Charlie Daniels and the CREC Scandal

Read this and weep.

If you still support Doug Wilson, then repent.  Something about Jesus saying if you cause these little ones to stumble, then go to hell.

Charlie Daniels had said that the lowest form of animal life on this planet is a child molester. The second lowest is church leaders who protect them.

“As far as I’m concerned there ain’t excuse
For the rapin and the killin and the child abuse
I got a way to put an end to all that fast.
Just take them rascals out in the swamp
Put em on their knees and tie em to a stump
And Let the rattlers and the bugs and the alligators do the rest.”

 

And this is also the most perfect example of Southern “swamp” music.

Advertisements

Update on Wight-Wilson police report

This buries the Wilsonista case.  Wilson’s disciples tell me, “But you don’t know the whole story,” to which I reply, “Bulls*&%.  I do.”

Confession and Court Records.

Key excerpts:

Jamin Wight Contradicts Doug Wilson
Jamin Wight contradicts Doug Wilson on two key points:

  1. Jamin Wight states that he “was asked to move in with the Greenfields (February 2001) and have his room and board paid for in trade for working around the home”; whereas Doug Wilson claims the Greenfields “had bizarrely brought Jamin into the house as a boarder so that he could conduct a secret courtship with Natalie.” (Doug Wilson’s ‘Reluctant Response’)
  1. Jamin Wight states that the Greenfields forbade him from holding hands with Natalie: “the first time they ‘broke the rules’ . . . they held hands. . .”; whereas Doug Wilson claims “her parents permitted a certain measure of physical affection to exist between them (e.g. hand-holding).” (Doug Wilson’s ‘Reluctant Response’)

The 31-page police report contains no exculpatory evidence or testimony on behalf of Jamin Wight. The entire document — with the exception of Doug Wilson’s two-page letter — affirms Mr. Wight’s guilt in the matter of sexually abusing a minor. Mr. Wight admits his guilt several times in unequivocal terms.

An addendum to Neo-Jovinianism

Last year during the uproar on one of the many, many Doug Wilson scandals, I wrote “Against the Neo-Jovinians” where I argued that a semi-monastic life of disciplined ascetism is a better cure for pedophiles than, say, marrying them off so they can have more babies to abuse. I suggested that the pedophile should go live with some cranky monks for about 30 years to burn away the garbage.

I stand by that as common sense.  In one facebook debate a key Wilsonite pointed out that many monasteries suffered from sodomy.  And that’s true.  So I need to clarify what I meant.  When I said person x should go life with some monks, I didn’t mean in a communal, coenibitic monastery with a bunch of Wilsonites his own age.  That certainly is a recipe for disaster.

No, I meant something along the lines of going to life with five or six older (50 years +) men who can guide him.

Repost: Against the Neo-Jovinians

Repost, but certain events brought it to mind.  I’ve come across passages in some Canon Press books.  We know that Doug Wilson’s people demean women.  That’s a self-evident truth.  But it’s always jarring to see new evidence to the effect. It’s especially worse when it is by a woman.  It is by someone with the last name “Wilson.”

says the wife’s identity is found (only) in the husband. The husband *is* her.  (p. 62).

she also says that a woman before she got married didn’t have the depth of character and she was so boring.

Those are more or less word-for-word quotes, but given the Canon Press method of citing sources, no need to get too picky.

Jovinian was an intellectual in the ancient Christian world who scandalized everyone by suggesting marital relations and celibate virginity were on the same level.  Jerome responded.  And what a powerful, if hilariously wrong, response it was.  

 

Now, I believe Jovinian had the better exegesis.  To quote Kelly, when Jerome has a useful card he overplays it, and when he doesn’t have any evidence, he engages in the wildest reasoning (Kelly 186).  Further, I reject a lot of the metaphysical and ethical assumptions behind Jerome’s defense of celibacy.  (Ironically, however, Jovinian’s view of baptismal regeneration was much closer to later Catholicism than Jerome’s view).  

 

Still, there is something Jerome can teach us.  Sex and feasting don’t exist for themselves.  Even if one doesn’t hold the view that sex is only for reproduction, that doesn’t mean sex is for sex’s sake.  It’s for the uniting and binding together of husband and wife.

 

We can add another point.  Sex isn’t a panacea for mental illnesses.  This brings us back to the CREC scandal.  The Wilsonistas are wrong to think that:

 

(1)   “marrying” him off will provide a safe outlet for one’s urges.

 

I think many critics of medieval celibacy used to think that.  Sadly, this is not the case.  If it were, one could save a lot of people heartache by simply introducing these people to their right hands.  Crude, yes, and some could argue that such an act is immoral, but at least no children are harmed.

 

Therefore, we have to add another line of reasoning:

 

(2)  The problem is not built-up sexual tension, but mental-spiritual.  

 

If it is true that pedophiles are “wired” differently, then it is hard to see how (1) will solve the problem.  

 

Is the “fallen” (defined as someone who committed a terrible sin but has repented) Christian guaranteed equal access to the marriage/family life?  

