girls.

    Liked by 1 person

  54. The CREC has finally produced its report on how Doug’s church and Trinity Church handled the Jamin Wight and Steven Sitler cases. It has no force in terms of church discipline, but its commendations and critiques make interesting reading over at The Truth About Moscow. It suggests, ever so tactfully, that Doug stop attacking victims on his blog.

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)