Recently the well-known apologist David Wood made a public confession: before he became a Christian, between stints in prison, he had sex with two girls, aged 13 and 15. Apparently at least one of these incidents happened on his 18th birthday, so technically he was probably "of age," "and the act is legally deemed as 'rape.'"
Christian investigative journalists for The Roys Report pounced.
First, a writer named Mark Kellner wrote a sloppy and over-the-top hit piece against Wood. How do I know it was sloppy? Here is a list of corrections the site had to make afterwards:
"CORRECTION: TRR has made several corrections to this article, most notably the characterization of Wood as “boasting” about his sexual misconduct and Aydemir as laughing it off. This was the interpretation of the reporter, given the demeanor of both men. But Wood clearly acknowledges his behavior was wrong. We apologize for the mischaracterization. Also, we initially stated that Wood “rejects” moral conventions but changed to “rejected,” showing his change in views. TRR also removed a sentence claiming that the 6% dislike ratio of the video with Wood’s confession shows a “normalization” of the behavior Wood describes. TRR has instead inserted several sentences, which more accurately explain why the audience did not respond negatively to Wood’s confession. We also corrected a misquote"
Others, they let slide, apparently feeling the list was getting too long. More on that later.
"Psychopath" here refers to Wood's admitted psychological condition. Wood has freely spoken of his criminal past, his disorder, how he became a Christian, and his friendship with the famous Muslim convert to Christianity, the late Nabeel Qureshi.
You might expect me to take Roys' side in this debate. When I encountered girls the same age being exploited in Asian sex industries, I went outside, stared at the stars and prayed for hours. If I felt empathy for them, I believe that was a revelation from God. I dedicated much time and energy to trying to help them and (like Roys) to wake up the Church. I sent letters to hundreds of pastors warning of the evil (real letters, six pages long, printed on my dime, hand-addressed and mailed.) I flew to investigate abuse of young women in Thailand, China, Japan, and the Philippines. I wrote articles exposing the trade in an English-language newspaper in Taiwan.
This, I believed, was a response to God's love for exploited tribal teenagers.
Now I am an historian of religion, and remain concerned about sexual exploitation of minor girls. (Such as the horrific grooming and abuse gangs in the United Kingdom.) After years of research, I recently completed the first volume of How Jesus has Liberated Women. In that book, following my calling as a young man, and years of research, I offer what I believe to be a definitive case that Jesus Christ has lifted billions of women to greater freedom, around the world.
So I hate child abuse. And I appreciate exposure of corruption.
Nor do I favor teenage sex. I argue, in the book, that one of the benefits of early Christianity lay in allowing girls to marry later, thus avoiding youthful childbirth, which was dangerous, and hopefully get an education.
As a teacher, I sometimes wished I could take a fire hose and wash my students down. Wait, kids! Get established in life and commit yourself in marriage, before making babies of your own!
Nevertheless, while she does make some good points, and it is more restrained than Kellner, I find Roys' attack on Wood theologically problematic, sometimes over-the-top, and often unfair.
Below I quote most of her article, analyzing her argument paragraph by paragraph. I then summarize my conclusions, including points that I think she gets right, and others she seems to have overlooked in the rush to judgement.
Argument and Analysis
"Can a Psychopath and Rapist be Fit for Ministry?"
This a bizarre headline and a strange comment.
First of all, the headline is little more accurate than asking of St. Paul, "Can a Pharisee and a Murderer be Fit for Ministry?" Murder was a crime he had committed before he met Jesus, not something that defined him decades later. If one believes in Christianity, one must cherish the concept of repentance: as Paul put it, "If any man is in Christ, he is a new creation." Paul also wrote:
"Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of
God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
Not such "are" some of you, but such "were" some of you. The verb itself can be taken as present tense, but the context -- then you were washed, sanctified, and justified -- shows that these definitions now belong to the past.
Putting "rapist" in the present tense is, therefore, wrong. David Wood WAS (perhaps, though I find the word problematic, see below) a "rapist," but does not seem to be one now. Roys ought to ask, "Can a FORMER rapist, murderer, or prostitute, serve in ministry?" But then the answer would be too obvious, to anyone who knows the Bible, and her question would lose its punch. So with that headline, she seems to be sacrificing good theology for lively journalism.
And in the linked clip, Wood repeatedly emphasizes that he was "one of the most evil people" around, with obvious emotion. How is that not remorse?
