The Evidence
On the rape of his mother
The allegation
Kevin rejects the legal definition of rape which is basically non-consensual sex. Instead, he believes rape generally involves kidnapping by a stranger, blood, bruising, and often ends in murder.
The evidence
Kevin wrote to his Mother "You are a dishonest woman. Mom, you know better than to equate the usual use of the word 'rape' with what happened to you. You were 'forced against your will' perhaps, but by continuing to use the word 'rape' you paint a deceitful picture. Rape is a stranger grabbing a girl in the dark and often ends with murder. There's blood everywhere. There's bruising. There's kidnapping. There's severe trauma and it's awful."1
The implications
This means that the majority of cases that are prosecuted as rape are not rape by Kevin's definition. A boyfriend who forces his girlfriend at a party would not qualify as rape, for instance.
The allegation
Kevin believes that if a husband forces sex on his wife without her consent, it is not rape.
The evidence
Kevin says outright "marital rape... is foreign to Scripture."2 In another instance, he said "Dad pled guilty to two counts of marital rape [sic. rape] and is currently serving an 18 month sentence [sic. two five year sentences]... However, I am glad to say that he seems to be walking closer to the Lord than ever, and experiencing the peace of the Lord as he undergoes this injustice."3 Kevin wrote to his Mother "Sure, being a loving husband should have stopped him from forcing you to do your duty (no one is going to disagree that Dad was living carnally), but don't equate that with rape. Just because there is no state law that forces you to pay your debt to your husband doesn't take away from the fact that you are guilty of stealing what is his."4 In another place, he asks "Does that passage allow you to unilaterally say 'no' to your husband? If you are not permitted to say 'no,' and so you obey your God, does that not remove the possibility that 'marital rape' will ever occur?"5
The implications
There is no such thing as rape in marriage, no matter how violent it may be.
The allegation
Kevin believes that it is sin for a wife to ever say no to sex. Even if the husband requires it so often that it disrupts her day and makes her late to events. Even if it is literally perpetual; all the time.
The evidence
Kevin said to his mother, after her husband was convicted of two counts of rape against her and sentenced to two five-year terms in prison: "You sinned against your husband, provoking him to temptation... You stopped loving your husband."6 Or in another instance, Kevin says "Let me be clear - sex is not a gift you give to your spouse. It is his right (like a landlord). It is your duty (like a tenant). And visa [sic.] versa. You owed him, and wronged him deeply when you said 'no.'"7
In another instance, Kevin says "You write, ' But for a wife to decline sex for the 3rd time in a given day because she has an appointment is not a violation of this passage.'8 God says otherwise."9 But he doesn't stop with saying a wife must comply at least three times a day. His mother, Joy Harris, pushed the limit by saying "The word 'due' in verse 3 clearly has a limit. If he requires sex 100's of times a day causing injury, inability to eat and sleep and to meet other God-given responsibilities, clearly he has gone beyond what is 'due benevolence'. You may differ with me in where that limit is, but there clearly is a limit to the obligation of due benevolence."10 Kevin's response is "There is no limit given so therefore there is no limit. You don't get to make up the rules, Mom. That is the right of our Sovereign alone. His rules forbid a spouse to refuse a spouse...full stop."11
The implications
A woman has no human rights. She may be biblically required to be a full-time sex slave.
The allegation
Kevin believes that for a wife to say no to her husband is a crime, but for him to rape her is not.
The evidence
Kevin asks his mother "Will you recognise that withholding what God commands you not to withhold is a crime against both God and your husband?"12 In case we might think he's just speaking tongue-in-cheek, he goes on in his next email to say "You wanted his 'crimes' to be punished, but you have yet to plead guilty to yours... You are as guilty as Dad... Yet you are a victim and he's not? He is in prison but you're not? Please repent and admit your guilt."13 In another instance, he refers to his mother's refusal to give consent as "your own equal crimes against your husband."14 In yet another letter, he equates saying no with rape by saying they are both use of force, saying "you were equally wrong in saying 'no' (an act of force) as he was in saying 'yes' and forcing it."15 To top it off, he doesn't see his mother's rapist as a violent criminal: "To call a rapist a man who was demanding what he was owed (according to 1 Corinthians 7:3-5) is to lump him in with violent criminals."16
The implications
It is not a crime to rape your wife, but if she refuses consent, she has committed a crime.
