Statute of Limitations for Sex Crimes Archives

Dr. David Tee Continues to Defend Preachers Who Commit Sex Crimes

Bruce Gerencser June 21, 2024 Evangelicalism 9 Comments

david thiessen — David Tee/Derrick Thomas Thiessen is the tall man in the back

I know some of you are tired of me mentioning Dr. David Tee (whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen) on this site. I’m sick of mentioning him too. However, I can’t and won’t ignore his defense of clerics who commit sex crimes. I’ve met thousands of Christians over the years. I’ve never known a Christian with such callous disregard for the pain, suffering, and heartache of others. Whether out of some sort of misguided understanding of justice and forgiveness or a need to cover up past misconduct in his own life, Thiessen refuses to accept how offensive (and immoral) his words really are.

What follows is an excerpt from Thiessen’s latest post, @MeChurch 3, and my response to it. Please see @Me Church 2, and @MeChurch to read Thiessen’s other defenses of Evangelical preachers who molest children. All spelling, grammar, punctuation, and irrationality in the original.

How many people have had their lives and careers, not to mention their faith, ruined because Christians and others demand their pound of flesh far above what God demands? In this specific case, we can understand these moves better if Mr. Morris had not repented and lived a life that continually practiced this sin.

Mr. Morris is Evangelical megachurch pastor Robert Morris, who recently resigned after he was exposed for sexually assaulting a twelve-year-old church girl in the 1980s. The abuse continued for several years. Morris admitted assaulting the girl, acknowledging that his church knew about his crime — and yes, he committed a crime — at the time it happened. Morris briefly stepped away from preaching, then returned to the pulpit as if nothing happened. Ain’t God good, right? (Please see What Are We to Make of an Evangelical Preacher Who Defends a Pastor Who Sexually Assaulted a Twelve-Year-Old Girl?)

Morris committed a crime — a felony sex crime. What the Bible says doesn’t matter. Thiessen thinks he has intimate knowledge of God’s thoughts, but he doesn’t. And what God “thinks” on the matter doesn’t matter either. We are a nation of laws, and those laws consider Morris’ actions a crime. The only reason he is not in jail is that he can no longer be prosecuted for what he did almost 40 years ago.

Thiessen can’t possibly know if this was a one-off or whether Morris “repented” — as if repentance wipes his slate clean. Thiessen thinks saying “my bad” to God is a get-out-of-jail-free card.

But he had dealt with it, he took his spiritual punishment and paid the price for his actions. No more should be required of him. God promises to forget our sins when we honestly repent and turn from our wicked ways.

How does Thiessen know Morris “dealt with it” — “it” being sexually assaulting a church girl for several years? He demands evidence from me for all sorts of things, but when it comes to Morris molesting a young girl, Thiessen takes his word for it. Why is that?

Christians are not better than God and they should do the same thing when the person has truly repented. Keep in mind that we do not know the exact nature of his repentance or experience with God at that time. We are not judging that part of this story as we do not know what God did at that time.

Thiessen says he is not judging Morris, but he most certainly is. He has judged him forgiven. Based on what, exactly? That he said he repented? Child, please.

What we are discussing is the attitude of those Christians and others who think they need to do more than God to make a person pay for the sins they have committed. People outside of those involved do not have the criminal or spiritual authority to demand more than those who have jurisdiction put in place.

People often forget their place and think they can add more to punishment or make the crime more severe than it is for whatever reason they may use to justify their vigilante and kangaroo court justice.

If God has forgiven his sin with that young girl, then no one has the right to hold it over the person’s head forever. Nor do they have the right to add more punishment or destroy the man’s life.

No one is adding more punishment to Morris’ life or trying to destroy him. He did that to himself. What his victim demands is accountability. What people like me demand is that men like Morris are never allowed around children again; that he never pastors a church again. He has forfeited the right to be a pastor.

This brings us to the second possible alternative title of this piece. Is this what it all boils down to? Is a man’s or woman’s life reduced to one sin or crime that will not be forgiven or forgotten by the people?

One sin or crime? Morris committed multiple sins and crimes, and it remains to be seen if other victims come forward. Sadly, Thiessen makes no distinction between filching a grape at the grocery and sexually assaulting a young girl. Both are sins that God can and will forgive if the sinner confesses his sin and repents. Awesome, right? No matter what you do, forgiveness is but a prayer away.

