So my day job consists of managing a magazine about translation and cultural differences, including editing a host of articles written by people whose first language is not English. In these instances, it is very helpful to know how language works — the way French deals with certain idiomatic expressions that would not make sense translated literally, for example.
Over my years of editing, I also got pretty good at reading between the lines of a certain kind of person who was allergic to being wrong or to admitting to wrongdoing in writing — namely, lawyers. I edited my ex-husband’s legal briefs and memos, and I also dealt with the way he argued with me. His claim was, typically, that nothing existed unless it was written down. Because of this, he would insinuate things in writing but not state them explicitly — because that would get him in trouble.
My ex-husband received his education in debate from Doug Wilson, personally. And I’m strongly reminded of his style of discourse when I look over the things Doug has been writing. Although, credit where credit is due — my ex-husband, unlike Doug, would occasionally break down and admit he was wrong about something.
Doug’s letters to Natalie’s dad and to an investigating officer in the case of Natalie’s sexual abuse by Jamin Wight do just that: insinuate the opposite of what they’re explicitly stating. For example, in his letter to the investigating officer, he notes that Jamin has committed a crime, but he also claims that Jamin “is not a sexual predator” and, moreover, the only wrongdoing Doug mentions explicitly (aside from Jamin not living up to his duties as seminary student) is what Doug claims the parents did. In his letter to Natalie’s dad, he frames “protection” as the “protection” of not taking the case to trial — without ever explicitly saying so. And if you ask any number of the people who have interacted with Doug over matters of church concern, and subsequently left, the letters Doug wrote them were similar: unspecific, vaguely threatening and full of double-speak. There is a cloud of witnesses on this issue, and Doug’s still insisting they’ve all got it wrong, that they’re persecuting him with a pack of lies.
The thing is, I bet even his staunchest supporters would agree with me if they could shift their assumptions even a little bit. I encourage you who are, go back and re-read Doug’s communications imagining that Doug is someone else, from somewhere else other than your own culture — a Catholic priest or a Muslim cleric, for example.
However, Doug has been getting sloppy lately with his discourse and is actually going on record with things that are easily provable as false. What Doug has asserted in writing recently: that “it [the Jamin Wight/Natalie case] was a foolish parent-approved relationship, which led to statutory rape, as was shown in court.” 
This is actually a lie, and here’s the proof, in writing. The court case did not show this; in fact, the court records stated that it was legally impossible to argue “consent” (by the victims or her parents) in this case given the age of the victim, and the “consent” of the parents never came into the court case either way — other than in what Doug himself wrote, and this notation by the court. So I find it ironic that Doug started this particular twitter conversation with a quote about truth. Here’s a link to the actual court documents, and if you are more up on courtspeak than Wilson appears to be, you’ll notice that the case ends in a plea deal where Wight pleads guilty — the case never even went to trial, so “the court,” by definition, never “showed” anything. Which Doug should know, since he sat in an adjacent room during the moderation.
Moreover, just because parents approve a courtship, that doesn’t mean courtship “leads” to statutory rape. Or is Doug actually arguing that it does? Is Doug actually arguing that two parents allowing one of his seminary students to be interested in someone — hold her hand, smile at her — “leads” to the kinds of grotesque things that Natalie describes on her blog, the kinds of things so vile that I don’t even want to think about them? If so, Doug should burn all the stuff on courtship he’s ever written. Because he can’t have it both ways. He can’t encourage parents to board his seminary students and college students, and encourage early marriage in his congregation, and encourage chaste getting to know one another under the eye of the parents, and then claim the parents were negligent because they followed his advice.
And for all of Doug’s recent private assertions to Natalie that she was so tall and mature and pretty at age 14 (you know, the really important things when looking at a sex abuse case), Natalie herself has said that her sex education consisted of her reading the dictionary at age 13. The rest of it, she said, she found out six months later when Jamin started abusing her. And this lack of sex education for females is entirely consistent with what the CREC teaches.
