On Doug Wilson and the Age of Consent

Doug Dissembles

The age of consent is the age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts, and is thus the minimum age of a person with whom another person is legally permitted to engage in sexual activity. The distinguishing aspect of the age of consent laws is that the person below the minimum age is regarded as the victim. . . Wikipedia

Last week Boudica demonstrated that state law in Idaho protects children under the age of 16 from sexual abuse under every circumstance, regardless of excuse. The perp can’t claim, “She consented!” because according to Idaho code a child cannot consent to sex. Likewise, the perp can’t claim, “Her parents consented!” because the same law protects the child despite her parents. These laws are known as “age of consent” laws, and the age of consent in the state of Idaho is 18-years old. That is, Idaho code outlaws sexual behavior unless both parties are 18-years old or older and both people consent. But as noted, Idaho defines anyone under the age of 16-years old as a “child” and protects them from any claim of consent, even pastoral.

Review
On August 22, 2005, Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, wrote a letter to Officer Green of the Moscow Police Department to inform him that, among other things, “. . . the sexual behavior occurring between Jamin and Natalie . . . does explain what kind of criminal behavior it was.” Mr. Wilson did not respect Natalie Greenfield’s status as a “child” pursuant to Idaho code, which is important because if he had affirmed state law, things would have ended differently.

Further, Mr. Wilson’s tacit rejection of Idaho code essentially voided his description of Jamin Wight’s behavior as “criminal,” because Idaho has only two statutes that prohibited Wight’s activities: SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF SIXTEEN YEARS (18-1506) & LEWD CONDUCT WITH MINOR CHILD UNDER SIXTEEN (18-1508). And if Jamin Wight didn’t violate either of these laws when he violated 13-year-old Natalie, then he didn’t break the law. Contrary to Mr. Wilson, Idaho does not have a statute called “Sexual Behavior With An Underaged Girl.”

On May 17, 2006, nine months after Mr. Wilson wrote his letter to Officer Green, Jamin Wight pled guilty to one count of Injury to a Child, which is a felony.

Doug Wilson Affirms the Age of Consent
On June 14, 2006, one month after Jamin Wight pled guilty, local columnist Joan Opyr wrote a piece for NewWest.com called Two Child Molestation Scandals Break Over Moscow’s Christ Church. A few inaccuracies marred the story — nothing consequential — but enough to rub Mr. Wilson the wrong way. So that same day he replied to Joan via his blog, correcting her mistakes and issuing this challenge:

Just one other thing. I have an article suggestion for Joan, one that should go over well at New West some time in the future. Why don’t you write something on when you think the age of sexual consent should be, and why? Quote fulsomely from gay and lesbian literature. Integrate with the current and widespread views of ethical relativism, particularly sexual relativism. And good luck. (Joan Opyr, Cub Reporter, June 14, 2006)

The next day, on June 15, 2006, Joan answered Mr. Wilson’s challenge on the community bulletin board. Joan saw Mr. Wilson and she raised him:

Wight, a 24-year old Greyfriars Seminary student, embarked on an eighteen-month long sexual relationship with a 14-year old girl. Was that 14-year old psychologically ready to engage in consensual sex with a man ten years her senior? In my opinion, no. Was she legally ready? In the court’s opinion, certainly not. Was she old enough to engage in sexual relations with another 14-year old of the same or opposite sex? Legally, logically, and speaking as a parent, no. Should 12 and 13-year olds be allowed to marry with parental permission? No. In some countries, Doug, the age of consent for young girls is in the single digits. Do I approve of that? Of course not. I think it’s a disgrace. What do you think? Would you be willing to pick a marriage partner for your underaged teenager? ([Vision2020] Age of Consent, June 15, 2006)

Within hours, Mr. Wilson answered Joan on his blog with a post titled Age of Consent:

I have received a couple of response to the question I posed to Joan Opyr about the age of consent. One question was from someone wondering if I have any trouble with our current age of consent laws. And the answer to that one is simple . . . no, I don’t. . . . But at the same time, Joan’s responses were generally reasonable, and I would answer just about all the questions she posed the same way that she did. “Was that 14-year old psychologically ready to engage in consensual sex with a man ten years her senior? In my opinion, no.” And so Joan and I agree completely. (Age of Consent, June 15, 2006)

If Joan and Doug Wilson did “agree completely,” as he claimed, then none of this would be happening. You would not be reading this essay. One wing of this website would not exist (the Jamin Wight Archive). And Mr. Wilson would have appointed the CREC Review Committee to examine the case of serial pedophile Steven Sitler only.

But Joan and Doug Wilson did not “agree completely.” Mr. Wilson does have trouble with Idaho’s current “age of consent” laws — at least when they apply to students of Greyfriars’ Hall. And he apparently wishes Idaho had a statute on the books called “Sexual Behavior With An Underaged Girl.” Moreover, Mr. Wilson’s response to Joan Opyr contradicts every public statement that he has made about Jamin Wight’s sexual abuse of Natalie Greenfield. More to point, it contradicts the “sexual behavior” narrative that he has repeated in public ad nauseam, world without end.

