A Textbook Kirk Confession

“She eats, and wipes her mouth, and says, I have done no wickedness.” Proverbs 30:20

Mike Lawyer posted a comment on the YouTube site wherein he asks Natalie to forgive him. I reposted it below to demonstrate a pattern of Kirk behavior established by Pastor Doug Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow. This is the pattern:

  1. Go completely scorched Earth on the target of animosity, offloading all ammo without mercy.
  2. Seek qualified forgiveness for this or that — sometimes apologizing, sometimes not — but the confession and/or apology never rises to the same level as the crime.
  3. Let the damage remain, uncorrected, without restitution.

Center for Biblical Counseling
I tried to send this to Natalie privately, but she isn’t receiving messages from me right now. So, I thought I would post it here.

This note is in response to a letter from Natalie to me. She made some comments about a few things I said during an interview I gave to a UI student named Hunter. Here’s my note to Natalie:

Thank you Natalie. Your response helped me to think about what went on when Hunter came to visit me. She told me she was creating a 2 minute documentary for a class she was taking at UI. I let myself get caught up in the discussion without being reflective enough about what I was saying.

All this to say that I need to apologize to you for two things and to ask you to forgive me. First, for me to talk about you, with her, at all was wrong and sinful. This is true even if I had already talked with you, but especially since you and I have never talked before, about anything, let alone the things I talked about on the video. That was sinful and wrong. Please forgive me.

Second, the things I said about you assumed things that I simply don’t know. I can’t read your mind, I don’t know your motives. I don’t even know you. For me to say that you are doing all this in order to “become someone,” goes way beyond anything I actually know. I’m not a mind reader and I should have just kept my mouth shut. I shouldn’t be thinking along those lines anyway, at all. So, that was sinful on my part. I’m very sorry. Please forgive me.

And just in case you’re wondering, I intend to take this as a lesson to be very careful, first to remember that I can’t read minds and thus shouldn’t try to “figure” people out. And second, that I have no business talking about people who are not in the room. Even if they are “public” people.

My interview with Hunter would have gone just fine had I stuck to what I actually know, and not run off into speculation.

So, thank you for writing to me. Thank you for being gracious. And please forgive me for sinning against you in these ways. The last thing you need is someone piling on.

Sincerely,

Mike

Note Mike Lawyer’s careful qualification: “I need to apologize to you for two things . . . please forgive me for sinning against you in these ways.” He hedged it. He doesn’t want forgiveness for what he did. He wants forgiveness “for two things.”

Note also that Mr. Lawyer retracted only one line: “For me to say that you are doing all this in order to ‘become someone,’ goes way beyond anything I actually know.” Mr. Lawyer withdrew this line — and this line only — because it was not a Wilson talking point. That is, Doug Wilson has never accused Natalie of this, at least to my knowledge. Thus he wrote, “My interview with Hunter would have gone just fine had I stuck to what I actually know, and not run off into speculation.”

Now notice what Mr. Lawyer did not retract:

I don’t know if there was anything that we could have done differently and I don’t think that there’s anything that we can do that we haven’t already done with or for Natalie. She’s bitter and she’s angry and she’s upset and she’s grabbing on to being a victim. (@ :08)

Greenfields put Natalie and Jamin next to each other. From what I’ve seen of journals and things like that, Natalie was not opposed to that at the time. In fact, she was madly in love with Jamin. (@ :56)

Then he moved away and got in all kinds of his own trouble separate from that and got kicked out of Greyfriars Hall and then moved away and got engaged to someone else and when that happened then Natalie — the news came out about Natalie. (@ 1:49)

Mike Lawyer let all this stand because these are the Wilson talking points, and Mr. Lawyer does not have permission to disagree with or contradict Doug Wilson.

Mike Lawyer did his job. He emptied his clip in Natalie. Took a few more shots with his apology. And successfully advanced Doug Wilson’s narrative. He did not correct the record and he did not make restitution. Textbook Kirk confession.

6 Comments

  1. Or as those of us old enough to remember Watergate might call it, a non-confession confession.

    After all, if the crimes don’t get you, the cover-up will.

    1. Hi Valerie, That is a very good question. The answer is that Doug Wilson believes that the private diary of a 13–15-year-old girl incriminates her as a voluntary participant in her own rape. Therefore, he and his minions cite it as primary evidence to impeach Natalie’s credibility.

      Natalie freely admits that she had a teenage crush on Mr. Wight. Of course she did! He was 24. Handsome. Bleached blonde hair. Surfer’s tan. Extremely charismatic. Well liked by everyone in the community. Hell, I would have had a crush on him. And Natalie documented her crush in her journals. Therefore, because this teenage girl was infatuated with a man 10 years her senior, Doug Wilson believes that she consented to her rape and therefore it was not rape. Doug Wilson uses this argument to buttress the “secret courtship” argument. Natalie’s private journals are Wilson’s only exculpatory evidence on behalf of Jamin Wight, whom Wilson is personally invested in exonerating.

      And in case you don’t know, Idaho code denies that a child can legally consent to sex. The code in 2002 when these events occurred identified a child as anyone below the age of 18. This means that Doug Wilson predicates his argument on a legal impossibility. Moreover, since Idaho code defines a child as anyone under 18, the State served notice that Wight could not use Natalie’s journals in his defense. So, again, Doug Wilson predicates his argument on another legal impossibility. Doug Wilson knows these facts because the State notified him. But he ignores them anyway.

  2. You say that Doug Wilson predicates his argument on a legal impossibility…
    He justifies himself by being above the law because in his world and in the world of the patriarch movement Old Testament trumps civil law in every possible way even if they have to twist it to make it work for them. It is a cult!
    Our family came out of this movement after watching a pastors 24 year old son molest a 11 year old girl with not only no official consciences but a public statement the he would not be under church discipline hours after the revelation because he had repented. Then the girls family was within days, publicly shunned for harboring unforgiveness for the slim. UNBELIEVABLE! We tried to stay and help fix it and it was unfixable due to a father/man worship doctrine. God help those who stay in that movement!!

  3. For those new here there are several interesting points to this, and statements by others involved in the Kirk.

    1) Doug Wilson appears to have either seen, or have a copy of Natalie’s diaries. The diaries were sealed by the court which convicted Jamin Wight, so theoretically no one in the Kirk should have been able to access the copies that the court holds.

    2) Natalie has posted some of her diary entries from that time, That indicates that she is probably still in possession of the originals.

    3) While her mother remains in the Kirk, Natalie appears to be on good terms with her.

    4) Her father left the Kirk and joined the Eastern Orthodox faith. Natalie is on good terms with her father.

    5) How come so many Kirk officers starting, with Doug Wilson at the top, and including Mike Lawyer, have seen Natalie’s diaries? Doug Wilson made a statement at one time which indicated he was willing to publish Natalie’s diaries. To do this he would have to be in possession of the diaries. How did he obtain copies? Did he obtain copies legally, or illegally?

    I’m not a local, and my interest in the situation it is intellectual, not emotional. It was a horrible situation for Natalie to go through, and the Kirk appears to have taken a typical Calvinista line: protect the man involved, and to hell with the Jezebel who led him astray (with some such Jezebels being two years old).

    Possibly Ulysses can fill in some of the blanks I’ve left.

Comments are closed.