I’ve been watching the response of Christians to David Wood’s flippant and explicit admission of statutory rape, and overwhelmingly what I have seen has left me convinced that the church is not a safe place for victims. Many of you have confused *admission,* *cessation,* and *remorse* with contrition, confession and repentance. Perhaps remorse isn’t possible for Wood because of his condition. That’s ok — it’s the weakest indicator of repentance anyway. It can be performed. And often we are remorseful only because of the impact on ourselves. But contrition? That would be achievable and apparent. It is an attitude and posture that would look like humility, graciousness to pushback, and willingness to deeply consider whether he treated this too cavalierly. I have not seen that. What about confession? Has he done that? I don’t think so. Confession would involved accountability. What Wood did was admission: he acknowledged that he committed a crime. Confession would mean disclosing to the authorities for the sake of justice—not to an audience for an object lesson on the evil of Muhammad. It would mean fully accepting that he was at fault for choosing to violate minors for his gratification. It would mean willingness to face the legal consequences. It would mean registering as a sex offender. Do you see the difference? Admission serves only Wood and his audience. Everyone gets to feel good about supporting the reformed abuser and score points against an enemy. Confession, however, works for the justice of victims and safety of others. Similarly, “repentance” does not mean “cessation from rape” and “successful internet ministry.” Imagine if Zaccheaus’ repentance had looked like that! Repentance would mean working for the good of those he harmed — protecting their dignity, contributing funds towards their therapy if he has them. It would mean learning about the damage done, and then learning how to properly discuss those topics (of at all!) so as not to cause harm, both to those victims and to the other victims who hear. Do you see the difference? Cessation is passive, and largely beneficial to oneself and one’s reputation. Repentance is actively working to repair the damage at cost to oneself. And here is my profound concern: I don’t think other men in the church could even lead him towards that because I don’t think I’ve ever seen true repentance, in my entire life, from a perpetrator in the church. What I usually see is the perpetrator treated as though they are a victim. Men appeared in droves to surround their brother and defend HIS dignity, despite the fact that the bodies of two teen girls were violated and then discussed like objects in front of hundreds of thousands of strangers on the internet. No one gave a single thought to the victims, to justice, to safety. It was enough for them that THEY enjoyed his ministry — victims of abuse be damned! And if I or any victim is angry watching this play out because we know the cost — in our own bodies, our own life, in the lives and bodies of our daughters and friends — well, then we are man haters. We are unforgiving. If we express concern for safety, knowing the profoundly high chance of reoccurrence, we have no faith. Is this the righteousness of the church? Does it simply exist for the restoration of men’s reputations? Is it a place where men can safely and openly talk about sodomizing a teen girl because it’s under the blood? Is the church ever going to be a safe place that restores dignity to victims? Or are these girls, and every girl like them, simply acceptable collateral in the kingdom of God. Look me in the face and answer honestly: did God truly design the cost of both the violation and the restoration to be carried on the shoulders of those who are harmed? I cannot imagine that he did. #churchtoo