Mr. Wilson wrote this contradiction 10 months after he wrote his letter to Officer Green, wherein he did not acknowledge Natalie’s status as a child in accordance with Idaho’s age-of-consent laws and tacitly accused her of “sexual behavior” with a man 10 years older than her. And he wrote this just one month after Jamin Wight pled guilty to Injury to a Child, which is a crime unrelated to Idaho’s “age of consent” laws.

Conclusion
Three quick points:

  1. Pastor Doug Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, never retracted this statement or corrected it. He let it stand because he did not want the community to know that he is an ethical relativist — particularly a sexual relativist in the matter of child abusers.
  1. Doug Wilson will say one thing for the record to the court in defense of a child abuser, and he will say the complete opposite in public to create a false impression about his true convictions.
  1. Last, for you lurking kirkers, please notice the smooth demeanor he adopted when he lied to Joan Opyr: “And the answer to that one is simple . . . no, I don’t.” Wilson understands the importance of selling a lie — but not overselling it. And he lies to you just as he lied to Joan. For him, it’s simple.

9 Comments

  1. He doesn’t have any trouble with the consent laws in Idaho. He just ignores any and all laws that don’t fit his current needs. I’m sure if he needed the consent laws he’d be all for them.

  2. When the Wight case resurfaced last year, and Wilson began blogging profusely about the case — Wight’s transgressions, Natalie’s responsibility, etc.etc. — the comment section was eye-opening. Doug’s supporters began defending underage marriage, questioning age of consent laws by the “heathen” who don’t know God, Natalie’s sin in the “relationship”, all without Doug correcting them. Not once did he rebuke the lot of them for their wayward ideas. I think that’s because they were speaking for him. They didn’t employ double-speak or wordsmithyness like Wilson. And Wilson was beholden to them. Wilson is a duplicitous man — speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Some day — hopefully soon — it will come crashing down upon him and there will be a reckoning. And wouldn’t it be nice if the reckoning were the dissolution of the Kirk?

  3. My knowledge of DW is somewhat limited, so perhaps he has addressed the following question: in light of both the Stitler and the Wight cases, especially given the laws that were violated and the leniency requested by DW for both perpetrators, how does he interpret Romans 13:1–5?

    Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

    Clearly he is elevating his authority over that of the civil government, and I can only assume this is rooted in his belief that canon law trumps civil law, or at least as interpreted by DW/CREC. However, Paul does not allow such nuance to stand. What is more, the traditional Reformed view holds civil government and the rule of law in high regards and thus worthy of respect and obedience, because God has permitted them to be in place for His purposes.

    1. @Burwell — Good question. The answer is twofold: What he teaches and what he does.

      1. What he teaches: He is on record — in his books, on his blog, and in his sermons — that the Reformed position of Romans 13 controls. This includes his written record before and after he tampered with both cases. I could produce 3,000 words by Wilson from the last 20 years where he states that God has appointed the civil magistrate as his deacon to oversee criminals. Likewise, I could produce 700 to a 1,000 words by Wilson, both before & after these two criminal cases, where he argues for the death penalty in cases identical to Sitler & Wight. So with regard to the civil magistrate generally and capital cases specifically, he has made a very clear record to the point that a reasonable person would reasonably believe that Wilson would conduct himself in a manner consistent with what he has written.
      2. What he does. It is as you wrote: “Clearly he is elevating his authority over that of the civil government. . .”

      However, this line is wrong: “his belief that canon law trumps civil law,” though I suspect you gave him the judgment of charity. The truth is “his belief that his will trumps everything.” Wilson holds Scripture, canon law, and the civil magistrate in contempt. There is not one time when he was caught breaking the law that he didn’t double down instead of comply. Drugs, casinos, property taxes, zoning, child abusers, pedophiles — you name it. In each case he defied Scripture, the magistrate, and his own written record. It’s pathological. Lawlessness animates him. He needs to assert his will in violation of authority. He’s like Nimrod, Goliath, and Diotrophes wrapped into one.

    2. In each case he defied Scripture, the magistrate, and his own written record. It’s pathological. Lawlessness animates him. He needs to assert his will in violation of authority. He’s like Nimrod, Goliath, and Diotrophes wrapped into one.

      What I cannot understand is not so much “how does he keep getting away with it,” but rather, “how has he not burned out and collapsed under the weight of his own creation?” (BTW, I am not referring to his stomach)

  4. There is a skeleton in the closet. A grown ass man can not talk about boobs and breasts on his theological “personal” blog to the extent that this man of the cloth does and not have a serious issue. (do a search of “boobs” and “breasts” on his “personal though linked to his church” blog and see for yourself)

    Add to that the lies and straddling he does to condone a couple of pedophiles and the only logical conclusion is, skeleton.

    1. Terri, exactly. By way of comparison, I cannot imagine my own CREC pastors or elders writing about the female anatomy the way Doug does. And yet, we will find those who will defend Doug on any action he decides to take… for reasons that escape me but will seem perfectly logical to his defenders. Sheesh.

Comments are closed.