If they have spent 10, 20, or 40 years of excellent service for God or humanity, is that all lost because someone does not like an ancient sin that was dealt with at the time? When did one sin or a previous sinful life overrule what took place after repentance?

Ancient sin? How ancient is Morris’ crime (not a sin or mistake, a CRIME) in the mind of his victim? Thiessen seems clueless to the fact that sexual abuse leaves lifelong scars, often requiring extensive therapy to come to terms with. Note what Thiessen says here: sex crimes committed ten years ago are ancient history. Truth be told, he likely thinks that crimes committed immediately before the act of repentance are “ancient” crimes too.

What good is Christ’s redemption if Christians and others ignore the redemption and faithful life and refuse to restore someone who committed a sin? If anyone takes the attitude ‘God forgives but I won’t’ they are committing a sin just like the person they won’t forgive.

Pay careful attention to what Thiessen is doing. He is blaming the victim. She needs to forgive Morris and move on. He demands sexual abuse victims forgive their abusers, even if they don’t want to. And if they don’t, they are every bit as much of a sinner as their abusers. In other words, in Thiessen’s mind, refusing to forgive is the same in God’s book as sexually abusing children.

OMG, how dare we trample underfoot Jesus’ blood, demanding that sexual predators be held accountable for their crimes. Give me a pair of waders. I plan to keep on stomping on Jesus’ magical blood if it means abuse victims are seen and heard, and their abusers are held accountable for their crimes.

If they want forgiveness then they need to forgive those they refuse to. The Bible says if one wants forgiveness from God they must forgive others who wronged them. We are not speaking out of personal ideology here.

The victim in question does not want forgiveness. Forgiveness is cheap, a bandaid over a gaping wound. What victims generally want is justice and accountability.

God has covered sins and forgiveness throughout the Bible. We must adhere to those words if we want to be an example to others and make an impact for Christ. Jesus said to forgive 7 x 70 and so far we have not seen 1 x 1 for people like Mr. Morris or Mr. Ravi Zacharias.

What we have seen is exacting a pound of flesh for a sin that did not affect anyone who is canceling Mr. Morris. Justice is not up to the victim to decide. God has already determined what is justice and it is best that we learn what it is and implement it properly if we want to truly restore sinning Christians to the church body.

Actually, in a secular society, it is the legal system that determines just punishment, not God, the church, or the Bible. Morris would be in jail now if it weren’t for the expiring statute of limitations.

In our view, a dealt-with sin is no match for a restored, redeemed life that obeys God’s word correctly. Despite what unbelievers want or say, the sin, once dealt with, should be forgotten. Coming back 40+ years later is not a Christian act. It is not biblical teaching and Christians must abide by God’s instructions correctly.

In other words, one aw-shit doesn’t cancel out ten atta-boys. Thiessen desperately wants to think that doing good cancels out sexual misconduct; that if a serial rapist asks Jesus to forgive him, all his victims should forgive him too.

Now I need to go take a shower.

Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

A Longer Statute Of Limitations for Reporting Sexual Abuse: Why It’s Necessary — And Not Enough

Bruce Gerencser January 29, 2019 Evangelicalism 1 Comment

Guest post by by MJ Lisbeth

New York City and State are often seen as liberal, progressive bastions in a conservative nation. Indeed, The Big Apple was a leader in passing laws to protect the rights of tenants, workers and LGBT people, and The Empire State legalized abortion and same-sex marriage before other states and the Federal Government got around to doing the same.

Even so, the city and state have other statutes that seem retrograde and even racist compared to other states. An example of racism is in voting: It’s more difficult to do than in just about any other city or state. And the things that make voting difficult almost invariably place the greatest burdens on the poor, and on ethnic and racial minorities.

Among the laws that are simply retrograde are the ones that governed the reporting of child sexual abuse. Currently, criminal or civil charges can be brought against an abuser until the victim’s 23rd birthday. Only Alabama and Mississippi have more restrictive regulations, while nine other states have no statute of limitations at all.

So why does one of the “blue” islands in a sea of “red” have laws that, frankly, do more to protect the perpetrators than the survivors? One could argue that New York passed such legislation a long time ago, when it didn’t seem quite so restrictive, and simply didn’t bother to change. That could be said about the state’s abortion laws, which allow the procedure up to 24 weeks into the pregnancy. When the law was passed, three years before Roe vs Wade, most states still didn’t allow abortion at all. But, after Roe vs Wade, the relative strength or weakness of New York law didn’t matter, because Federal rulings supersede state statutes.