"Wood also minimized his crime, characterizing the girls as 'willing participants,' though what he described is deemed rape or some similar sex crime in all 50 states. Thirteen- and 15-year-olds cannot give consent."
Far from "minimizing" his act, Wood brought it up himself, without prodding. Roys would never have known about it otherwise. It is a confession. Nor did he make excuses for his actions, but emphasized, even exaggerated his guilt. In the past, he has described how he attacked his father and injured him severely. How should it be described as "minimizing" the act to point out that they took the initiative?
Far from "minimizing" his act, Wood brought it up himself, without prodding. Roys would never have known about it otherwise. It is a confession. Nor did he make excuses for his actions, but emphasized, even exaggerated his guilt. In the past, he has described how he attacked his father and injured him severely. How should it be described as "minimizing" the act to point out that they took the initiative?
Wood would be lying to fail to point out that these young women were "willing," if indeed they were. (And of course Roys has no evidence to the contrary.) It would be like saying, "I went into my neighbors house and ate his dinner," without mentioning that he had invited me in for the meal.
It is also relevant to his a fortiori argument against Islam to point out that unlike Aisha, these girls were volunteers.
What is "Rape?"
What about that word "rape," which everyone seems to agree is appropriate? Wood uses it freely of his unsaved self. The law seems to agree. Wood's critics use the word repeatedly, often without qualification, even in the present tense, which is slander. And I can see the point of such laws: one can use them to go after groomers, pimps, and Epstein type abusers. But I feel serious misgivings about using it in this context, certainly without careful qualification, for six reasons:
1. Having worked to rescue girls from forced prostitution and rape, I am troubled by use of the same term to describe actions willingly taken, between consenting teenagers. That seems to cheapen the outrage of what those who are violently violated go through, and the evil of genuinely forced or coerced sex.
2. Even if modern American law describes sex between an adult, defined as over 18, and an underage teenager, as "statutory rape," and I agree it should be vigorously discouraged, such relations between an 18-year-old and a 15-year-old can certainly be mutual or "willing" as Wood put it in the normal sense, as has been recognized throughout history. Shakespeare's Juliet was 13. "A child cannot give consent" may be useful legal fiction, but having taught 7th and 9th Graders, I do not always observe such passivity in relations among young people that age. Some are quite aggressive. Dealing with that is sometimes difficult for a teacher: "Go back to your own desk!" "Keep your hands to yourself!" Not only to boys.
We rightly wish to protect our children. But let us not be naive.
2. Even if modern American law describes sex between an adult, defined as over 18, and an underage teenager, as "statutory rape," and I agree it should be vigorously discouraged, such relations between an 18-year-old and a 15-year-old can certainly be mutual or "willing" as Wood put it in the normal sense, as has been recognized throughout history. Shakespeare's Juliet was 13. "A child cannot give consent" may be useful legal fiction, but having taught 7th and 9th Graders, I do not always observe such passivity in relations among young people that age. Some are quite aggressive. Dealing with that is sometimes difficult for a teacher: "Go back to your own desk!" "Keep your hands to yourself!" Not only to boys.
We rightly wish to protect our children. But let us not be naive.
3. One of these experiences apparently occurred on Wood's 18th birthday. Would any prosecutor in America try a young man who had just turned 18, for having sex with a willing young woman not much more than two years his junior? (Who claimed to be 17?) The thirteen year old is, admittedly, an even worse case, as Wood himself acknowledges.
I have read that girls without fathers in the home tend to mature physically sooner than girls with a father in the home. This is one of many reasons why the Christian model of the family is most healthy. Broken homes tend to perpetuate broken homes and violence.
4. In ordinary language, the word "rape" carries the connotation of compulsion. That is how we usually use the word, even in secondary meanings ("the rape of France"), and that's how it is normally interpreted. The Chinese word 强奸 makes this explicit. So to say "rape," especially without careful qualification, is misleading and even implicitly slanderous. People easily misunderstand.
While the law may define sex between a young man who just turned 18 and a 15 year old as "rape," but not the day before, the claim that a young woman that age "cannot give consent" is a legal fiction. It is legally useful to pretend otherwise, but Roys equivocates — she quotes Wood's ordinary English word "willing," then takes "consenting" in the legal sense as a synonym. But clearly, they do not mean the same thing. It makes perfect sense to say a person is "willing" even if they cannot legally give consent.
So why does Wood use the word "rape" himself? I think his critics misunderstand that, as I'll explain later.