The allegation
Kevin believes that most cases of rape are actually partially the fault of the victim.
The evidence
Kevin's Mother, Joy Harris, brought up a scenario in which a girl gets raped by an unrelated man in a church.17 Kevin's response included the comment that "Most immorality in churches is consensual. Both are guilty and both must be confronted and restored."18 He then went on to cite the example of convicted paedophile Jack Schaap stating that "His 'under-age' (worldly perspective) paramour agreed to multipled [sic. multiplied] sexual meetings, making her as guilty as he."19
The implications
If someone in Kevin's church gets raped, they will be viewed with suspicion. They will be asked questions like "Did you scream?" "How loudly did you scream?" "Did you want to have sex with this person?" "Are you attracted to this person?" It is, unfortunately, not unheard of for victims of sexual violence to be required to stand in front of the church and repent in Independent Baptist churches.
The allegation
Kevin believes that a rapist who repents should not be prosecuted for his crime.
The evidence
Joy Harris asked "What if the person repents? Do you let a rapist move forward with no justice just because he repented?"20 Kevin's response was "Your answer is found in the rest of Matthew chapter 18. That parable teaches that if there is any sin you won't forgive, then you don't understand how forgiving the Lord was to you." In another place, he outright says "There is no... distinction between civil and criminal matters."21
For Kevin, forgiveness means we ignore crimes and protect criminals. He says "Forgiveness is a promise that this is never to be brought up again."22 Not only that, but he insists this be practiced by those under his influence. "The Bible requires forgiveness in response to repentance (Luke 17). As you know, forgiveness by definition means 'I choose not to hold this sin against you ever again.'"23 And to clarify that he definitely applies this to instances of crime, he writes "For believers, evidence of criminality should not be dug up out of the forgiven past. Dad's past sins/crimes were, according to your word... dealt with... and should remain in the deepest part of the sea."24
The implications
Forgiveness of sin means we must ignore crime. Once a criminal repents, the church cannot endorse criminal prosecution. Contacting the police about sexual crimes is forbidden when the perpetrator is a professing Christian.
On child sexual abuse
The allegation
Kevin does not recognise the inherent power imbalance between children and adults or the need for an age of consent.
The evidence
Kevin refers to the notion of being under-age as a "worldly perspective"25 and calls the victim of convicted paedophile Jack Schaap his "paramour"26 which means "a lover."
The implications
Paedophilia is just fornication. There's no substantial difference between two consenting but unmarried adults having sex and an adult having sex with a child.
The allegation
Kevin believes that most cases of child sexual abuse are actually partially the fault of the victim.
The evidence
When Kevin said that "most immorality in churches is consensual. Both are guilty and both must be confronted and restored,"27 he was referring to the sexual abuse of a child. Specifically, the scenario that he was addressing involved "a 17 year old girl."28 He then went on to address the victim of convicted paedophile Jack Schaap: "His 'under-age' (worldly perspective) paramour agreed to multipled [sic. multiplied] sexual meetings, making her as guilty as he."29
In another instance, Joy Harris wrote "And what if it's a child?30 Is a child supposed to go to her pastor if she gets raped? That's absurd."31 Kevin's response was "Explain the absurdity... Your moral compass must be pointed to true north -- which is the Scriptures. Just because this world calls something absurd doesn't mean you or I should."32
The implications
If a child is sexually molested in Kevin's church, the child will likely be considered to be at least partially responsible for it.
The allegation
Kevin is quick to believe the powerful and slow to believe the victim.
The evidence
Kevin, in dealing with a case of child abuse, states "Someone is lying. Each suggests it is the other. How did you know it was the pastor and not his [child]33?"34 Kevin argues the solution is that there must be two or three witnesses to the child abuse or the victim should not be believed.35 In this case, Kevin sides with the perpetrator36 and explains that "The onus is on the prosecutor to prove guilt, not the defendant to prove innocence."37
The implications
A person who comes forward to say that they were sexually abused as a child should be required to provide at least two witnesses and cross-examined before being believed.
The allegation
Kevin believes that those who believe and attempt to help the victims of child sex abuse are dangerous.
