At this point, I’m wondering if Doug Wilson is just messing with his fans. I mean, surely he’s not so dense that he doesn’t realize how poorly it reflects on him as a pastor, rhetorician and educator to do the things he’s doing.
Doug’s reasoning for posting videos he claims are perverse is this: posting videos of a nude man shows how depraved the man is, and therefore how depraved his wife’s character is, and therefore that she cannot be trusted when she criticizes Doug. Because both the man and his wife consider these videos to be “normal.” Whereas they have a real problem with what Doug preaches about sex.
Literally none of this is true. And it’s obvious it’s not true, because Doug doesn’t bother to back it up with a single shred of supporting evidence — no quotes from blogs, no hints as to what he’s even talking about. Other than the videos. The videos, he seems to think, speak for themselves. Oh, and the fact that the couple, Natalie and Wesley, lived in Portland for awhile. That’s apparently damning evidence when you’re looking for ways to paint people as unrepentant, hurting villains.
Some background: before Doug trotted these videos out for public viewing, they’d existed in obscurity on a Vimeo account created by the artist. One of them had a grand total of 27 views, basically all of them art faculty, since the reason for the existence of the videos was to add to a body of work for grad school exploring the intersection of humanity, aggression, and modernity. Natalie says she doesn’t think she had even seen this particular video, and when she did see it after Doug posted it, she found it slightly jarring at first blush — and like many others, I did also. However, I really loved the concept Wesley expressed in his artist’s statement after all this went down, because I, too, have felt the power of the innate, running barefoot in the dusky forest, swimming upstream against a waterfall, eating and dancing outside as so many have before me. Humanity is something more than sitting at a desk parsing out philosophy while we grow fat and weak, after all. It’s about the power to fight in the real world, and against your own demons more often than not.
But back to Natalie: certainly she’d never commented publicly about how this (or the other) video was “normal.” “It’s not like we invited people over for dinner and had it playing on the flatscreen,” she quipped.
Which brings us to another point: Doug’s claim that Natalie scrubbed her blog and Facebook of anything that would be offensive to Christians. I literally have no idea what he’s talking about, and I’ve been reading her blog for years, her Facebook feed for years. She revamped her blog to focus on abuse, deleting posts about e.g. her family’s journey with her son’s health problems, given that the previous audience had been limited to friends and family. I’m sure Doug is not ignorant of the fact that it’s relatively easy to find archived copies of webpages, and if what he’s saying is true — that she was promoting some kind of offensive lifestyle prior to these last few months — he would obviously have no moral problem trotting them out or linking to the deleted blog posts about this offensive lifestyle.
But he can’t, because they don’t exist.
And this brings us to yet another point: Doug’s apparent inability to fact-check before he makes public claims. It’s hilarious that in this post, he makes a big show of correcting one of the many, many factual errors he’s made in the course of talking about Natalie and her family, saying it took him days to track down the correction. Whereas it would have taken him all of a few minutes to check the veracity of his claim that fellow pastor Andrew Sandlin had taken down his post supporting Natalie after Doug posted these videos — something that was untrue, and which Doug had to correct after people he trusted pointed this out to him.
Again, this is by no means the first time Doug has made factual mistakes — his take: they aren’t factual mistakes, because you have to take every word that comes out of his mouth in the context of everything he’s ever said, instead of what he says at any given time, ignoring the fact that he says things that are at odds with one another. When you say opposite things, all eventualities are covered — one of the many, many reasons that Doug Is Always Right. It’s interesting, then, that he’s saying a person’s track record should disqualify him or her from making statements people ought to believe.
That brings us back to the fact that he thinks naked people are evil. Or whatever his objection to Wesley’s videos is.
The answer is, if you’re taking him by things he said elsewhere: he doesn’t. You can find a video here where he answers the question “What is your perspective on nudity in art, particularly when it comes to education?” His response: “I think a lot of Christians have a simplistic understanding of nudity, where they think nudity equals porn. Because they’re saying, well, in pornography everybody has their clothes off…” This, he says, is false. He points out that Jesus was hung up naked on the cross, and says he doesn’t think it’s “true at all” that seeing a naked person equates to automatic lust.