5. Is it wise and loving to deny the agency of young women? Doesn't that run the danger of patronizing them, when they should be called to repentance as responsible moral actors?
There seems to be a conflict between calling for equality between the sexes, and treating young women and young men who make wrong choices in different ways. Sometimes men do use superior strength to coerce, and that marks the utility of such laws. But unless that has been shown to have happened in this case, the choices of both should be recognized as wrong -- if nothing else, to lend women dignity.
How much more respectfully Jane Austen treated teenage girls. While their parents are blamed for lax supervision, Austen makes it clear that Lydia Bennet, even before she turns 15, is responsible for her wrong actions. Her second-oldest sister is almost constantly infuriated with her for that very reason. Her lover, like the young Wood, is a scoundrel, but she is not treated by Austen or her wiser sisters as innocent.
How much more respectfully Jane Austen treated teenage girls. While their parents are blamed for lax supervision, Austen makes it clear that Lydia Bennet, even before she turns 15, is responsible for her wrong actions. Her second-oldest sister is almost constantly infuriated with her for that very reason. Her lover, like the young Wood, is a scoundrel, but she is not treated by Austen or her wiser sisters as innocent.
6. And might not the refusal to blame young women bring trouble later in life, and cause them to make trouble? "I was just a child, I didn't know any better." Girls at 13 or 15 can have babies. They had better be taught to be responsible before that happens.
So while I affirm the need to hold older teenagers responsible in their relations with younger teenagers, I don't think it's moral progress to lose the wisdom and balance Jane Austen showed in Pride and Prejudice.
Wood's "Smirk" and Apologetics to Muslims
"He also very crassly described that the 13-year-old 'had big boobs and wide hips,' highlighting that she was 'post-pubescent.' He also appears to smirk while talking about his sodomy of the 15-year-old."
Apparently Wood's crime as a Christian is that alleged smirk. That is not how I saw the video. I doubt Roys understands Wood's emotions very well, or the point he is making. In any case, that alleged "smirk" seems to be the most offensive aspect of the clip for many viewers, which is a dangerously subjective way to judge a man.
Apparently Wood's crime as a Christian is that alleged smirk. That is not how I saw the video. I doubt Roys understands Wood's emotions very well, or the point he is making. In any case, that alleged "smirk" seems to be the most offensive aspect of the clip for many viewers, which is a dangerously subjective way to judge a man.
Wood is an apologist to Muslims. He argues against Islam, and that is the point of this conversation. I think he was really saying something like this:
"My Muslim critics accuse me of rape, for having had sex (before I found Jesus) with teenage girls. I was a horrible person before my conversion, and those were horrible acts. But those girls were, at least, physically developed. And they, at least took the initiative. And I had just turned 18. What, then, shall we say of your prophet, who took a little girl into his home, almost certainly without her consent in any sense, and began sleeping with her when she was only 9? And he was over 50? And never repented? So call me a 'rapist,' if you like: I was a rotten human being, and felt no compunction about committing violence, either. But then you condemn your religion from your own mouth, because your prophet committed exponentially worse crimes on three axis."
Perhaps one could find a smirk in all this, and perhaps it was inappropriate — that Wood is weak in empathy, he is the first to admit. The point many of his listeners have gained (including me) is, "God can even save someone like that!"
But notice how Kellner responded:
"Wood posted another video Monday, using criticism by Muslim viewers as a way to trash the Prophet Mohammed."
So is criticizing a religious leader for sexual sins "trashing" them? Then what is Kellner doing?
Look at the analogy Wood was making more closely:
1. As a late teenager, long before conversion, Wood confessed that he had sex with two younger teenagers, actions which he described as "rape," calling his former self an "evil" person.
In his 50s, Mohammed had sex with a 9 year old. And this is before modern medicine, when child-birth was extremely dangerous for children and early teens.
2. Wood's acts were, so far as anyone knows and he says (being the only source for these stories) consensual on both parts, and willing and eager on the part of his partners.
Mohammed's "wife" seems to have had no choice in the matter, and probably little comprehension.
3. Wood has repented of his actions and seems to have forsaken such congresses. Mohammed accumulated a larger and larger harem, raping and murdering and waging war and selling people into slaves.
So even while criticizing Wood for a long-repented crime of much smaller magnitude, why does Kellner (even in this corrected version of his article) describe criticizing Mohammed as "trashing?" Is such criticism legitimate, or not?
