And yet, instead of trumpeting my loyalty to this most reasonable cause, Brightbill drags me into the fray, pretending that I think that a parent-approved courtship in a situation like the one in the case she mentions mitigates anything. It mitigates nothing. ‘Mitigates’ would mean that Crime X becomes, as a result of this mitigation, crime x. Rather, my hostility to this kind of thinking meant that I thought that Crime X was actually Crime Y. It means ‘statutory rape’ instead of ‘lewd and lascivious.’
“This brings us to a broader point, one we cannot emphasize enough: A pastor is walking into a minefield, and runs a high risk of causing harm to victims, confusion to the public, and doubt about his own ministry, when he ventures into legal questions, especially in criminal cases. Presuming to raise issues as to whether a defendant is a ‘sexual predator,’ or whether he is properly charged with ‘L and L’ is wading into the deep end where it isn’t prudent for pastors to go. The legal system is its own world, it operates according to its own definitions, and it often uses terms quite differently than ordinary citizens would. Weighing in on whether a defendant is a ‘sexual predator’ or whether he is properly charged with a certain crime is almost certain to cause unintended harm. For example, it can easily suggest to victims, even as it did in both the Wight case and the Sitler case, that the crimes against them are being minimized by the church. And to what end? An opinion from a local pastor will typically be accorded no weight at all by the legal system, especially in a criminal case. Moreover, a criminal defendant will be represented by counsel (even if he cannot afford one). In the Wight case, Wight was represented by competent counsel, fully conversant with the criminal law, who was more than capable of ensuring Wight was appropriately charged. By far the best practice for pastors is to refrain from interjecting themselves into the legal system; if they are asked to respond to a certain question or speak to a certain issue, they should stick to the facts, if any are known to them, and beyond that, say nothing.”
Presiding Ministers’ Report, 9
Violent rape is a judgment of God upon a people. . . . Here the rape is not being perpetrated by foreign soldiers, but is the result of citizens turning on one another. Douglas Wilson
One of the fundamental laws of life, and therefore of business, is that you get more of what you subsidize, and less of what you penalize. In every social context, certain behaviors are rewarded (in some way), and other behaviors are not rewarded. Once the calculus of blessings and curses, rewards and disincentives, is done, you will have less of what you chastised, and more of what you blessed.
“According to DC Wullenwaber, Sitler had, to the best of Wullenwaber’s recollection, 14 ‘touching’ victims and 3 ‘sight’ (voyeurism) victims. Of the ‘touching victims,’ most were under 12, all were non-consensual (by law), none were ‘forcible,’ and many of the victims did not know the touching had occurred (for they were asleep, etc).”
CREC Presiding Ministers’ Report
Rape is a criminal act for which the rapist alone is responsible. This is well settled law.
— Boz Tchividjian (@BozT) July 5, 2017
In other words, if God will not judge the rapist on the Last Day, then all the feminist screeds in the world should not make a rapist feel bad about what he is doing. A great desire is evident in our culture to ‘absolutize’ the evil of rape, but since the process is an arbitrary one, suspended in midair, there is no reason to take it seriously (Fidelity, pp. 81–82).
One consequence of rejecting the protection of good men is that you are opening yourself up to the predations of bad men. I fully acknowledge that this is not what such women think they are doing. They think they are rejecting the patriarchy, or some other icky thing, but when they have walked away from the protections of fathers and brothers, what it amounts to is a tacit (implicit, in principle, not overt) acceptance of the propriety of rape.
The theology of a slut walk, however, by its outrageous embrace of slutty dress, behavior, and thought, absolutely and definitively rejects any level of moral responsibility for anything. Now lest I be misunderstood at this point — which I understand has happened before! — let me hasten to add that I am not seeking to minimize or excuse violent sexual behavior, or otherwise absolve rapists in any way. If somebody kidnapped and raped the most outrageous organizer of the worst slut pride event ever, I would want to see that rapist punished to the fullest extent of the law. I am not defending the rapist. I am simply pointing out that his victim was a person who had given herself to organizing events built on a theology that, when applied consistently elsewhere, fully justifies rape. I do not justify rape; she does.
“Sex with a woman who is not consenting is rape whether it happens on a date or the guy hides in the woods (I would say that sex with a woman who is not your wife is a kind of rape as well, but that’s another issue). In both cases it is violent and in both cases it is a sexual act. We can talk about both of these aspects, but we must never separate them.”
Rape is not defined as sexual intercourse. Rape is sexual intercourse that is contrary to the revealed will of God in a particular way.
Sarah Moon writes here about complementarianism’s ‘ugly relationship with rape.’ She poses two questions of us bad people, and they are as follows — first, how do we define rape? And secondly, what do we propose to do about it?
Okay. I would define rape as having any kind of sexual relationship with someone apart from or against her or his consent. So far, so good, probably, but she then objects to our recognition of the possibility of varying degrees of foolishness on the part of the victim, and she interprets this recognition as somehow meaning ‘when they say they are against rape they don’t mean all rape.’
At the same time, of course, we should make allowances for those situations where an abused girl was never given the opportunity to become a responsible adult. If a trusted spiritual leader starts abusing a girl when she is 14, it is not as though, after 7 years of abuse, a magic moment happens when she turns 21, making it easy for her to now walk away. In a situation like that, the word victim is appropriate. But we ought to reserve the word for situations like it, and not use it in circumstances like this one.