So reasonable, right? Heck, if this was all I knew of Doug Wilson, I’d think he was a thoughtful guy. So where in the world is he getting his claim that Welsey’s art is perverse? If nudity being acceptable in art is dependent on context, then Doug should have taken the context into consideration — the intended audience, the intended message. He did neither. Instead, he or someone apparently acting in concert with him stole an artistic product from the artist (known as illegal reproduction, and yes, this is a crime; merely crediting the artist does not make stealing the work OK) and dispersed it without even (apparently) considering the intent or message of the artwork — instead, he used it to paint the artist as a human being of loose moral character.
About that: I know that Doug does not believe Wesley is a man of loose moral character, because Wesley worked on his home and taught his grandchildren martial arts. For all Doug is saying it’s not a good idea to have Wesley around one’s children, Doug didn’t actually have a problem with Wesley until… until…
… Until Wesley’s wife began to speak out against the way she and her family were treated by Doug ten years ago.
So this is not actually about Wesley or Wesley’s art. This is about destroying people who back Natalie.
And, obviously, Wesley finds that the way people are treating him and misrepresenting him speaks volumes. “I have never treated anyone from Christ Church or any other CREC church with anything but respect and kindness. When I see these people on the street, I stop to speak with them and ask how they’re doing. But I don’t matter. I’m trash because I won’t say I’m a Christian. So who I am as a man and a father and husband doesn’t matter — it has no worth. The fact that I have always respected their beliefs and treated them with acceptance and warmth in spite of the fact that we don’t see eye to eye? That doesn’t matter. The only important thing for them is that I am not a Christian and that I make contemporary art. They use those two things to create my identity and to hurt Natalie.”
Botkin Creative 
What’s embarrassing is that Doug has written textbooks on logic. Assuming the worst about Greenfield’s husband, Doug has committed the tu quo que fallacy. He should have known better.
Katie, all I can say is I wish there was a “like” button. Great post. Beyond how Doug Wilson has treated Natalie and Wesley (I do not know them personally), I have over the last few years formed a strong friendship with a former member of Christ Church, and the way my friend and family were treated after “crossing” Wilson and leaving Christ Church was, and is, abominable. It echoes what Wesley has to say in your last paragraph, although my friend is most definitely Christian. Just no longer meets the Doug Wilson “Seal of Approval” for what constitutes a true Christian. Doug is apparently the self appointed arbiter of who a “true Christian” is. And like Wesley, I myself am not Christian, so I know where I stand in Doug’s “community”. But, never having been a member of CC, that’s irrelevant to me.
There is a ‘Like’ button, it is beside the ‘Reblog’ button.
Hope this helps.
Thanks, Wayne. I’m too old to keep up with technology…..
Heh. Depending on my eyesight I might or might not notice something like that either. It all depends on how my body is that day.
Just home from Thanksgiving in Portland.
This is truth. Thank you, Katie!
-Mary
(Go Beavers!;)
Thanks Katie! But I really wonder why he’s messing with his supporters. And why the continue to allow themselves to be messed with. And how far this will go.
Kaite,
I don’t know why you keep taking Doug to task for fact checking when your posts are still currently full of errors. Isn’t there enough you can disagree with without the lies and insinuations?
Natalie’s comment on who made the phone call was brought to Doug’s attention. He the emailed to double check and posted the correction when he heard back. Nothing nefarious in the timing (that it was That anksgiving perhaps slowed the process) and the answer he received addressed another concerns mentioned in the timeline as well.
Sorry for the typos…
Doug is a sociopath and Christ Church is a slime pit, Heather, and nothing you can say will ever fool anyone otherwise. You can shut up anytime, nobody cares what you think.
I let this one sit for a bit before responding.
Dash, though I respect your anger, disgust, and outrage over the obvious injustice, abuse, and everything else coming out of the Kirk, it can’t be said that nobody cares what Heather thinks.
There is a part of me that does.
I wonder what the heck she is thinking.
I’m wondering, how in the world can she not see what is going on.
Or, if she actually does see what is going on and is joining in on the spin, excuses, cover-ups and further attacks on Natalie, how can she justify it?
What is going on in that head of hers. And in the heads of all those who continue to support Doug and cover his sins.
I’m sure they think they are helping him. But they aren’t.
He needs to face the music and repent.
His enablers are not letting him get right with God on this. They need to back up and get out of the way if they can’t encourage him to do the right thing.