It seems even some Christian investigative journalists are afraid to treat the more powerful person with disrespect. But they'll go after a repentant former Christian who doesn't come across as sufficiently empathetic. (That isn't Wood's gift, one might concede.)
So is criticizing a religious leader for sexual sins "trashing" them? Then what is Kellner doing?
Look at the analogy Wood was making more closely:
1. As a late teenager, long before conversion, Wood confessed that he had sex with two younger teenagers, actions which he described as "rape," calling his former self an "evil" person.
In his 50s, Mohammed had sex with a 9 year old. And this is before modern medicine, when child-birth was extremely dangerous for children and early teens.
2. Wood's acts were, so far as anyone knows and he says (being the only source for these stories) consensual on both parts, and willing and eager on the part of his partners.
Mohammed's "wife" seems to have had no choice in the matter, and probably little comprehension.
3. Wood has repented of his actions and seems to have forsaken such congresses. Mohammed accumulated a larger and larger harem, raping and murdering and waging war and selling people into slaves.
So even while criticizing Wood for a long-repented crime of much smaller magnitude, why does Kellner (even in this corrected version of his article) describe criticizing Mohammed as "trashing?" Is such criticism legitimate, or not?
It seems even some Christian investigative journalists are afraid to treat the more powerful person with disrespect. But they'll go after a repentant former Christian who doesn't come across as sufficiently empathetic. (That isn't Wood's gift, one might concede.)
But I don't think he was smirking about his sexual sin. He repeatedly condemned his past self.
Talking about this with a friend who follows Roys, I realized we were coming at their disagreement from different perspectives: she knew and respected the journalist for her work, while I knew a bit about Wood and where he was coming from. Maybe we were both too quick to judge.
Reaction from Wood's followers
"Normally, this kind of flippant confession and minimization would be deemed unconscionable. But I was deluged with negative feedback for publishing the story about Wood, and called a litany of names by his followers."
I'm not one of Wood's "followers:" I am sorry that people online are often so rude. Perhaps Wood encourages that in some way. But I do find your attack on him problematic.
"As Alyssa DeGraff, an advocate for sex abuse survivors, noted in response to comments like these: “The talk around this is really unsettling, especially in the context of recent Epstein chaos & commentary around ‘almost legal’ minors. Vulnerability doesn’t end with puberty. A 15-yr-old victim can 100% suffer lifelong PTSD.'”
So can a newly-hatched 18 year old. Personally, I think young people should wait until 20 or so until even thinking about the other sex. But I doubt a girl who goes to a party like that and drags a known criminal into a bedroom is likely to suffer PTSD from getting what she desires.
So can a newly-hatched 18 year old. Personally, I think young people should wait until 20 or so until even thinking about the other sex. But I doubt a girl who goes to a party like that and drags a known criminal into a bedroom is likely to suffer PTSD from getting what she desires.
"I was especially surprised (and disappointed) that Bible teacher and YouTube personality Mike Winger defended Wood without noting any of these issues.
“'Your report, which I just read, very much came off as a hit piece and not an accurate telling of what happened,' Winger said. “You’d come off that article thinking David was casually chatting about it like it was just another fact. As if he went to McDonald’s Tuesday and also raped two girls.”
"Yet, when I pointed out that that’s precisely how Wood sounded . . . "
Not to me.
"Winger pivoted and expressed what’s become the dominant point among Wood’s defenders:
Not to me.
"Winger pivoted and expressed what’s become the dominant point among Wood’s defenders:
“'Yes. He sounds casual,' Winger replied. 'David always sounds casual because he is a diagnosed psychopath.'”
"Others were less charitable, questioning my mental abilities for failing to grasp this point.
"But I get the point. And our article acknowledged that Wood has been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder.
"This raises an important question, though: Can a (current) psychopath and (former) rapist be fit for ministry?"
I am tempted to ask in response, "Can an uncharitable and careless journalist be fit for ministry?"
Again, whether or not St. Paul had flings as a teenager, we know that he committed murder. And God found him fit enough. "In my weakness, He is made strong."
That is the point of Christianity, isn't it?
Again, whether or not St. Paul had flings as a teenager, we know that he committed murder. And God found him fit enough. "In my weakness, He is made strong."
That is the point of Christianity, isn't it?
"Prior to covering this story, this is not something I’d ever considered. I wasn’t aware there were any admitted psychopaths in ministry. And certainly, an apologetics ministry is different than a pastoral ministry, where someone is responsible for shepherding another human soul.