Likewise, when the state’s current regulations about reporting child abuse were enacted, they may well have been more progressive than those of other states—if, indeed those states had them. Indeed, there was little or no discussion of the issue, and there was a common belief that the victim was somehow at fault—or, at least, should just “move on.” But now the time is long past to acknowledge the pain and suffering too many of us have carried—in some cases, for decades, or even to our graves—and to allow us to achieve whatever measure of justice may be available to us.

On Monday, the New York State Assembly passed, by a vote of 130-3, a bill that would allow prosecutors to bring criminal charges against a perpetrator until the victim’s 28th birthday. It would also give victims the right to sue until they turn 55. In the Senate, every single senator, Democrat and Republican, voted in favor of that same bill, which Governor Andrew Cuomo has promised to sign into law.

If you want to know why this law is so necessary, all you had to do was watch—and, more important, listen—to the press conference that followed the vote in the state Capitol. It included testimony from survivors, some of whom were the very legislators who voted for the bill. A few of them were talking about their abuse for the very first time.

That grown men and women were breaking the silence around sexual abuse they experienced as children and teenagers is a measure of how the law is necessary—yet still inadequate. There are still many of us who grew up in places and times where such abuse wasn’t discussed because the authority of abusers wasn’t questioned. Moreover, whatever education we received included no lessons about our bodies: As I recounted in an earlier essay, when a priest molested me, I didn’t even know the names of the parts of my body he touched.

The incidents I can recall most vividly and terrifyingly happened between my ninth and tenth birthdays. I did not talk about them with anybody for nearly half a century. So, even with the new law, I would not be eligible to sue. Many other people my age, or older, are in similar situations.

If some lawyer for the Diocese of Brooklyn (where I was abused) is reading this, he or she is breathing a sigh of relief. There are surely many others like me (I’ve talked to a few), and the Diocese and Roman Catholic Church know it. So, I am sure, do many other religious organizations as well as insurance companies and the Boy Scouts of America.

Those organizations are the chief reasons why New York has taken so long to pass legislation to widen the statute of limitations for reporting child abuse. One thing about New York’s “liberalness” is that it allows freedom not only to racial, ethnic and sexual minorities, but also to reactionary religious sects. That is why, for example, ultra-Orthodox Jews can influence New York’s elections and public policy in ways they never could anywhere else in the United States. It has also, for nearly two centuries, given the Catholic Church influence it has never enjoyed anyplace else in the nation, save perhaps in Boston, Rhode Island and Louisiana.

Those religious organizations are also the reasons why the bill isn’t as strong as it could be. Lawsuits from survivors are already bankrupting dioceses in other parts of the country; the Archdiocese of New York and the Dioceses of Brooklyn and Buffalo surely know that they could suffer the same fate. I am sure that other religious governing bodies came to the same realization. Just two weeks before the bill’s passage, Cardinal Dolan wrote an opinion piece declaring that he had to protect the church from Governor Cuomo’s efforts to “single out the church and weaken its ministry.”

But the state’s bishops realized they were fighting a losing battle. They said they would support the bill as long as it applied equally to public and private institutions. Then Dennis Poust, one of their spokesmen, said the bishops would call for even stronger protections than the ones provided in the new Child Victims Act.

Those bishops, along with other religious leaders in the State, did everything they could to stop the bill from passing until they knew it was going to pass. But, just as Roe vs Wade galvanized anti-abortion activists, I believe that passage of the law—as welcome as it is, at least in comparison to what it’s replacing—will cause those bishops, as well as the clerical and lay leaders of other religious organizations, to do whatever they can to keep victims from exercising their rights under the law. That is why we, the ones who were abused by priests and other religious leaders, need to be as vigilant as pro-choice activists have had to be in the 46 years since Roe vs. Wade. Especially in “deep blue” New York.

Other posts by MJ Lisbeth

Sexual Abuse Victims Have the Right To Be Heard — Whenever They Are Ready

Forgiveness is Not Enough, When it Comes to Healing for Sexual Abuse Victims

Abuse and Alienation: In The Church, Away From Yourself

Why We Didn’t Tell

Off My Knees: A Victim Remembers

But He’s a Good Person

His Hunger for the Church

Everybody But the Church Understands

Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church: Eternally Shielded in Rome