Mara, do you really think trying to talk sense to Heather or asking her relevant and pertinent questions is going to produce useful responses? We have already seen that it will not.
Doug and his minions have a stance, and they dismiss anyone not of their camp out of hand. So I’m going to dismiss them in kind, because fuck them, seriously. Also, I’m going to abuse them for my own amusement, because what the hell, why not. Yes, I am a colossal asshole. The difference between me and Doug Wilson is that I freely admit it.
Eh, I don’t know if it is about talking sense to them.
I guess it is more of a morbid curiosity concerning the dysfunctional workings of a personality cult gone over-the-edge insane.
However, as you say, I can ask the questions, but they will never give a straight answer. They have things to hide of which they should be deeply ashamed.
It is interesting to watch them squirm, though, as the light gets brighter exposing more of their darkness.
It’s a pathetic train wreck in slow motion.
Heather, specifics?
2 am. Just saw everyone’s lovely notes.
Will write back.
I hate the abuse Natalie suffered but lies, half truths and misinformation will not get anyone closer to healing or be conducive to any meaningful discussion about your concerns.
Heather, in your reply here, do not give us lies by sophistry and obfuscation, as Doug is wont to do and as you did at Jory Micah’s.
If you actually desire the light, speak to the issues directly openly accurately.
Heather, what are the errors and lies? Please be specific.
Heather,
I’m adding my voice to the chorus.
What errors do you speak of?
Katie has documented well.
We are looking for that from you.
You have the floor, Sweetie.
Take advantage of it if you can.
We don’t believe you can.
I dare you to prove us wrong.
Heather, every time you post in defense of Doug you come across as a complete idiot. Who do you think you’re fooling? Nobody’s buying your bullshit.
Already in this comment thread Heather tried to evade Natalie’s criticism of Doug’s fact-checking with regard to Andrew Sandlin by talking about a completely different circumstance: Doug correcting himself regarding the phone call to Natalie’s fiance.
It is a typical Wilson tactic to offer an answer…but to a completely different question than was asked! And then to say, in high umbrage, “I’ve answered that”. It’s an obvious means of evading accountability. And it’s not working.
I’m reminded of Doug correcting himself on his September 10 article,”The Only Kind of Gospel There Is”.
Because this is a real whopper about the real heart of the matter, I think it deserves an overly lengthy, though not overly careful, analysis. WARNING — the DW quote is accurate to the best of my ability — everything else is just my personal opinion! I may be stating some half-truths!
“The twittermob has been circulating numerous untruths, among them that Steven Sitler is a child rapist. He was actually convicted of one count of Lewd Conduct with a Minor under 16 years of age (Idaho Code 18-1508). He has also been accused of raping and/or molesting his son, which no knowledgeable person is even alleging. If the consensus of the mob gets its way, then some court will try to make Katie Sitler choose between her husband and her son. They don’t even know that this is what they are yelling for — that’s one of the lies. I could go on, but will refrain for the present. There is a time and a place for answering lies with truths, but there is also a time for answering lies with the Truth, the living Truth, the personal Truth.
Important clarification: When I say above that Steven was convicted of one count, I was not meaning that this was his only offense, and neither was I seeking to minimize the egregiousness of his behavior in those other instances. That is why I argued, just below this, that the father in Texas who killed the molester he walked in on was fully justified. I should have made my meaning more clear than I did, which I could have done by putting the Texas paragraph first, and linking it expressly to Steven’s offenses. My apologies to any friends who missed my meaning here, and who thought I was trying to trim and be cute on Steven’s behalf. Such a misreading would be my responsibility. I believe there was at least one scenario where Steven could have been killed on the spot, and no injustice done.”
First off, notice how he doesn’t cite any particular tweet from the twittermob with any particular untruth, but claims there are “numerous”. But let us assume someone did tweet that Steven Sitler is a child rapist. In what way would this be an untruth? Wilson does not say. Most ordinary dumb folk would imagine that someone who rapes children is a child rapist — but what do we know? As Uncle Andrew said, “Ours, my boy, is a high and lonely destiny.” Instead of even defining the term or how the twittermob got it wrong, he switches first to the plea-bargain — ONE COUNT!!! Then goes back to what unnamed members of the mob supposedly are accusing, and what unnamed mobsters supposedly want with regard to Sitler’s wife and kid. Oh, and one of the lies is that “they” (whoever they be) supposedly don’t even know that this is what they’re yelling for (by whatever stretch that could be a lie). DW goes on to refrain from going on (what restraint!!!) by telling us even a single one of the other numerous untruths, and finishes up with a platitude about Truth.