I’m not sure what tenuous “proof” Doug is holding on to in order to claim that there was a “secret courtship.” I don’t think he actually has any, other than his own faulty memory of something Natalie’s parents told him ten years ago, and which Jamin Wight spun to his own advantage. But I do know that when I shared his letter to the officer with Natalie (who had never seen it before), she was genuinely confused and horrified, as no such courtship had existed. Her reaction was not the reaction of someone who’d been holding back knowledge of some “secret courtship,” and as she pointed out, she would be the one to know, not Doug Wilson. Her family would be the ones to know, not Doug Wilson. You know, the family that nearly all left Christ Church after Natalie was treated so badly by the church in the wake of her abuse.
Doug has been using the “proof” he claimed he had as a threat to shut Natalie up, and actually wrote her a letter in which he the first thing he asks is “Did your mom hurt you or wrong you in some way that makes you want to get back at her like this? Is there something we don’t know? Are you aware that my central reason for not talking publicly about all this has been to protect your mom from accusations of parental negligence?” Translation: if you don’t stop talking about this, I’m going to have to try to vilify your mother publicly, even though, legally speaking, she had nothing to do with the case. So stop talking!
It’s important to note that, up until this point in time, Doug has been fighting tooth and nail to explain away why he felt the need to severely minimize Jamin’s crimes. And it’s relevant that Jamin, like Natalie has been telling anyone who would listen for the past ten years, was a violent, manipulative person, who, according to public court records, went on to throttle his now-ex-wife while she was holding their child.
But to Doug, everything Natalie is saying about Jamin is still untrue, because Natalie was tall at age 14, and because Doug has convinced himself that Natalie’s parents let Jamin show her affection. Doug wrote to Natalie a few days ago and told her, “what [Jamin] had done was very different from subsequent reconstructions that [you have] been periodically posting.” No hint of what, exactly, Natalie was supposedly lying about, except the “consent” thing — and Doug has claimed to Natalie repeatedly, that at least in a certain sense, she had consented to the “relationship” with Jamin.
Another thing Doug shared with Natalie a few days ago: “Though Jamin has been in possession of this entire set of facts through various Internet dust-ups (demonstrable facts which enabled him to show that his crimes did not include pedophilia), he has shown more respect for the feelings of others than have all the so-called ‘victim advocates’ in all our comment threads put together.” Translation: Jamin might have been a rapist and a wife-abuser, but at least he kept his mouth shut when I told him to, and that’s what really matters.
Now, Doug has recently indicated privately to Natalie that he was sorry about one thing — not finding a way around Natalie’s Dad to meet with her during the aftermath of her abuse (translation: it’s your Dad’s fault that you didn’t get the care from the church that you needed). But, in fact, he did meet with her then against her father’s wishes, and it was not an experience that resulted in anything but her feeling shamed and blamed for the abuse. Additionally, she was prodded for information about her father, as were other members of her family. Someone else recorded the conversation he had with Doug about this very thing:
Me: . . . did you meet with this girl alone in a room?
Wilson: Yes, for 15 minutes.
Me: So [Natalie’s father] gave you permission to meet with his little girl?
Wilson: Well, ah, no.
Me: Oh, I see.
Wilson: He did give me permission to counsel his family.
Me: Did he give you permission to interrogate his little girl?
Wilson: I did not interrogate; I met with her only to offer her encouragement during this hard time.
Me: Did you ask her if her father had made reference to Christ Church [Wilson’s congregation] as a “cult”?
Wilson: Yes, I did.
So there you have it — in Wilson’s accounts he gives of his actions versus what history actually shows, you have more posing, more wrangling, and no actual acknowledgement of cause and effect.
So what would the “internet mob,” as Doug is so charitably calling the people who want to see reform in the way the CREC handles abuse, like Doug to do in this instance?
First: we’d like to see him publicly retract his false statements that e.g. “it [the Jamin Wight/Natalie case] was a foolish parent-approved relationship, which led to statutory rape, as was shown in court.” And we mean actually retract — not pretend like those words mean something other than what they so clearly mean. Or that we all just misunderstand him.
