I don\u2019t want to give controversial pastor and author Doug Wilson more attention than he merits, troll that he is, but I was struck by how he ended a blog post<\/a> about the allegations against Roy Moore last month:<\/p>\n [I]f anybody suggests that I am defending Moore because he is \u201cmy guy\u201d for the Senate, this would be false. I am defending him because he is the\u00a0accused<\/em>.\u00a0But I do know the world is a sordid place, and I do not know the judge personally. I therefore acknowledge that there is a possibility that the charges are true.<\/p>\n [I]f he confesses that they\u00a0are true, or if they are shown by biblical criteria to be true, then I am here and now promising a future blog post on the subject.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Okay, first, this \u201cI am defending him because he is the accused\u201d line is fascinating.\u00a0We talk a lot about the importance of believing victims. Given Wilson\u2019s\u00a0history of defending students at his college and seminary against allegations\u00a0of child sexual abuse, it should not be surprising that his de facto response is to defend the accused. What is perhaps more surprising is that he\u2019s willing to state that so openly.<\/p>\n Next, what exactly\u00a0are\u00a0the \u201cbiblical criteria\u201d Wilson refers to? Wilson states that he will believe the allegations against Moore if: (a) Moore confesses that they are true; or, (b) they are \u201cshown by biblical criteria to be true.\u201d What does it take, for Wilson, for something to be shown to be true \u201cby biblical criteria\u201d?<\/p>\n Earlier in his post, Wilson quoted several Bible verses:<\/p>\n \u201cThe one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him\u201d (Prov. 18:17, ESV<\/a>). \u201cA single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established\u201d (Deut. 19:15, ESV<\/a>). \u201cYou shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice\u201d (Ex. 23:2, ESV<\/a>).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is such a mixture of good and the easily twisted here.<\/p>\n Despite quoting these verses,\u00a0Wilson makes it clear in his article that the evidence the Washington Post<\/em> compiled\u00a0against Moore does not\u00a0meet the \u201cbiblical criteria\u201d he proposes to follow. This is odd, because the Post<\/em> interviewed more than 30 people. They had many<\/em> more than one witness. This leads me to suspect that Wilson may mean that there needs to be more than one witness of the crime itself. What would this mean<\/a> for victims of domestic violence or sexual assault, where the crime typically takes place in private?<\/p>\n Additionally, does this mean that crimes without any witnesses can never be tried? That is certainly not how American courts operate today. Forensic evidence can put someone on the scene, or match a bullet to a gun. And then there is DNA evidence. Forensic evidence can be more reliable than witness testimony, as the human memory is fallible and people can mistake what they saw. (Forensics, of course, is itself subject to human error, whether accidental or intentional.)\u00a0And what about security cameras?<\/p>\n If Wilson\u00a0is serious about following \u201cbiblical criteria,\u201d he ought to go all the way. There is a passage in Numbers 5<\/a> that\u00a0deals\u00a0with what to do if there is an accuser but\u00a0no witnesses:<\/p>\n 11\u00a0<\/span>Then the\u00a0Lord<\/span>\u00a0spoke to Moses, saying,<\/span>\u00a012\u00a0<\/span>\u201cSpeak to the sons of Israel and say to them, \u2018If any man\u2019s wife\u00a0goes astray and is unfaithful to him,<\/span>\u00a013\u00a0<\/span>and a man has\u00a0intercourse with her and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband and she is\u00a0undetected, although she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act,\u00a0<\/span>14\u00a0<\/span>if a spirit of\u00a0jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has defiled herself, or if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has not defiled herself,<\/span>\u00a015\u00a0<\/span>the man shall then bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring\u00a0as<\/i>\u00a0an offering for her one-tenth of an\u00a0ephah of barley meal; he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of memorial,\u00a0a reminder of iniquity.<\/span><\/p>\n 16\u00a0<\/span>\u2018Then the priest shall bring her near and have her stand before the\u00a0Lord<\/span>,<\/span>\u00a017\u00a0<\/span>and the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel; and\u00a0he shall take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put\u00a0it<\/i>\u00a0into the water.<\/span>\u00a018\u00a0<\/span>The priest shall then have the woman stand before the\u00a0Lord<\/span>\u00a0and let\u00a0the hair of<\/i>\u00a0the woman\u2019s head go loose, and place the grain offering of memorial\u00a0in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy, and in the hand of the priest is to be the water of bitterness that brings a curse.<\/span>\u00a019\u00a0<\/span>The priest shall have her take an oath and shall say to the woman, \u201cIf no man has lain with you and if you have not\u00a0gone astray into uncleanness,\u00a0being<\/i>\u00a0under\u00a0the authority of<\/i>\u00a0your husband, be\u00a0immune to this water of bitterness that brings a curse;<\/span>\u00a020\u00a0<\/span>if you, however, have\u00a0gone astray,\u00a0being<\/i>\u00a0under\u00a0the authority of<\/i>\u00a0your husband, and if you have defiled yourself and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you\u201d<\/span>\u00a021\u00a0<\/span>(then the priest shall have the woman\u00a0swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), \u201cthe\u00a0Lord<\/span>\u00a0make you a curse and an oath among your people by the\u00a0Lord\u2019s<\/span>\u00a0making your thigh\u00a0waste away and your abdomen swell;<\/span>\u00a022\u00a0<\/span>and this water that brings a curse shall go into your\u00a0stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh\u00a0waste away.\u201d And the woman\u00a0shall say, \u201cAmen. Amen.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Of course, this passage is\u00a0specific to allegations of adultery.<\/p>\n The reality is that Wilson is\u00a0being selective in choosing his \u201cbiblical criteria.\u201d Despite the fact two of the allegations against Wilson involve sexual assault, Wilson does not invoke the \u201cbiblical criteria\u201d for handling\u00a0sexual assault cases laid out in\u00a0Deuteronomy 22<\/a>:<\/p>\n 23\u00a0<\/span>\u201cIf there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and\u00a0another<\/i>\u00a0man finds her in the city and lies with her,<\/span>\u00a024\u00a0<\/span>then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them\u00a0to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor\u2019s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.<\/span><\/p>\n 25\u00a0<\/span>\u201cBut if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die.<\/span>\u00a026\u00a0<\/span>But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case.<\/span>\u00a027\u00a0<\/span>When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.<\/span><\/p>\n 28\u00a0<\/span>\u201cIf a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,<\/span>\u00a029\u00a0<\/span>then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl\u2019s father fifty\u00a0shekels<\/i>\u00a0of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Of course, one of Moore\u2019s accusers alleges that he sexually molested her but did not rape her; the other alleges that he sexually assaulted her and attempted to rape her, but that she resisted and he let her go. Still, one would think that when addressing allegations of sexual assault, anyone appealing to \u201cbiblical criteria\u201d for judging the case should at least mention<\/em> Deuteronomy 22.<\/p>\n All of this has me thinking about conservative furor about\u00a0sharia law. How is Wilson\u2019s insistence on using \u201cbiblical criteria\u201d any different, though, from Islamic communities\u2019 preference for sharia law? Both cases involve appealing to historical-religious legal system\u00a0that codified\u00a0sexism and relied heavily on capital punishment as a deterrent.<\/p>\n