He must have experienced some pushback, because later adds a clarification. Does he clarify just what he thinks a child rapist might be, or why Sitler is not one? No! Does he give more examples of the numerous untruths? No! He clarifies how he wasn’t seeking to minimize the egregiousness of other instances when he mentioned that one, itty bitty, little count. Then he quickly moves on to how a vigilante killing is what he really meant by “measured and limited”. Undoubtedly the fathers (or future spouses?) of Sitler’s victims were equally to blame for not “protecting” them by blasting Sitler on the spot (sorry— getting snarky– will stop now).
My issue isn’t that Doug fact-checks too slowly after publication… it’s that he doesn’t prior to publication… where did he even get the idea that Natalie was the one who called in the first place? That’s a very specific detail to just make up/ get wrong. And how hard is it to check Facebook to see if a post has actually been taken down or not? I see the same sloppiness in many, many, many places; this is, after all, the guy who accidentally plagiarized someone else in an actual published work.
Excellent point. His haste speaks to his inner turmoil, and perhaps to his narcissism as well? Doug can’t control this desperate need to justify himself. My psychologist sister refers to this as “cycling”. I think I Timothy 3 would call it “intemperate” .
Seems like you’re a little short on the ol’ fact-checking yourself, Katie. Was it Doug or his co-author who plagiarized, and was it intentional or unintentional?
I’ve noticed your own blog is a little short of citations, if that’s the sort of thing that bothers you.
Practice what you preach.
I said “accidentally,” which means “unintentional.” And of course Doug said Wilkins was the one who made the mistake. Ultimately, however, if you co-author a book, both authors are responsible for the contents.
You know, Heather, you and the Wilson clan have been talking about “errors” for a long time, but you never actually get around to pointing them out. Here also – you fail to give an example. I keep seeing articles like this and you and your father in law replying “Nuh uh!”
Perhaps Doug (or you) can explain how a few years ago he declared nudity in art fine and then explain why this attack on Wesley is something other than a tu quoque, even though it appears to line up exactly within the categories he defended in the video.
Or perhaps he (or you) can explain how his attack on Wesley is anything more than the fallacy of guilt by association (Wesley is bad because he’s nude in a video, and Natalie is married to him, therefore Natalie must be bad, too).
Further, perhaps he (or you) can explain why the victim of sexual assault several years ago has, and continues to be treated with scorn and ridicule while he wrote letters in defense of their abusers.
If you want to claim errors, you really should point out what errors you are referring to. And if you (or Doug) want to defend yourself, then perhaps you better start dealing with the significant charges instead of playing in the ad hominem world you currently live in (also a fallacy).
I’d recommend a few textbooks, but I graduated from NSA. I’m sure Doug has them all already.
Well said, Rich.
I expect yet another variation on “You don’t know the whole story blah blah blah.” Doug is a moron and Heather is not an improvement.
I’m pretty sure if you think about it carefully, Doug wouldn’t define what’s in those videos as art. Try to keep up, here. Representing nudity is not the same as going around naked.
You sound a little angry, though. That doesn’t lend itself to careful thinking, or well-seasoned words.
So all of Doug’s writing is disqualified given his “serrated edge” approach?
And Wesley wasn’t “going around” naked. Doug called the videos “performance art,” and sadly for Doug, he does not get to define the intentions of other people. The intent of the piece was art, for art school, and was viewed by art professors and basically nobody else… until Doug paraded it around.
Try to keep up, now 😉
Mr. Spratt, you’re a nob.
Spratt: “You sound a little angry, though. That doesn’t lend itself to careful thinking, or well-seasoned words.”
Really?
You people are grasping at straws.
The sooner you all realize your idol has screwed up and that none of you can make it any better, the sooner you can stop grasping and covering and spinning and warping and making up excuses for him and move on to a more meaningful life.
You can fool some of the people some of the time. But you can’t fool all the people all the time.
Mr. Spratt, you obviously were taught by The Douglas how to write snarky, skylarking, “aren’t I clever?” posts. You’ve learned well, Grasshopper.