Second, we’d like to see him demand that abusers pay restitution to their victims — all their victims, not just the ones they plea-bargain out for — in the form of, at the bare minimum, an acknowledgement that they abused the victims and that this will have lasting psychological consequences that will probably need professional psychological help. The more public the abuse, the more publicly it got hastened away into the shadows, the more public the restitution should be. In this case, Wilson himself is one of the abusers, since he used his power to silence the victim and insinuate, both privately and publicly, that she was lying, that her parents were to blame for her abuse, and that publicly calling for change within his denomination was an act of treason or war. Because Wilson said all this publicly, he should make his restitution public. He should make his retractions public.
But I would probably have a heart attack if Doug Wilson did either of these things. What we will likely see, instead, is what we’ve seen all along: more of the carefully-worded “my bad behavior was someone else’s fault,” more revising of clear historical statements in the vein of “see, when I said that Jamin was not a sexual predator, I actually meant that he was sexual predator — and it’s your fault if you couldn’t tell what I really meant,” or “I sneezed in Natalie’s direction once, and she didn’t take this as a sincere apology, so what are you going to do?”
Botkin Creative 
Another incredible post. You write with such power and conviction. I hope anyone who has met Wilson, listened to his sermons or read anything he has ever written will read your blog. Thanks for speaking so boldly and with such thoroughness.
I noticed his double-speak as well. Good job on breaking it down. I’m fairly decent at analytic philosophy but I get dizzy trying to find my way around his recent blog posts. And his tactics remind one of the Mafia: protect the Family at all costs.
This is unfair to the Mafia, which had some sense of justice for the people beyond the circle of their own Family.
But I know what you are trying to say.
“It was a foolish parent-approved relationship which led to statutory rape, as was shown in the court.” – @douglaswils
Douglas Wilson, Presiding Minister of the CREC federation, wrote the above words. Mr Wilson also runs a college-NSA and seminary- Greyfirars. There is no housing, nor dormitories for any of those students and so he depends on the kindness and hospitality of a myriad of families in Moscow, Idaho to house these students:
“Students are responsible for their own housing arrangements. For new students, Greyfriars’ Hall will pass along information about possible housing opportunities to those who contact the Hall and request it.” http://www.greyfriarshall.com/calling/
“The College is a non-residential campus, meaning we provide no on-campus housing. Most students board with local Christian families or share apartments with other NSA students. The College expects its students to be mature enough to live independently. Students are responsible for their own housing arrangements. Costs for boarding with local…” http://www.nsa.edu/admissions/
Of course Natalie’s family was willing to take in boarders. Natalie’s family was renowned for their generous open-house hospitality, kindness that four of my daughters enjoyed as a comfortable home- away-from-home. Young people knew they were always welcome and Natalie’s family was warm and inviting. Of course they would be willing to take in some of these students who Douglas Wilson needed housed for his schools.
A sane person would imagine a problem might occur one day. A kind pastoral sort of man would of course protect and defend a family who had been abused by the system he set up for housing his students. Of course he would. Because an intelligent person would imagine eventual abuse of the system.
So a young girl finally feels brave enough to come forward with her story of abuse by a Greyfriar- a seminary student.. A kind Christ-like pastor would want to protect her and fight for her, you know, be an advocate- Christ-like.
Douglas Wilson however, further abuses the girl and her family; he shames the family, threatens excommunication, threatens to deny the sacraments, threatens to reveal secrets, in short, acts like The Accuser. Acts like Satan. The “pastor” who is supposed to help and support instead uses, abuses further, and tears down the victim and her family; he spiritually abuses them.
Spiritual abuse is the mistreatment of a person who is in need of help, support or greater spiritual empowerment, with the result of weakening, undermining or decreasing that person’s spiritual empowerment.
Spiritual abuse- “The person in need is sent the message that they were less than spiritual… shame was used in an attempt to fend off legitimate questions.” Spiritual abuse comes from a place of power or perceived power. (The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse- Jeffrey VanVonderen)
Ten years later this all reemerges, ten years later Douglas Wilson has the merciful chance to seek forgives, admit he was wrong and his response:
*Threatens Natalie’s family.