"Still, my initial response, which I expressed on X, is that psychopathy is a serious handicap because expressing proper emotions is key to imitating Christ and developing trust with others."
Yet Wood led Nabeel Qureshi to Christ. So again to cite that former murderer St. Paul, it seems that the eye should not say to the ear, "I have no need of you."
Long-Distance Psychoanalysis
"But I’m certainly no expert in this area. So, I consulted someone I trust who is — Phil Monroe, lead psychologist of Langberg, Monroe & Associates.
"Like the sociopath and narcissist, a psychopath lacks empathy and has the willingness to use others, Monroe wrote in email correspondence.
“'Clearly, in this video, (Wood) expresses no real empathy for the young girls and his impact on them,' Monroe noted. 'He expresses no empathy about the listener. He is the center of the story. He even somewhat chastises the embarrassment of the other guy (fellow apologist Ridvan Aydemir).
“I could guess he would say the context is his attack on Muslims who are saying he can’t attack the Prophet for child rape since he also did child rape. But no apparent awareness that anyone else might be listening in.”
Whether Wood can serve in ministry is not a question not some random psychologist who offers an opinion on a man he has never consulted can answer. That question is for Wood, his spiritual advisers, and to a much lesser extent, for those who consult the Scriptures and observe the fruits of Wood's conversion. (And for God Himself.)
And it is ridiculous to claim both that Wood "expresses no empathy" and makes himself "the center of the story" when that story is about his sin and how God saved an "evil" young man! Monroe could criticize Paul in almost the same words:
"Paul 'gives his testimony' without even mentioning the suffering of those he persecuted, making the story all about him."
"Paul 'gives his testimony' without even mentioning the suffering of those he persecuted, making the story all about him."
The whole point of Paul's story is how Jesus appeared and saved him from sin. That is also the point of Wood's story, along with the fact that Mohammed is an even less worthy model to follow.
"These things make Wood a poor representative of Christ in the video. And I couldn’t help thinking how his shocking demeanor would come across to the Muslims he supposedly is trying to reach.
"Yes, he may have brilliant arguments against Islam. But who would be attracted to the faith of someone who talks in such a self-centered and shockingly calloused way? Though Wood admitted what he did was wrong, he didn’t express any concern for the girls he harmed. His only concern seemed to be winning his argument with an adversary and scoring points with his audience."
I find it rather unprofessional for a psychologist to offer a diagnosis of a "patient" whom he has never talked to directly, and apparently knows little about, based on his subjective impression from a few minutes of video.
And the pretense, again, is that before his conversion, Wood "harmed" those girls, more than they harmed him, though there is no evidence either way, and what evidence there is suggests that they were more or less equally in the wrong. Only Wood admits his sin and condemns his former self. And hopefully has not committed those sins again.
As for Wood's effectiveness as an apologist, that's a legitimate question. I think it should be answered empirically, not in the abstract. But yes, possible harm as well as "souls saved" should both be counted.
Wood may understand the mindset of Muslim males better than Monroe does, though. I have often found Muslims much more up front and frank about differences between religions than, say, East Asians. Taiwanese used to say "All religions teach people to be good." I think that's a simplification, and so, it seems, do most Muslims.
This is probably also a matter of personality and of gender.
This is probably also a matter of personality and of gender.
"And, as Monroe added, 'Let’s say for argument’s sake that he is able to speak truth about right/wrong and is excellent in apologetics. . . . If he is unable to care about his neighbor (i.e. the listener), then he fails at 1 Cor. 13, which tells us that human gifts without love fail the test of godly behavior.'”
I don't see great love in this article or in Monroe's comments, either. "Love believes all things?"
If Wood had pretended to emote over his past partners, I would distrust that. He is publicly abusing his former self. If he has opportunity to apologize and make amends for past wrong actions . . . as perhaps he did with his father . . . then he should take it. But I think love is more than publicly projecting empathy for unnamed people in one's past.
Unedifying Body Language
"Ridvan Aydemir posted a two-hour video, blasting the article The Roys Report (TRR) published and repeatedly calling us “idiots” and “snakes.” Granted, Aydemir had some valid critiques of our article. And as I reviewed what our reporter wrote, I realized he misinterpreted Wood’s demeanor as gleeful and boastful, when it likely was just the way a psychopath recounts such things. I have since corrected the article."