Yes, far be it from anyone to have a calculated opinion about a topic, let alone think it correct. You would never do that sort of thing, would you? Oh, is the problem that an authority figure has an opinion, and expresses it? What an abomination.
……”Doug wouldn’t define what’s in those videos as art.” So The Great Man is the final arbiter on what is, and what is not, art. As well as being an expert on, well, everything. Truly remarkable, Mr. Spratt.
Yes, far be it from anyone to have a calculated opinion about a topic, let alone think it correct. You would never do that sort of thing, would you? Oh, is the problem that an authority figure has an opinion, and expresses it? What an abomination.
An authority figure by whose standard?
Teacher, preacher, man who’s been around the block more times than I have. Person who’s written maybe 60 books or so. Person who’s voraciously interested in life in general, and studies it at every chance. In short, a well-read (understatement) theologian and community figure who’s done a lot of good in my family’s life. that kind of authority.
In addition, isn’t all authority from God? You could say that God approves one authority, and not another, based on their actions, but God is the only one who lifts up and tears down. If Doug has authority, it is from God.
So, Katie: are you saying the artistic representation of nudity is the same as the naked human body? Being naked in private, taking a video, and posting it publicly all count as public nudity. There’s a reason it’s called a nudist camp, not an art retreat. HIs purpose doesn’t change the fact of his public nakedness.
In other words, intent doth not the content make. I could have the best of intentions for my public display of knife juggling, and yet someone could end up dead. I don’t get to claim “art” when the handcuffs come out. In the same way, public nudity doesn’t get any better just because you were trying to say something else besides “I’m naked in public” with it. While you might be saying something more than “I’m naked in public,” but you certainly aren’t saying any less.
And Dash, that’s “knob” with a “k”. Unless you really meant that I was a person of wealth or high social position, in which case you were more mistaken than you realize.
A lot of people have done those things. I am talking about God given authority.
How would you distinguish between a man who has God-given authority, and one who doesn’t?
Jack Spratt: “Oh, is the problem that an authority figure has an opinion, and expresses it?”
The day DW sat in the courtroom on the side of a sexual predator (a.k.a. a wolf) against one of Jesus’s little lambs, that was the day he lost any authority over Natalie and all who support her. The day DW sat on the wrong side of the courtroom was that day he lost any credibility that he had any authority to speak on this matter at all.
That day DW proved that he was in no way a shepherd to Natalie. He proved he didn’t understand a most basic principle of scripture and therefore disqualified himself from preaching and teaching it to Natalie and those now sitting on her side of the courtroom of opinion.
There may have been a time when DW had a bit of authority back in the day.
But today is not that day.
DW, himself, has made whatever authority he might have had completely null and void. And he keeps making it worse.
Honestly, I wish he’d stop undermining himself so hard in order to save face. The gig is up. It’s over. It’s time for DW to admit it. Or at the very least, stop talking about it and digging his hole bigger.
” teacher, preacher, man who has been around the block? That could very well apply to Joel Osteen and David Miscavige. That does it give authority. Just infamy or notoriety.
And I repeat again, “sin makes anyone stupid”. Even an authority figure, a teacher, preacher, man who has been around the block. Even someone who has written 60 books. None of that makes them immune to sin and stupidity, as even a cursory knowledge of the Bible makes obvious. I care nothing for Doug’s list of ‘qualifications’ (and interestingly, the things you listed aren’t Biblical qualifications anyway). I don’t need them to compare his words and actions in this matter to Scripture and find them wanting.
Yeah, no:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nob
Also, Mr. Spratt, go fuck yourself with a tire iron.
“Teacher, preacher, man who’s been around the block more times than I have. Person who’s written maybe 60 books or so. Person who’s voraciously interested in life in general, and studies it at every chance. In short, a well-read (understatement) theologian and community figure who’s done a lot of good in my family’s life. that kind of authority.”……. If one of the criteria for having “been around the block” many times is age, that means I’ve lapped him a few times. He’s “done a lot of good in your family’s life.” I know a family that “he’s done a lot of bad” to in their lives. “Community figure”, who wants to bend my hometown to his worldview. A self appointed expert on everything. I bet neurosurgeons rely on his counsel before deciding the proper surgical approach to a difficult problem. Rocket scientists don’t dare push the launch button before consulting your hero on the proper fuel mixture. And of course, art museum curators will not hang a work of art on their museum walls until The Douglas has certified it as, indeed, a worthy work of art. If he turns his thumb down, it’s the trash bin for that phony thing. A true Renaissance Man is The Douglas. But, happily, he has no authority over me.
