Mafia Show Trials

I didn’t put a lot of thought into this rebuttal.  I didn’t need to.  To quote Gary North, this is a “quickie.”

Wilson realizes the heat he is taking with having Randy Booth (CREC, Covenant Media Foundation) run the investigation.  It’s like when the Mafia gets involved in football games.  The game might be fun to watch, but no one doubts the outcome.  Wilson writes,

The purpose of a judicial process is not, in the first place, to side with the victim. The point of judicial process is to determine, carefully and without jumping to conclusions, who the victim is.

That is very true.  But that’s not the whole case.  We are not saying you can’t have a trial to prove your innocence (tall order though it be).  We are saying you can’t have your lieutenant run the thing.  

As is the case with many of Wilson’s deflections, he tells a story that doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the issue.  Unless you look closer, then he is actually shaming anyone who criticizes him.  Let’s take a look.  

If one of your kids runs in from the backyard with a tale of woe, saying that her brother hit her on the head with a stick, this is certainly grounds for an indictment. Mom really should inquire. But in the course of the trial, what if she discovers that he did so because she had been poking him with that same stick for the previous half an hour?

This isn’t that hard to decipher.  Is he really saying he is justified in what he did because Natalie G. described some of the sex acts Wilson’s student made her perform?  I don’t see any other line of reasoning possible.  

Advertisement

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.

 

He’s not even trying anymore

It’s like I don’t even have to try.

He writes,

If the culprit is known by us to be guilty,

Except, the two culprits were convicted in a civil trial and imprisoned, so it really isn’t a matter of my not wanting to hear the other side.

Why bother with hearing from both sides?

Alright then.  Talk.  Did your boy Sitler fail a lie-detector test?  What’s the other side of the story for that?  But you probably mean the Jamin Wight case. You’ve repeatedly said “I am protecting the mother so I am not giving the information,” which sounds eerily familiar to a Mafia threat.  But how can we hear the “other side” if you refuse to engage Natalie Rose (beyond slut-shaming a rape victim)?

The next part of the blog post is Wilson’s standard m.o.: long discourse on “principles” and a diversion on how bad abortion is.  

And then the post ends.

TR silence on CREC sex abuse scandal?

The main TR (truly reformed) outlets have been relatively silent on the recent sex scandals in the CREC.   It’s odd.  TRs have no love for the CREC, which they rightly associate as a safe-haven for Federal Visionists.  Then why won’t they attack them on open abuses?

To be fair, the CREC answers to no one, so it is not clear what such a public condemnation would hold.  But I think such a condemnation needs to be made.  Otherwise it will look like these guys only care about rebuking doctrine and not about helping the victimized.