The evidence
Joy Harris has been banned from spending time with her grandchildren (Kevin's children) since July 2010. The rationale for this is given by Kevin where he refers to Joy Harris' assistance given to a victim of child sex abuse (identifying details have been redacted to protect the privacy of the victim): "When you took in █████████ and would not listen to my sharing of my research about how ██████ was deceiving you, I came to the conclusion that you would do to my family what you did to █████████38, if you could. Show your change of heart and I'll give you access to your grandchildren, Mom."39
The implications
Kevin is likely to side with the perpetrator against the victim, especially where the perpetrator is an Independent Baptist. He will punish those who support the victims of child sex abuse.
The allegation
Kevin believes that a paedophile who repents should not be prosecuted for his crime.
The evidence
Joy Harris asked "What if the person repents? Do you let a rapist move forward with no justice just because he repented?"40 Kevin's response was "Your answer is found in the rest of Matthew chapter 18. That parable teaches that if there is any sin you won't forgive, then you don't understand how forgiving the Lord was to you."41 When you understand that "forgiveness," to Kevin, means "forgive and forget," the implications are serious. In another instance, in defending siding with his mother's rapist, he says "Repentance requires forgiveness."42
The implications
Once a rapist or paedophile repents, Kevin will forgive and forget. And require others to do so. He will go to bat for the criminal. Kevin's church will not cooperate or allow members to cooperate with the criminal prosecution of rapists or paedophiles.
The allegation
Kevin views convicted paedophile Jack Schaap's crimes as no worse than what his victim did.
The evidence
In the context of discussing how to handle paedophilia, Kevin on his own brought up the case of convicted paedophile and Independent Baptist mega-church ex-pastor Jack Schaap: "I give you the case of Jack Schaap. His 'under-age' (worldly perspective) paramour agreed to multipled [sic. multiplied] sexual meetings, making her as guilty as he. You and I should abhor the sin every bit as much whether it is one person wanting to fornicate or two people wanting to fornicate."43
The implications
Kevin has gone to bat to defend a convicted paedophile pastor out of the blue. Schaap's crimes were committed in the course of counselling an underage child. Kevin rejects age of consent, places these crimes at the level of mere immorality, and assigns at least equal blame to the victim. Kevin does not believe Schaap should be in prison. He is incensed that this criminal has been brought to justice (Schaap is currently serving a twelve year term).
On domestic violence
The allegation
Kevin believes that people are property which is owned by the family patriarch.
The evidence
In an email to an adult who left home, Kevin says "As a strict Biblicist, I happen to believe that your father is your authority until Genesis 2:24 takes place.44 There's no magical age at which a young person is suddenly out from under authority. See Genesis 38:11 and Leviticus 22:13 where even a widowed or divorced woman was to return to her father's house."45 In another place, he equates an adult woman leaving home of her own will with kidnap. "It looks to me like the closest thing to a kidnap except that you left of your own free will."46 While this looks bizarre on the surface, it makes sense to him because her free will is irrelevant because she is property of her father. So whoever encouraged her to leave "kidnapped" her from her father. "[My parents] joined forces with Jason to help you leave what you refer to as 'grave abuse.'"47
The implications
An adult's free will is not particularly relevant, any more than a slave's is, because she is property of her father until her marriage at which point she becomes property of her husband.
The allegation
Kevin believes the authority of husbands is absolute and the obedience of wives must be to the extreme. His views go well beyond mere complementarianism.
The evidence
Kevin's words to his mother endorse extreme obedience: "You were created to be Dad's helper. Whatever he wanted to do, you were there to help him. 'Submit' is hupatasso which speaks of ranking under a commander. It is to subordinate yourself under him. If the general says to march for 8 hours, you must do it."48 Regarding marital sex, Kevin says that a husband may demand sex as many times in a day as he wants—even hundreds of times—and the wife is to comply. "There is no limit [to how often he can demand sex] given so therefore there is no limit. You don't get to make up the rules, Mom. That is the right of our Sovereign alone. His rules forbid a spouse to refuse a spouse...full stop."49
The implications
A wife must submit to her husband even to the point of remaining under and empowering domestic violence.
The allegation
Kevin believes that victims of violence have no right to flee.
The evidence
Kevin's response to his mother leaving her husband after thirty-nine years of domestic violence: "The way out of this quagmire is not the way you have chosen. It was absolutely wrong. Wrong because it was disobedient to the instructions outlined in Scripture."50 Writing on the matter to a sibling, he says "I am convinced that she is wrong to leave her husband either permanently or just for 2 years."51
The implications
Those who are suffering violence (his Mum was being raped on a regular basis) should just stay and take it.