Oh, and BTW, churning out 60 books or so doesn’t sound so difficult, if one owns one’s own vanity press, as part of Douglas Wilson, Inc. (I know, it’s owned by someone else now. Whose last name, coincidentally, is also Wilson. What would be the odds?)
It’s also not hard to churn out 60 books when you get people to ghostwrite some of them based on sloppy dictation and then don’t credit the ghostwriters. Just for example. And you can get away with this because you own the press. Also not hard to write a lot when you write nonsense like “southern slavery as it was.”
Wondering if you have evidence of ghostwriting (or of Doug owning Canon Press) or if this is simply slanderous speculation? Because to some people, that’s not okay.
Nice, polite crowd you have here, Katie. Any speculation on where all the gracious wisdom is coming from? Or is this just a meeting of the “Everyone Who Hates Doug For Any Reason” club? Ghostwriting, denial of his salvation, tire irons…do you curate this place, or do you actually enjoy the poisonous froth that follows your more reasonably stated post?
CDSpratt: “waaaaaaaaah, Mommy they’re being mean to me”
Mr. Spratt, you don’t deserve even the same degree of respect that a freshly minted dog turd on the sidewalk would warrant. By all means though, keep posting here in defense of your personal BFF Doug Wilson; it’s hilarious.
Doug Wilson is a slimebag.
Dash, interacting with you is the virtual equivalent of slumming. If you can conjure up hatred to the point of denying the Creator’s image in someone based on a mere comment, then your emotional priorities might need sorting.
“(or of Doug owning Canon Press) ”
Canon Press was originally owned by Christ Church – until it was sold off to two private individuals one of whom is DW’s son. It is hard to get accurate figures as it is a private company – with at one point Canon Press’ turn over being reported at 1m annually – but certainly the implication from what DW himself wrote was that the business of Canon Press was getting to the point where it was hard for the church to oversee it effectively.
In general though this kind of merging together of Church and family businesses doesn’t do much for transparency. You could read the arrangement as the church providing venture funding to the press until it was a going concern, at which point it was sold on to the pastors son.
“Nice, polite crowd you have here, Katie.”…… “Serrated edges” cut both ways, Mr. Spratt. Your idol uses it all the time. Why, he even justified using it it in one of his 1,137 books. All of them brilliant treatises on whatever random thought he had at the moment.
Jack Spratt: “Nice, polite crowd you have here, Katie. Any speculation on where all the gracious wisdom is coming from?”
I have a clue.
It’s a biblical principle actually.
Doug has sown scorn, mockery, hatred, and all sort of vitrol out concerning his pet doctrines and against his favorite scapegoats.
Now he is reaping what he has sown for years and years.
Keep casting your bread upon the water and soon it will come back to you on every wave.
Doug is getting back his poisonous bread.
He loves sending it out. He keeps doing it.
Why is it okay for him to send it and not receive it?
Here is one simple example where Doug sounds like Eric Cartman, a paragon of gracious wisdom in this dark world.
http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2012/11/doug-wilson-almost-channels-eric-cartman.html
*****
Btw Spratt, another wonderful deflection of the real issues – Doug’s total mishandling of sex abuse cases. You focus on the outrage of the people who are rightfully outraged by Doug’s outrageous actions against Natalie both back in the day and now. But you won’t deal with Doug’s ineptitude because there is no defense for the botched up job Doug has done and is still doing.
Again, Doug Wilson is no authority figure on this whatsoever. He has proven this himself. He is less than a novice or apprentice. He doesn’t just run from the wolves like a hireling when he sees danger to the flock. He runs to the wolves and aids and abets them rather than the sheep so the wolves can rise up and abuse again.
Yep, he’s less than a hireling. He’s starting to come across as the leader of the pack.
(cue Werewolves in London song)
“How would you distinguish between a man who has God-given authority, and one who doesn’t?”
Easy-peasy, Mr. Spratt. Check out I Timothy 1 and Titus 3. A spiritual leader acting outside of the characteristics required of them in those passages has no authority.