Good to see Joys is willing to correct some uncharitable comments. And "idiot" and "snake" really are going much too far.
"But this just highlights the issue. Numerous studies have concluded that only 7%-10% of communication is verbal. The rest is tone of voice, body language, facial expressions, gestures, etc… If someone is a public communicator like Wood, and his verbal communication is incongruent with his nonverbal communication, that’s a major problem.
"Repeatedly, Aydemir calls me and our reporter liars, rather than acknowledging how difficult it is to interpret conflicting verbal and nonverbal cues."
Not liars, but uncharitable. And you're still making the same basic mistake: you're judging the man not from knowing him, which his "followers" probably do better, but by your subjective and I think often faulty interpretation of non-verbal cues.
Maybe Wood is not the right apologist for you. Does that mean he's wrong for everyone else? Our favorite murderer, again, raises his hand to object:
"The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor."
"The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor."
So maybe both Wood and Roys have something to contribute to the Body of Christ. And it may be that both need to be kinder, as do I, at times.
"But Aydemir also takes us to task for referring to Wood’s sex with minors as rape, arguing that the term signals to people that Wood forcibly had sex with the girls. “But with David Wood, that’s not really the case. David Wood did not engage in forcibly having sex with someone,” Aydemir asserts.
"But Aydemir’s definition of rape is incorrect. Rape is the non-consensual sexual penetration of a person, which can involve force, psychological coercion, or taking advantage of a person who’s unable to voluntarily give consent."
The word can mean either. Rape is popularly taken to refer to sex by force or violent manipulation. Legally, the meaning of the term may be stretched to include sex with minors. And that is legitimate and useful, giving police a weapon against groomers, pimps, and sugar daddies.
But I challenge you to find a prosecutor who would try a case of "rape" in which two teenagers have sex, both willingly, one slightly older than the other. And I challenge you to find a jury that would pronounce such a "criminal" guilty. The law is right to be strict, but prosecutors and juries are right to show common sense. As should journalists.
But I challenge you to find a prosecutor who would try a case of "rape" in which two teenagers have sex, both willingly, one slightly older than the other. And I challenge you to find a jury that would pronounce such a "criminal" guilty. The law is right to be strict, but prosecutors and juries are right to show common sense. As should journalists.
"By defending the indefensible and attacking those who question Wood’s actions, Wood’s followers are doing both him and the cause of Christ a serious disservice. Christians should not be excusing Wood’s shockingly bad communication and self-centeredness but urging him to do better."
I have not seen anyone defend Wood's pre-Christian sex life. He does not. Somehow you seem to miss his repeated condemnation of his earlier action, even to the point of exaggeration. Why wouldn't he find that frustrating? He should be more kind, no doubt, but I can see why his followers would find such misrepresentations aggravating.
"If he is unable to feel empathy, then he should be coached on how to talk appropriately about his crimes against children. And he should educate himself on image repair tactics, like minimization, which he used repeatedly throughout his video. And instead, he should learn how to recognize the harm of his actions and offer sincere apologies to his victims."
Having tried to help girls forced into prostitution, I find perp-victim talk in such a case as borderline Orwellian. Three teenagers sinned, three were sinned against. All parties were using one another for their own desires. Females can sin, too. It is patronizing, and I believe ultimately harmful, to pretend otherwise.
If you insist on being technical about the definition of "adult" and "minor," and say because it was Wood's 18th birthday he was an "adult," that's dubious, too. Perhaps the party was held a day before his birthday. Perhaps his actual time of birth came after the moment in which the act occurred. If you live by technicalities, your argument may also die by them. But use a little common sense and recognize that teenagers were doing stupid and wrong things. Analogies to Epstein, made in one of these articles, are a bit stretched.
"Christians — regardless of their conditions — are required to imitate Christ. This applies to all of us, but it’s especially crucial of those with public platforms. Of course, we all make mistakes — and I’ve had to admit ours in regards to our initial article."
Not her own, an associate's -- but perhaps this critique will draw her attention to her own uncharitable readings.
"But for the sake of the Kingdom, Wood needs to apologize for the way he spoke of raping teen girls. He should acknowledge not just that it was wrong, but that it potentially caused serious harm to the young girls. He should also apologize for the immature way he responded to criticism. Using sarcasm and snark is not the way to engage with fellow believers, though sadly, these tactics are often rewarded on social media.
"These are serious issues, and they deserve serious engagement. And this is an opportunity for Wood to model for his audience — both Christian and non-Christian — how to humbly own and repent for wrong behavior.