*Attack every woman who disagrees with his patriarchal system
*Reassures himself that just the men belong in the pulpit (or anywhere of authority)
*Makes sure the CREC leadership (all men) stand in agreement with him. (and they are still very silent)
*Get his “sister” church to write blog posts in Doug’s defense.
*Send out letters saying “Peace, peace” Even thought there is no peace
(I could link to every one of these but it makes ill to read it all again)
But above all Douglas Wilson refuses to repent, refuses to seek forgiveness,refuses to admit wrong for one single honest sin. (I actually have never ever ever seen him admit any sin. Ever.)
Instead,
“It was a foolish parent-approved relationship which led to statutory rape, as was shown in the court.” – @douglaswils
Thanks, Terri, for summing all that up.
Even if Doug Wilson apologizes, it will probably be very vague and without any actual admission of guilt or remorse. And if the person being apologized to asked, “You want me to forgive you? Forgive you for what, exactly?”, he would probably explode and call the person arrogant and bitter.
… which is something many (spiritual) abusers seem to have in common.
The question I have is, can enough evidence be presented to charge Doug with a crime? If he is provably lying in public, at the very least it is defamation, is it not?
Why are we waiting for Doug to do the right thing when for over a decade now he has proven he won’t? The time has come to drag his fat carcass into court and beat him senseless with the law of the land.
He and his minions keep protesting that people such as Rob Dreher don’t have all the facts and my first thought was…”You REALLY don’t want that to happen.”
Fantastic piece of writing. Keep it up.
I strongly disagree with the decision to “counsel” the victim without her father or mother present. This is very poor judgment given the sexual abuse which has been reported.
Basic healthy boundaries are not what Doug Wilson employs to win people for Christ. He crosses boundaries and does so because God has chosen him to be judge and pastor.It is his pleasure to toy with misunderstanding of the truth he knows because he loves God so much. He listens to God. It is a private message that only he understands. Essentially, people are not important in this matter, except as they are used to spread the gospel of Christ/Wilson. When he chastises his congregation and corrects them, he believes it is God’s will that directs him to do so… he blames and shames for Christ.
Brian, you wrote something that pinged my truth meter. You said DW “toys” with truth. I have read everything I could find about this matter (probably as an attempt to discover the truth about my own horrible church discipline process), as well as posing questions and observations on his blog. It seems clear, now, that he does indeed toy with morality, facts, and people. In fact, this seems like an enormous chess game to DW; he relishes his opponents’ next move so that he can outdo them with his word smithing. My impression is that even though he may know better, and keeps upping the ante, the lure of displaying that he is the smartest one in the room on a world-wide stage overwhelms any sense of reason or decency.
This story, and the articles surrounding it, has been so sad to read about. It is another mishandled pastoral situation that when brought into the public sphere has not caused any second thoughts, nor repentance, from the pastor who mishandled sexual abuse in his congregation.
I find the information in this paragraph especially sickening.
“Doug has been using the “proof” he claimed he had as a threat to shut Natalie up, and actually wrote her a letter in which he the first thing he asks is “Did your mom hurt you or wrong you in some way that makes you want to get back at her like this? Is there something we don’t know? Are you aware that my central reason for not talking publicly about all this has been to protect your mom from accusations of parental negligence?”
Doug’s concern is for Natalie’s mother? Really? Why? Is it because she is still in his congregation? She stuck with Doug’s church instead of with her own husband. Why the hell isn’t Doug Wilson concerned, much more concerned, for the girl (now woman) who was abused by someone he supported? Again, Doug Wilson is only thinking about himself, not Natalie, and not possible future victims of Wight.
With this revelation, it appears to me (feel free to tell me if I’m off here) that Doug was simply trying to USE Natalie’s love and concern for her own mother to *emotionally blackmail* her into not sharing her story publicly. Doug Wilson is continuing to abuse Natalie! He is vile. How he convinced Natalie’s mother to stay in his church and trust him is beyond me. He has been manipulating Natalie’s entire family.