Apologies for reversing those references, it is I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. So important the Bible tells us twice! Many people sitting in the pews have forgotten that to accept the words and self-proclaimed ‘authority’ of an unqualified spiritual leader is disobedience and sin. We are commanded to strictly evaluate those who seek to exert authority over us.
Mr. Spratt, no, I don’t delete comments unless they violate legal boundaries (or are spam). So far (besides the spam) I’ve only deleted two ever. There are folks on here who say nasty things about me, and I don’t delete those either. Unless they’re threatening to kill me/ someone else. Or rape me/ someone else. Then I delete them. I’m a firm believer in first amendment rights, as guaranteed by the constitution, even where that opens the doors to trolling.
Mr. Spratt, interacting with you is the conversational equivalent of inhaling the overpowering stench of a public bathroom at a highway overpass on a hot summer’s day, after being visited by several hundred motorists whose diets consist entirely of Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and other people’s diarrhea. However, seeing as how it is infinitely amusing to me to continue abusing you for my own amusement, I’m going to keep responding to you unless I happen to have better things to do, like watch TV or take a shit.
Also, blow it out your ass.
Another great article, Katie. Thank you for being a voice of careful reason.
In answer to your question as to whether Doug is so dense that he doesn’t realize his actions reflect poorly on him, I don’t think the question is stupidity. He’s an intelligent person. The problem is moral. He’s in sin and he he’s too proud to repent. As many of us know, Doug will not say he’s sorry. He’s become reckless like Pharaoh when he refused to let the Israelites leave Egypt. Pharaoh was smart enough to see the connection between himself, Moses, the plagues, and God. But he became reckless to the point of chasing after the Israelites even after all the first-born of Egypt were struck dead on the same night. It wasn’t over for Pharaoh until he no longer had an army, and I’m afraid it’s the same for Doug Wilson..This looks like a fight until he has nothing left to fight with.
Well said, Frank. I agree.
One thing Pharaoh said in his own defense was that he was the God of Egypt.
Pharaohism is akin to Phariseeism.
They both think they rule God’s kingdom, or at least their little corner of it.
Their battle is to maintain their control and authority.
And it appears that where is concerned Pharaohism they will fight to maintain their assumed authority at any cost.
I agree that Doug is intelligent, but sin makes anyone stupid. His behavior has become increasingly *un*intelligent and his written words ever more *un* intelligible as he’s doubled and tripled and quadrupled down on his sin.
Agreed that sin makes anyone stupid. At some point it goes beyond even that to insanity. And the insanity becomes so great that the person doing stupid things thinks he’s brilliant.
You use a good analogy when you say Doug has quadrupled down on his sin. He’s always raising the stakes in a desperate attempt to keep everything rather than lose anything. If he had just said he was sorry in the beginning– if he had been willing to give up his pride– Natalie would have accepted his apology and none of this would be happening. But since he has raised his bets so many times, that is no longer an option. Now he would have to confess the subsequent sins, things like refusing to repent and purposely trying to ruin her. It’s not an option in the Sitler case, either. Or with other events too numerous too mention. He’s going to lose. The only question is when and how bad it gets at the end.
1. An obvious sick weirdness is that Heather thinks she should school Natalie on the timeline of events, the particulars, the nitty gritty of what went down (!??) because obviously and of course Katie has been in contact with Natalie for clarification and exactitude. But Heather gonna take ’em all to school. Because??
2. An obvious sick weirdness is that Heather thinks she should major on the minors of the nitty gritties while there is an elephant in the room- DOUGLAS WILSON SEARCHED FOR AND FOUND A VIDEO OF NATALIE’S HUSBAND DOING A PERFORMANCE ART PIECE NUDE. The video had received aproximately the number of views of which there were professors to assess and grade his art. BUT DOUGLAS WILSON FOUND THE NUDE PERFORMANCE ART. By golly.
So my question to Heather would be- Around the Thanksgiving table, did anyone (even a small child) think to question Grampa Wilson about the sick weirdness of searching out a piece of nude performance art? I mean the hours it must have taken to search through all the other nude performance art, and the hours it must have taken to watch that particular piece of nude art to make sure that, yes, yes indeed, that is the piece I would like to LINK ON MY PASTORAL BLOG. Did anyone round the table say, “Grampa, what the hell?!!”