"Taking these steps would not prove that a psychopath is fit for ministry, but it certainly would be a step in the right direction."
Honestly, I think Roys stands in as much need of introspection, here.
Again she uses the word "rape" unambiguously. Again she speaks of a boy who just turned 18 as if he were Jeffrey Epstein, and girls a few years younger who "threw themselves" on him as "children" and purely as victims. Again she assumes that girls who act that way are harmed, but do no harm, and perhaps suffer PTSD from their own actions. Again she acts the "tone troll," attacking rhetorical styles she dislikes (avoid the prophets and even Jesus, if you don't like sarcasm), when her calling is to find corruption, not to give Miss Manners finishing lessons to impolite apologists.
Again she uses the word "rape" unambiguously. Again she speaks of a boy who just turned 18 as if he were Jeffrey Epstein, and girls a few years younger who "threw themselves" on him as "children" and purely as victims. Again she assumes that girls who act that way are harmed, but do no harm, and perhaps suffer PTSD from their own actions. Again she acts the "tone troll," attacking rhetorical styles she dislikes (avoid the prophets and even Jesus, if you don't like sarcasm), when her calling is to find corruption, not to give Miss Manners finishing lessons to impolite apologists.
Who is Roys to judge "whether a psychopath is fit for ministry?" This sounds like the nose telling the hand, "I have no need of you." Leave such decisions to High Command.
Conclusions
1. Christians should be less rude and more charitable.
When I posted on Roys' Facebook page, I found myself arguing with the female pastor of my church, who has long appreciated her work. Comparing notes in church the next day, it turned out that she knew Roys but not Wood, while I knew a bit about Wood but not Roys. In part, we "took sides" based on our familiarity with opposing parties for whom we felt some respect.
And maybe we were both right: we can learn from one another more about the person we knew and respected, than about the person we doubted but didn't know well.
2. God can use any vessel he chooses. Yes, He may call a former murderer. Yes, a young man with psychological problems, a past history of crime, and a sarcastic edge to his voice. Yes, a journalist who exposes the sins of others, sometimes carelessly, sometimes rushing too quickly to judgement.
3. Like many words, "rape" carries multiple meanings. One should be careful in how one explains and uses such terms, recognizing the connotations of alternative meanings. There is a huge difference between sex with a willing and an unwilling partner.
4. It is and should be illegal for an adult to have sex with a young teen. 18 is a fine place to draw that line. But in journalism, and in law, legal definitions should be applied with common sense.
I remained a virgin throughout my teenage years. And I am confident that no stranger will ever come up to me and accurately say, "Hi, Dad!"
But I am also pretty confident that if you let a well-developed, attractive, and eager young teen girl each at the boys in almost any town on their 18th birthdays, then prosecuted every young man who said "Groovy!", the prison in that town would get crowded.
The ancients at times suggested that Eros (or Ishtar) was the most powerful god. Let's not pretend he/ she acted only on one gender, or has blunted his or her arrows.
I offer a two-pronged alternative strategy: (1) Tell the boys not to do it. (2) Tell the girls not to do it. Invoke your love, the love of God, and good old fashioned fear as needed. Oh, and don't let them go to wild, unsupervised parties.
5. The language of "allies" is not so helpful. Such terminology sounds like the sexes are at war, or there is some fundamental moral divide between them. While I have sought to defend women who were abused, and have written numerous articles promoting peace between China and America, I do not see myself as an "ally" of women, Chinese, blacks, browns, people with green hair, accountants, or any other identity group.
We are called to be servants of God. Sometimes we are also described as sons and daughters. We are made in the image of God — male and female — and alike sin in Adam and Eve. There is therefore neither male nor female, Greek nor Jew, rich nor poor, everyone has power, everyone abuses power, and God alone is our judge. That is not just theology, in my view, it is an expression of empirical reality.
6. The body is one, but functions and parts in that body many. David Wood is going to drive some people up the wall. So is Julie Roys. And my style seems to irritate some people as well. That's fine.
7. It often helps to engage in introspection. You know, what Jesus said about logs and splinters. It is not "us versus them," it is us versus ourselves. When there is abuse in the church, we should point it out. Your calling is righteous, Julie Roys. And I have tried to do the same at times. But in the process, that 1st Century serial-killer-evangelist again advised, we should "take heed, let we fall."
No comments:
Post a Comment