Thank you Terri Rice for an insightful and beautifully written essay about the real Doug Wilson. I would like to add some information on the boarding house arrangement as an extension of the Wilson World empire. Please know that not every boarding house owner was guilty of being drawn in by Doug by love of money and fancy homes – but many were. I assume that by now the remaining boarding house operators who remain participants in this on-going scam have sold their souls at a very low price to Doug, Toby, and their sycophantic posses
You wrote in part:
“There is no housing, nor dormitories for any of those students and so he depends on the kindness and hospitality of a myriad of families in Moscow, Idaho to house these students:”
The city of Moscow has a city ordinance that regulates the operation of boarding houses;
Click to access or_2013-05.pdf
People who operate boarding houses are required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Several years ago I was asked by someone who lived across the street from a boarding house if I were willing to take the matter to the City Council – she was a business person and afraid of retaliation if she tackled the issue. (She was right to be concerned, Kirk members vote with their feet when ordered to, and small business owners in Moscow need to be mindful of that reality.) As it turns out my husband undertook the task – he identified 16 or 17 homes that boarded NSA or Greyfriars Hall students. (Since that time Christ Church and Trinity Reformed have removed student addresses from the directory so no one else can identify illegally operating boarding houses). Aren’t they the Clever Boots – or as I might put it sneaky s** o* b****** (my husband would never use the words that sometimes just fly right on out of my mouth or computer keys,)
Last week I wrote to City of Moscow officials and asked how many CUPs have been issued for boarding houses this year.. After a through investigation I was told that not a single CUP has been issued since 1996 – long before NSA was in operation.
Apparently, Doug and his followers continue to be disdainful of any ordinance that
might cost them up-front money or limit what they believe is theirs by right. Their actions are a shout out to our community that tells us “to hell with out neighbors or city ordinances, we’ll do what we want.”
It comes down to money (as it always does with Doug – who by the way has had many, many boarders over the years as do/did most of the elders). if one has three or four boarders it is easy to buy a home that would be financially out of reach without the additional income boarders provide. Since there is no official record of any boarding houses I wonder if the income from boarders is ever reported on tax forms. I doubt it very much. The owners of boarding houses are vetted by Doug – a clear example of loyalty = rewards; disloyalty = punishment. The awarding of boarding house eligibility with the appropriate glowing references to parents is tied directly to kissing Doug’s ass (only a figure of speech and a repellent one at that) on a regular basis. If a home is purchased that is beyond the regular annual income of the home owner and thus requires boarders to help pay the mortgage it is easy to understand why people are willing to stand with Doug even if he sickens them.
By the way, this is not intended as a defense of the greedy saps who bought into this lousy deal. They demonstrate every day they remain in the Kraken led Kult that their consciences are for sale to the highest bidder.
I turned in my neighbors for running a NSA boarding house last year. The city was very responsive. I have a number of people since come to me wanting me to turn in their neighbors because they too are concerned about retaliation.
Sarah, I am delighted to hear of the positive response from the city. Would you be willing to share with me the name of the people who were running the boarding house? I was told that No Conditional Use Permits have been issued to boarding house operators since 1996. Are your neighbors still boarding students?
Rose Huskey
Rose…I wonder if there’s a way for me to email you privately? I don’t want to put people’s names on the internet.
Absolutely. donaldrose@cpcinternet.com or if you live in Moscow I am in the phone book.
Rose
I am a tax accountant licensed by the IRS. If you rent out a room in your home you need to declare the rental income and expenses on Schedule E of the 1040. When the property is sold the depreciation taken or ALLOWABLE needs to be included. Which means a lot of folks could be in some serious trouble with the IRS. The IRS is how Elliott Ness brought down Al Capone
I posted this on Julie Anne Smith’s Spiritual Sounding Board about an hour ago and thought it might be useful here as well, i am also including the message I received from the city of Moscow affirming that no CUPs for boarding houses have been issued since 1996.
Boarding Houses
(Thank you Saundra Lund for retaining records that I have long since tossed out.)