The other possibility is that Doug hired or otherwise conscripted someone else as a private investigator to dig up dirt… certainly, though, the idea of Doug doing it himself is more humorous. Of course, any way you slice it, it’s weird that Doug knew about such an obscure video given how apparently perverted he thinks it is.
I figured that was also a possibility i.e. his own henchman/documentarian aided him. It still does not negate that:
1. Douglas Wilson had to view the art to make sure that, yes, absolutely he wanted it posted on his “pastoral” blog (how many times he had to view the video to confirm, we do not know…)
2. He alone made the decision, once the video was shown him to link it on his “pastoral” blog.
So the question still stands- “Grampa, what the hell!?”
(Katie, I’m sure you hate me by now. Apologies. If it’s any consolation, I’m laughing my ass off over here at Mr. Spratt.)
“One additional qualification here. There are some aspects of this timeline that might need to be adjusted in the future because some things don’t add up and my memory is murky about some of it. So bear with me.”
–Doug Wilson in his Justice and the Ad Hominem post
No doubt this would be a critical component of his defense should his larger ministry implode and/or his fellow CREC ministers declare him unfit for said ministry. Speaking of which, CREC memes has a post up with a funny link to a Rick Astley video that makes it look like Doug is in big trouble with the denomination he founded. Man, I wish that link was accurate… 😀
I would be willing to make a substantial bet that Doug Wilson will from now to the end of his days claim that there is *new information* that will *adjust* everyone’s view and prove he was right all along. It’s just one of his many ways he tries to retain control of the conversation.
Nice analysis. The second paragraph is the key to it all; “Literally none of this is true,” as you say. What we need to understand is that this is Douglas’ attempt to change the topic of discourse to something he feels he can control better, especially for the creck investigation. I think it is a mistake to defend the videos, even if they are defensible. That just plays into Douglas’ narrative-shift.
“I think it is a mistake to defend the videos, even if they are defensible. That just plays into Douglas’ narrative-shift.”
Exactly. Just like cdspratt – a faithful defender of The Douglas – wants to point out the badness of the videos here in this comment section when those videos have nothing to do with the subject of Natalie’s abuser and the way in which her situation was handled negligently by DW and the Crec elders.
Recently Natalie responded on her blog to 4 questions from CREC leaders conducting the inquiry. Douglas has so thoroughly shifted the narrative, red herringed, and ad hominened that at least 2 loyal fans have commented that she’s lying– not in her answers, but about the questions! In other words, she’s such a liar liar pants on fire that she would invent an email from real pastors who she names, who could have easily refuted her long ago if they hadn’t written it, or if she’d misquoted them.
So I guess Heather didn’t really have a good answer to give so now it’s just crickets?
I know- I was just coming on here to see her replies. Problem is, she can’t argue with truth. Here’s the thing: even your nearest and dearest can be deceived or deceptive; the only person she, as a Christian, should be so loyal to, is Christ. It is for the best Heather says no more; she only proves herself deceived in her blind support for her dad, who is publicly bullying a whole family who were abused by his system.
Yup. At least she has more sense than Jack-Spratt-goes-splat up the thread.
Holy cow…I swear, Darren Doane is making a gang gesture with his hand.
http://moscowid.net/2015/11/25/on-digging-up-evil/darren-doane/
I don’t know who Darren Doane is so I understand this even less than people who do.
Mara, Darren Doane is a, ahem, “acclaimed filmmaker” who last Christmas blessed moviegoers with “Saving Christmas”, a film that critics across the board pretty much agreed was one of the worst movies in the entire history of movies, or at least the worst movie since “Plan 9 From Outer Space”. He also brought us the recent nationwide blockbuster “The Free Speech Apocalypse”, starring one Douglas Wilson. If you haven’t heard of it, you are far from alone.
Katie speaking to Spratt: “Mr. Spratt, no, I don’t delete comments unless they violate legal boundaries (or are spam).”
Unlike DW who can dish it out hand-over-fist but can’t take any of it back.
He deletes comments all the time.
He’s only interested in yes men & women and a few naysayers whom he considers not much of a threat.
As for anything substantial that points out what’s really going on (as opposed to the fantasy that he lives in) he will not tolerate it.