 

Many “Wilsonistas” say it yes.  They assert it but never argue it.  This doesn’t appear to be the Apostle Paul’s position.  The Wilsonistas say, “If you can, and why can’t you?, by all means get married.”  Paul said if you aren’t married now, then you might not need to get married (1 Cor. 7:7-8, 26-28).   We can now add another premise;

 

(3) There are many good reasons for staying single.
(3*) The Church is not obligated to provide you with a family.

 

The Wilsonistas will say that married sex provides a legitimate outlet for sexual passion.  That is true in normal cases.   But psychology and counseling have shown that men/women who are addicted to porn do not become unaddicted because they get married.  The problem is still there, even if there is an “outlet” for it.  And the outlet does not solve the problem.

 

This is also true if the spouse is a convicted pedophile.  Where is the wisdom in his “outlet” providing him with more victims?   Wilsonistas will respond, “Would you deny him the opportunity for a family?”

 

Yes.

 

There are alternatives.  None of them fun, but they are noble and workable.  He can join a monastery in the desert and spend the next 30 years denying himself.  Surround himself with a handful of elderly, cantankerous men who do not put up with nonsense.  And who knows, he might be able to find peace and stillness in a way that he wouldn’t in Moscow, ID.

 

Does Wilson understand civil law?

He writes in response to Rod Dreher,

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.

I guess he doesn’t want Wight’s behavior in the same category as Sitler’s.  My first question is, “Why not?”  It’s not like you are going to defend Wight–are you?  Trick question: What’s worse–a grown man sexually abusing a two year old or a grown man forcing a barely teenage girl on her knees in the bathroom?  Simply raising the question shows the problem.  Yet Wilson is trying to point out gradations of difference for some odd reason.

Wilson’s next paragraph has been fully refuted,

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.

Here is where these CREC guys really don’t understand the law.  It doesn’t matter (for the sake of argument) if she were throwing her naked, writhing body at Wight’s feat.  She is underage and legally cannot make those decisions.  And yet you still attack and slut-shame the victim?

This statement is simply bizarre:

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.

No, he was brought into their house as a student in your illegal boarding school program.  And the rest of your assertions are simply false.

 

 

Up Against the Neo-Jovinians

Jovinian was an intellectual in the ancient Christian world who scandalized everyone by suggesting marital relations and celibate virginity were on the same level.  Jerome responded.  And what a powerful, if hilariously wrong, response it was.  

Now, I believe Jovinian had the better exegesis.  To quote Kelly, when Jerome has a useful card he overplays it, and when he doesn’t have any evidence, he engages in the wildest reasoning (Kelly 186).  Further, I reject a lot of the metaphysical and ethical assumptions behind Jerome’s defense of celibacy.  (Ironically, however, Jovinian’s view of baptismal regeneration was much closer to later Catholicism than Jerome’s view).  

Still, there is something Jerome can teach us.  Sex and feasting don’t exist for themselves.  Even if one doesn’t hold the view that sex is only for reproduction, that doesn’t mean sex is for sex’s sake.  It’s for the uniting and binding together of husband and wife.

We can add another point.  Sex isn’t a panacea for mental illnesses.  This brings us back to the CREC scandal.  The Wilsonistas are wrong to think that:

(1)   “marrying” him off will provide a safe outlet for one’s urges.

I think many critics of medieval celibacy used to think that.  Sadly, this is not the case.  If it were, one could save a lot of people heartache by simply introducing these people to their right hands.  Crude, yes, and some could argue that such an act is immoral, but at least no children are harmed.

Therefore, we have to add another line of reasoning:

(2)  The problem is not built-up sexual tension, but mental-spiritual.
(2a) The problem is what the Fathers called “The Passions.”

If it is true that pedophiles are “wired” differently, then it is hard to see how (1) will solve the problem.  

Is the “fallen” (defined as someone who committed a terrible sin but has repented) Christian guaranteed equal access to the marriage/family life?  

Many “Wilsonistas” say it yes.  They assert it but never argue it.  This doesn’t appear to be the Apostle Paul’s position.  The Wilsonistas say, “If you can, and why can’t you?, by all means get married.”  Paul said if you aren’t married now, then you might not need to get married (1 Cor. 7:7-8, 26-28).   We can now add another premise;

(3) There are many good reasons for staying single.
(3*) The Church is not obligated to provide you with a family.

The Wilsonistas will say that married sex provides a legitimate outlet for sexual passion.  That is true in normal cases.   But psychology and counseling have shown that men/women who are addicted to porn do not become unaddicted because they get married.  The problem is still there, even if there is an “outlet” for it.  And the outlet does not solve the problem.

This is also true if the spouse is a convicted pedophile.  Where is the wisdom in his “outlet” providing him with more victims?   Wilsonistas will respond, “Would you deny him the opportunity for a family?”

Yes.

There are alternatives.  None of them fun, but they are noble and workable.  He can join a monastery in the desert and spend the next 30 years denying himself.  Surround himself with a handful of elderly, cantankerous men who do not put up with nonsense.  And who knows, he might be able to find peace and stillness in a way that he wouldn’t in Moscow, ID.