In 2006 Christ Church and Trinity Reformed Church stopped publishing the addresses of New Saint Andrews College and Greyfriar Hall students. (Prior to that time students were identified by the initials NSA (or Greyfriar) next to their name and included the address of their host (boarding house owner). In 2006 a complaint was filed (by my husband, Don Huskey) with the City of Moscow asking that boarding house owners abide by the ordinance requiring boarding house to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. No Christ Church or Trinity Reformed Church member (then nor now, eleven years later), despite the existing regulations throughout the time period, has ever purchased the required Boarding House Conditional Use Permit. They still run boarding houses but there is no public record of their money making scheme. Records that would indicate the existence of boarding houses are hidden from official oversight and public scrutiny.
Does this plain old fashioned sneakiness mean they cheat the state/nation on reporting revenue on tax forms? I can’t say. However, I would suggest that if they are willing to hide the address of students to avoid obtaining a CUP from the city, it would not be surprising if they hide thousands of dollars of undeclared revenue from the IRS. It would also be interesting to learn if any elders or deacons are granted ministerial housing allowances based on their church offices
I have collected (very quickly and I may have missed some boarders) the following list of some of the students who boarded in Christ Church and Trinity Reform homes in 2004 -2005. This list is not inclusive. I did not add non-officers in this list. Not every church member had boarders. Many non-officer church members had four or more boarders, while others limited themselves to one or two.
Church Officers or employees who were boarding house proprietors 2004 – 2005
NSA Faculty Member Stan Miller – 2
Elder Jim Nance – 1
Elder Wes Struble 1
Elder Matt Whitling 1
Pastor Douglas Wilson – 4
Dale Courtney – 4 (not at officer at the time but an elder for several years now)
NSA President Roy Atwood -2
John Grauke 2 (not at officer at the time but an elder for several years now)
Elder – Chris Schlect – 3
Like an iceberg, this list represents only the tip of the extent of boarders. After all, if the leadership ignores the law why shouldn’t the rank and file? Please note: if there is money to be made Doug Wilson is there demanding his cut! He sets a fine example for his congregation, doesn’t he?
Rosemary Huskey
XXXXX
I received the following email from the city over a week ago. I note that I said the last CUP for a boarding house was issued prior to 1996 – actually the date was 1967,
From: Bill Belknap
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 8:28 AM
To: Stephanie Kalasz
Subject: RE: conditional use permits for boarding houses
Stephanie, I have searched our land use permit data base and it returned only one record for a CUP for a boarding house that was approved on 4/26/2012 for property located at 1211 Walenta. It was approved with the following conditions:
Approved with two conditions: 1) subject to continuing supervision of St. Mark’s Church; becomes null and void if St. Mark’s ceases ownership or supervision. 2) CUP subject to ownership configuration to be reviewed and accepted by the City Attorney.
It is my understanding that St. Mark did not initiate the use as they never came forward to provide evidence of a satisfactory owner occupancy to satisfy the City code provision that the owner occupy the boarding house. Therefore that CUP expired when they did not initiate the use within 12 months after the approval.
If a boarding house is a change of use, then the structure would be inspected for life safety requirements at time of the change of occupancy. Beyond that, the Building Division would not conduct any further inspections.
Please let me know if you require any additional information.
Bill
Bill J. Belknap
Community Development Director
City of Moscow
Executive Director
Moscow Urban Renewal Agency
221 E. Second Street
Moscow, ID 83843
(208) 883-7011
From: Bill Belknap
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 8:33 AM
To: Stephanie Kalasz
Subject: RE: conditional use permits for boarding houses
XXXXX
Stephanie, I should note that our land use permit database only goes back to 1967. So It is possible that could be a boarding house that was approved prior to that date but our office does not have any easily accessible records to determine if any were approved or established prior to that date.
Bill J. Belknap
Community Development Director
City of Moscow
Executive Director
Moscow Urban Renewal Agency
221 E. Second Street
Moscow, ID 83843
(208) 883-7011
Thank you for the information. I guess the real question is can the city of Moscow insist or compel Doug Wilson (who has complete access to the information) to turn over the names and addresses of boarding house operators who are defying the city ordinance?
Rose
It seems to me that not making the list of houses publicly available violates HUD policy. I would guess that HUD would review a complaint regarding how a property was advertised and make a determination as to whether or not the individual was “selectively advertising”which is contrary to HUD requirements regarding Fair Housing Advertising. See: http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/library/part109.pdf
Sic em!!
Keep up the good work, Katie. Patriarchy and every male chauvinist behind it needs to come down.
“Doug wrote to Natalie a few days ago and told her, ‘what [Jamin] had done was very different from subsequent reconstructions that [you have] been periodically posting.’ No hint of what, exactly, Natalie was supposedly lying about, except the ‘consent’ thing — and Doug has claimed to Natalie repeatedly, that at least in a certain sense, she had consented to the “relationship” with Jamin.”
It still stuns me that Doug Wilson still believes and clings to Jamin Wight’s version of the story, as though Jamin Wight is the victim.
Natalie cannot have been his first victim. Natlie’s description and timeline, Jamin was already an experienced sexual predator when he met Natalie. He meets her, meets her again and begins flirting (grooming), moves into the Greenfield family home, quickly accelerates the grooming process, successfully manipulates him victim with psychological/ physical/emotional abuse, has preferred sexual acts (ick), successfully manipulates the entire family into believing he has only an emotional, hands-off relationship with Natalie, until things get so extreme that Natalie’s father finds Jamin spying on Natalie at dinner.
He continues to successfully manipulate Doug Wilson into believing his version of events. That’s how successful he is at manipulating people.
Scary, scary man.
I think it goes beyond Jamin Wight “manipulating” Doug. I think Doug is an evil sack of shit, and his patriarchal beliefs are no different from those of radical Islam, where the female is always the criminal. Fuck Doug Wilson.
it’s evil.
This sad example of failed leadership resonates with a wide audience.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/scandal-in-moscow/
Rose Huskey
I’m glad Dreher got wind of this story. He was a WIDE readership.
I keep waiting for all of this to result in real-world consequences for Doug. The IRS has been mentioned; I’m working on drafting a complaint based on all the unpaid taxes in the Moscow community derived from boarding house income.
when you write “Is Doug actually arguing that two parents allowing one of his seminary students to be interested in someone — hold her hand, smile at her…”
It struck me that that seems to contradict the claim I’ve seen elsewhere that the parents *never* allowed Wight to hold her hand or anything like that.
Is this just poorly phrased way of restating Doug’s claim as false, or a concession that the parents actually did allow some relationship.
Doug claimed that the parents allowed it. They did not, but Jamin did “squeeze” her hand and apologize to them for it at least once. My point was, even if the parents HAD allowed hand-holding, hand-holding doesn’t “lead” to sexual abuse. Lots of courtship-minded parents allow hand-holding, and draw the line beyond that. It’s absurd to say “if you say holding hands is OK, then it’s your fault if the guy is dragging your daughter into bathrooms and forcing her into oral sex.”
Doug’s just trying to muddy the waters by blaming Natalie and her family. What it really boils down to is that Doug appears to believe that he has the right to decree “yay” or “nay” as to who has sinned, who has repented, who is forgiven, and who shall be punished. He has a real god complex, that guy.
Frankly I hope I never meet Doug in person, because he’s just so incredibly punchable at this point. He’s just begging to have the smirk punched off his face. I think he gets off on other people’s discomfiture.
They daid they didn’t. He said they did. The point is it doesn’t matter.
A careful and through analysis of Doug Wilson’s theology and philosophy – easily the best introduction to Doug Wilson I have ever read.
https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/a-question-for-wilson-fans/
Rose Huskey
That dialog was recorded and published by me and my recollection is that ‘the little girl’ was not Natalie but her younger sister. Thanks, Michael Metzler
Thanks, Michael. I knew he was talking to multiple people in her family about this, so I changed the wording of that bit. He talked to Natalie as well, as I mentioned.