The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to you shepherds of Israel who only take care of yourselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. So they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered they became food for all the wild animals. My sheep wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. They were scattered over the whole earth, and no one searched or looked for them.” Ezekiel 34:1–6

Over the last several months, Douglas Wilson has referred to Greyfriars’ Hall ministerial student Jamin Wight’s sexual abuse of Natalie Greenfield, which began when they were aged 23 and 13 respectively, as “sexual behavior.” He wrote this in his letter to Officer Green; he repeated it four times to Rod Dreher; he said this at the Christ Church HOH meeting¹; and he has posted it to Blog & Mablog. His wording implies something akin to two crazy teenagers just discovering their own sexuality and getting a little overzealous in the back seat. That happens, right? Obviously, it’s a sin and they shouldn’t be doing it; but it’s not exactly uncommon, and you wouldn’t send a young man to jail under that circumstance when she’s just as enthusiastic as he is. It’s not like he was a predator, right?

Actually, the state of Idaho is quite clear. Whether it was violent abuse or done with the utmost gentleness is irrelevant in this case because according to Idaho’s laws, adults are not to sexually touch children under any circumstances and the state considers everyone under 16-years old to be a child. Here are the two statutes Wight was charged under, both of which come with sex offender registration following conviction:

18-1506. SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF SIXTEEN YEARS. (1) It is a felony for any person eighteen (18) years of age or older, with the intent to gratify the lust, passions, or sexual desire of the actor, minor child or third party, to:

(a) Solicit a minor child under the age of sixteen (16) years to participate in a sexual act;

(b) Cause or have sexual contact with such minor child, not amounting to lewd conduct as defined in section 18-1508, Idaho Code. . . .

And,

18-1508. LEWD CONDUCT WITH MINOR CHILD UNDER SIXTEEN. Any person who shall commit any lewd or lascivious act or acts upon or with the body or any part or member thereof of a minor child under the age of sixteen (16) years, including but not limited to, genital-genital contact, oral-genital contact, anal-genital contact, oral-anal contact, manual-anal contact, or manual-genital contact, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or who shall involve such minor child in any act of bestiality or sado-masochism as defined in section 18-1507, Idaho Code, when any of such acts are done with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust or passions or sexual desires of such person, such minor child, or third party, shall be guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the state prison for a term of not more than life.

Even if everything Natalie says were a lie, even if it was all designed to gratify her and she purposely seduced him (which not even Wilson claims), it was still illegal for him to touch her. His behavior could have been punished with life in prison and mandatory sex offender registration upon early release. And no one, not Doug Wilson or Jamin Wight, disputes the level of sexual abuse that actually occurred. Wight signed a confession to that effect, which Doug Wilson confirmed:

“. . . we asked him if the written confession he had provided to the Greenfields some months ago was a true and accurate account. He replied that it was. . .” (Letter to Officer Green)

Wilson reiterated this point to Rod Dreher:

“As my letter makes plain, Jamin was guilty of sexual behavior with a girl who was below the age of consent. She was underage. Our letter acknowledged fully that Jamin was guilty of criminal behavior, and we wanted him to pay the penalty for that criminal behavior, which was a species of statutory rape.” (Doug Wilson’s ‘Reluctant Response’)

However, by calling Mr. Wight’s criminal offense “a species of statutory rape,” Doug Wilson admitted much more to Rod Dreher than he did Officer Green, to whom Wilson downplayed the magnitude of Wight’s criminal behavior. Moreover, Mr. Wight actually pled guilty to the even lesser charge of Injury to a Child, which few if any would mistake with “a species of statutory rape” since it carries no sexual component.

Now compare Doug Wilson’s posture towards Natalie with the State’s. In February 2006, prosecuting attorney Bill Thompson motioned the court to bar the defense (Jamin Wight, who presumably acted on his pastor’s counsel) from appealing to consent; note that he cites both legal code and legal precedent in case law:

“Prohibiting the defendant from offering evidence of or arguing either express or implied consent of the victim or her parents. It is well settled in the State of Idaho that consent is not a defense to the crimes of Sexual Abuse of a Child Under the Age of Sixteen (Idaho Code 18-1506) or Lewd and Lascivious Conduct with a Child Under Sixteen Years of Age (Idaho Code 18-1508). State v. Oar, 129 Idaho 337 (1996).” (State’s Motions in Limine and 404(b) Notice)

The State protected Natalie. The State prohibited the man who violated her from incriminating her in the matter of her abuse — the very thing that her former pastor now does all over the web. Further, while Doug Wilson points to “a certain measure of physical affection” such as “hand-holding” (see Dreher) as evidence that either Natalie or her parents were in some measure consenting, prosecutor Bill Thompson observed that this did not exonerate Mr. Wight; rather, it established intent (the language suggests grooming):

“The State further gives notice pursuant to I.R.E. 404(b) of its intent to offer evidence of acts and statements of the defendant (in addition to the specific acts charged herein) evidencing inappropriate and/or sexually related feelings about or attraction to the victim, as well as physical contact such as hand holding that does not amount to violations of Idaho Code 18-1506 or 1508. The State respectfully submits that this evidence is relative and admissible for the purpose of proving the defendant’s motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, as contemplated by I.R.E. 404(b).” (State’s Motions in Limine and 404(b) Notice)

Contrary to his claims, Doug Wilson did not want Jamin Wight to pay the penalty for his criminal behavior. Instead, he has consistently and effectively misrepresented the severity of Mr. Wight’s crimes to the court (letter to Officer Green), the public (Dreher), and his own congregation.

Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, because my flock lacks a shepherd and so has been plundered and has become food for all the wild animals, and because my shepherds did not search for my flock but cared for themselves rather than for my flock, therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock. I will remove them from tending the flock so that the shepherds can no longer feed themselves. I will rescue my flock from their mouths, and it will no longer be food for them. (Ezekiel 34:7–10)

¹ During the October 27, 2015, Christ Church HOH Meeting, Doug Wilson said, “Part of the battle — a big part of the battle — had to do with Jamin being willing to go to prison for what he did, which was sexual behavior with an underage minor. He was willing to take the rap for that, but he didn’t want to be identified as a sexual — a pedophile.” NOTE: Neither the law nor the sex offender registration requirements make any reference to who is a pedophile and who is not. Conviction for any type of sex crime earns a spot on the sex offender list.