(Opinion) This week, The Roys Report (TRR) published a story about Christian apologist David Wood, who openly admitted he “had sex with” 13- and 15-year-old girls prior to becoming a Christian.

The admission was shocking enough. Making it more egregious was Wood’s seeming lack of remorse or apology, as you can observe for yourself in the clip below.

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.

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.

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.

Shockingly, many don’t seem to understand that sex between an 18-year-old and a 13-year-old is not consensual, regardless of whether the 13-year-old “flung herself at me.” This is ironic since sex with minors is something Wood and his followers condemn Muslims for embracing. (Muhammad had sexual relations with his 9-year-old wife, Aisha.)

“How did (Wood) ravage their ‘precious souls’ you (sic) know they made sexual advances towards him FIRST right?” posted @SargonKildani.

Similarly, someone with the handle @_coldfact_ posted, “(T)he title already is awful. ‘He Raped Girls’ – no. he did not drag girls into the bushes. As a teen he had consensual sex with other teens. Stat rape, BIG diff.”

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.”

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, 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?

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.

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.”

Monroe also noted that Wood appears pugilistic, “so anything goes to win his point. Again, who is the center of the story? He is.”

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.

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.”

But perhaps we should excuse this because of Wood’s disorder? After all, is a psychopath capable of anything else?

This is where I found Monroe’s perspective especially helpful.

“Could a person with psychopathy (or narcissism, or autism — both of which sometimes lack ability to empathize and walk in someone else’s shoes) be fit for ministry?” Monroe wrote. “Yes, I believe so. However, they would be aware of their deficits and find ways to ameliorate them.”

But neither Wood nor his followers seem interested in admitting or trying to compensate for his glaring deficits. Instead, they’ve focused their energy on attacking me.

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.

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.

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.

What’s especially stunning, though, is that Wood himself admits in his video that what he did to one of the girls would be classified as “forcible sodomy.” Yet stunningly, when Aydemir plays Wood’s clip, he fast-forwards through where Wood says “forcible sodomy,” so the viewer can’t hear it. This seems quite calculated.

Wood’s responses to TRR have been equally unhelpful. On Thursday, I emailed Wood, asking if he’d be open to “engaging respectfully” about our article and reactions to it. He didn’t respond to my email but instead made fun of it on X and accused me of harassing him when I responded to a post in which he tagged me.

When I brought this to his attention, he replied. “Don’t you have like 90 cats to take care of?”

Wood’s followers have been similarly dismissive and nasty.

“Oh oh i (sic) think it took DW to further expose and hopefully discredit for Good the degenerate Julie Roys. She’s a vile and evil woman,” posted @lorahflavier.

“Sewing circle feminist Christianity strikes again,” posted someone else.

“@reachjulieroys sounds like Aunt Screwtape,” wrote another.

Reading these posts, I couldn’t help but wonder: If Wood and his followers are this nasty to me, how do they treat the Muslims who engage with his ministry? Have we forgotten that Christians are supposed to speak the truth in love, or the Apostle Paul’s admonition to respond with gentleness and respect?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Julie Roys is a veteran investigative reporter and founder of The Roys Report. She also previously hosted a national talk show on the Moody Radio Network, called Up for Debate, and has worked as a TV reporter for a CBS affiliate. Her articles have appeared in numerous periodicals.