Doug Wilson’s Failure to Safeguard Children

SORRead it here, but not on a full stomach:

Explore posts in the same categories: Doug Wilson, Uncategorized

6 Comments on “Doug Wilson’s Failure to Safeguard Children”

  1. Jon Volkoff Says:

    I’m no fan of Doug Wilson, but the article seems a bit shrill. The author equates sinful thoughts and feelings with child sexual abuse. This is absurd. Sitler’s baby, as far as I can tell, was not harmed in any way.

  2. Sean Gerety Says:

    Sitler is a serial pedophile with a lifelong track record who Wilson actively protected and covered for. Do a little research and you’ll see for yourself. Besides, Wilson’s loving care of child abusers doesn’t stop with Sitler. The fact that anyone can seriously consider Wilson a Christian pastor, much less a “Reformed” one is astounding.

  3. Sean Gerety Says:

    And, pay attention, Sitler’s erotic thoughts were about his own infant son. The man only avoided a life sentence, which he sorely deserved, because of Wilson.

  4. Jon Volkoff Says:

    I am aware of the facts surrounding the case. Yes, Sitler should have gotten a life sentence without parole/probation — well actually, he should have gotten the death penalty according to the Scriptures. But my main objection was the article’s blurring of the distinction between thoughts and actions, as if sinful thoughts themselves constituted abuse punishable by the civil magistrate, which they do not. The Orwellian trend in the US toward punishing thoughtcrime has been in place for many years now, and many professing Christians seem to be going along with it.

    I also don’t agree with the author — and as much as I hate to say it, I agree with Doug Wilson — that there were any Scriptural grounds for prohibiting the marriage of Sitler and his current wife. Certainly none that are cited by the Westminster Confession.

  5. Sean Gerety Says:

    Jon, I don’t know how closely you read the piece or if you followed any of the links, but it was more than just thoughts. There were new disclosures of “contact resulting in actual sexual stimulation.”

    Now, remember this contact resulting in actual sexual stimulation was with Sitler’s infant son. As for the marriage itself was bizarre and from reports was encouraged by Wilson as part of his “counseling.”

  6. Jon Volkoff Says:

    I took “contact” to be in the broad, legal sense of a human interaction, not necessarily physical contact. That was because the author at your original posted URL said at the beginning: “These words could be taken to imply molestation or rape, but not
    necessarily, and not in our opinion given the current evidence.” So until more evidence comes to light, this seems to be limited to thoughtcrime. Calling that kind of thing “abuse” to me is a stretch.

    Yet I think the state was right to insist on him having no unchaperoned interaction with his son, since he’s obviously a powder keg just waiting to explode. Actually I’m surprised that CPS hasn’t yet been brought into the picture. They’ve frequently been called into situations, rightly or wrongly, for a whole lot less.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: