“Blame-shifting on his part would be utterly inappropriate, and we had Jamin acknowledge that he was in no position to absolve himself by pointing fingers at others. Having said this, I can observe what Jamin should not.” Douglas Wilson

The spirit of accusation possessed Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, to write this letter to Officer Green of the Moscow Police Department. He wrote it to bear witness on behalf of his ministerial student Jamin Wight, who faced the possibility of 40 years in prison for serial sexual abuse of a 13-year old. And this letter shares noteworthy similarities with the letter that Mr. Wilson to Judge Stegner:

1. Mr. Wilson wrote both letters within 3 days of each other.
2. Mr. Wilson wrote both letters on Christ Church stationary while acting in his capacity as the minister of Christ Church, Moscow.
3. Mr. Wilson wrote both letters behind kirkers’ backs — that is, he wrote them without his congregation’s knowledge or consent.
4. Mr. Wilson wrote both letters to advocate on behalf of violent sexual predators who preyed on kirkers even though he had not warned church members of either predator or their predations.
5. And Mr. Wilson wrote both letters to achieve one objective: a limited, or reduced, sentence for each perpetrator.

We considered some of Mr. Wilson’s written “urge” to Judge Stegner here, where in the end, after you cut away all the rhetoric, Mr. Wilson wanted Stegner to return Sitler back into society. This was his “urge” and his “good hope.”

Mr. Wilson’s letter to Officer Green expresses no such urges or hopes. It is much more decided, in that Mr. Wilson had already adjudicated the case and determined what would constitute “justice” as opposed to “injustice,” as he said:

We have told him [Wight] that it is appropriate for him to obtain legal representation in order to ensure that his legal and civil rights are fully respected, and to ensure that the punishment given to him is not draconian or disproportionate. . . . I also believe that it requires that I labor to see that justice really is done to Jamin (at the same time excluding injustice through severe penalties), as well as laboring to protect the Greenfields, particularly Natalie. (emphasis added)

Note the word “labor.” Mr. Wilson believed that justice for Jamin Wight required him to “labor” on his behalf. And “labor” is the operative term, because Wight’s crimes put Mr. Wilson in a pickle. He had no mitigating circumstances in his favor, only aggravating. It just doesn’t look good when aspiring pastors repeatedly rape the daughter of their hosts — especially when she was 10 years younger than him and incapable of consent. So Mr. Wilson predicated his defense of Wight on a systematic condemnation of the victim’s parents:

“One other thing regrettably needs to be noted. In the meeting, we took care to have Jamin acknowledge that no matter what circumstances actually set up the temptation, the crime, the sin, and the deception were his responsibility alone. Blame-shifting on his part would be utterly inappropriate, and we had Jamin acknowledge that he was in no position to absolve himself by pointing fingers at others. Having said this, I can observe what Jamin should not. In our meeting the Greenfields (who had no idea of the sexual behavior occurring between Jamin and Natalie) acknowledged their sin and folly in helping to set the situation up. They did this by inviting Jamin to move in with them, encouraging and permitting a relationship between Jamin and Natalie, while keeping that relationship secret from the broader community. They thought (and were led to believe by Jamin) that the relationship was sexually pure, but they did know it was a relationship between a man in his mid-twenties and their fourteen-year-old daughter, and they helped to create the climate of secrecy. At the same time, their folly (as Pat Greenfield has aptly pointed out) was not a felony. It is not a crime to be foolish, while it is a crime to do what Jamin did. I agree with this completely, and in describing this aspect of the situation I do not believe it absolves Jamin of any responsibility for his behavior. But it does explain what kind of criminal behavior it was. For example, I do not believe that this situation in any way paints Jamin as a sexual predator. In all my years as a pastor, I don’t believe that I have ever seen such a level of parental foolishness as what the Greenfields did in this.”

Read Mr. Wilson’s words very carefully:

“Blame-shifting on his [Wight’s] part would be utterly inappropriate, and we had Jamin acknowledge that he was in no position to absolve himself by pointing fingers at others. Having said this, I can observe what Jamin should not.”

Mr. Wilson states that it was utterly inappropriate for Jamin Wight to blame-shift. But it was not utterly inappropriate for Mr. Wilson to blame-shift. Read it again:

“Blame-shifting on his part would be utterly inappropriate. . . Having said this, I can observe what Jamin should not.”

Mr. Wilson premised his argument to Officer Green on the appropriateness of him blame-shifting, and he proceeded to blame-shift responsibility for Jamin Wight’s serial abuse from the perpetrator to the victim’s parents. Mr. Wilson did exactly what he said he would do: he blame-shifted.

Mr. Wilson began his blame-shifting, or finger pointing, by referring to the parents’ so-called “folly” twice. He calls them “foolish” twice. And he reinforces the point by appealing to all his years as a pastor. Then according to Mr. Wilson, the parents encouraged the relationship. The parents permitted the relationship. The parents knew about the relationship. And, most importantly, the parents kept the relationship a secret. No one knew about this secret relationship except the parents, the victim, the perpetrator — and Mr. Wilson. Natch.

Mr. Wilson asserted his narrative as though it was an established fact, because he put Wight “under oath before God” and apparently believed him. Mr. Wilson still believes Wight even after a jury convicted him of perjury in 2014, in the matter of strangling his now ex-wife. And Mr. Wilson still believes Wight even though two eyewitnesses who lived in the home where the crimes took place deny Mr. Wilson’s account.

But Mr. Wilson didn’t blame-shift willy-nilly. He had a point. Mr. Wilson accused the victim’s parents of cultivating this secret relationship between a 23-year-old man and their 13-year-old daughter because he needed to enlarge upon the key phrase in the letter: “the sexual behavior occurring between Jamin and Natalie.”

Note his choice of terms and remember his stated intent is to blame-shift. He didn’t call it rape. He didn’t call it abuse. He didn’t call it assault. He denied its predatory nature. And he only affirmed criminal behavior after he incriminated the parents for their voluntary complicity in the crime. It was “sexual behavior occurring between Jamin and Natalie.” It was very normal between two people.

Mr. Wilson wanted Officer Green to understand two points: (1) These were the most foolish parents he has ever seen, and (2) these two lovebirds did what the two foolish parents were too foolish to anticipate.

And that’s okay. After all, it’s utterly appropriate for Mr. Wilson to blame-shift.