The allegation
Kevin harasses and bullies those who dare to help the victims of domestic violence.
The evidence
When a young woman left her parents' home to get medical care and counselling which was denied her at home, Kevin waged an aggressive, long-term campaign against the woman and those who helped her. First, he conducted his own "investigation" ("My investigation raised doubts about her honesty"52), then he didn't believe her story of abuse ("Did you rebel and lie to your God-appointed authority? Did Jason and ███████ and my parents help you to sin?"53), he then argued she was lying about the symptoms ("[the woman] was cutting herself (or faking it?)"54). He ended up telling the woman that if she wouldn't read him into her life story and provide proof that she wasn't lying, he would withhold his parents' (who were helping) access to his children. He says "My parents will not disclose confidentiality, and so this decision will remain in your hands. Unless you reveal proof to the contrary, I must make my judgment based on the evidence so far presented. And from where I sit, it appears that my parents are a threat to my children just as they were to your father's daughter. As a result, they will not be welcome to spend time with my children. Furthermore, I am obligated to not be silent to other pastors regarding this threat, both from Jason and my parents."55 When this woman refused to give in and tell him her story of abuse and trauma, he turned his attention to his own parents. He claims to have convinced his Dad to repent of helping this woman. His Mum and his brother Jason refuse to repent of helping and remain ostracised. His argument is simple that he has a right to "cross examine" his mother if he disagrees with what she does. "You are out of line in calling us out for wanting to cross-examine you."56
The implications
It is not enough for Kevin to bully and harass the victims of domestic violence. He is so aggressive, he bullies those who help the victims too.
The allegation
Kevin pushes the people who have already escaped domestic violence to go back to it.
The evidence
On an adult woman who escaped domestic violence, Kevin says "She was first Pastor and Mrs ███████'s daughter. We need to be nudging her toward them with everything in our power. The command 'Honour thy father and thy mother' requires this goal."57
Even toward his own mother, the message is clear: Go back. Over five years after she finally separated from her violent husband, and after he divorced her and was imprisoned for crimes against her, Kevin still says "Your marriage can be restored. Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. You need it just as much as Dad does, Mom."58
The implications
Kevin's message to the victims of domestic violence is clear: Go back and take more.
On his cult-like practices
The allegation
Kevin believes that crime should be handled in-house; that the police should not be called. Both in cases of crime such as rape as well as in the case of sexual crimes against children. Kevin's position is emphatic, when there is a crime, you call the pastor, not the police.
The evidence
Joy Harris asked "Wait, you're saying that if a person is raped, they should not call the police, they should call the pastor? ... What if it's a child? Is a child supposed to go to her pastor if she gets raped? That's absurd."59 Kevin's response was "Explain the absurdity... the church gets first crack at the case. That's God's command. To resist that is to resist Him. You should be red in the face about fighting what God makes extremely clear."60
The implications
The church is supposed to address criminal matters. Even paedophilia should be handled in-house. Criminal matters are to be handled by the pastor, not the police. Contacting the police about sexual crimes against children is forbidden when the perpetrator is a professing Christian.
The allegation
Kevin sees Child Protection Services as dangerous to him and his children.
The evidence
Child Protection Services were contacted in a case where multiple children were sexually molested in the home over a number of years. Kevin felt this was unjust and writes to his mother: "If you were me, you would let no one near your children who would ring DOCS [sic. Child Protection Services] on you for the same reasons you'd consider ringing DOCS on Bro ████████."61 Elsewhere, he says "I remain convinced that Mom wouldn't hesitate to ring DOCS [sic. Child Protection Services] to harrass [sic.] me."62
The implications
To Kevin, ringing Child Protection Services isn't about the wellbeing of the children, but about the reputation and control of the father.
The allegation
Kevin sees opposition to his unjust behaviours as Satanic attack.
The evidence
Kevin says "The wicked one is no doubt behind this latest attack. It comes from my mother."63 In another instance, he says to his brother "Why are you so interested in joining the devil in trying to tear down this dying chief of sinners? Were you to succeed by the permission of the Lord, all you would do is remove one of Wollongong's last remaining preachers."64
The implications
Confronting Kevin with his evil practices merely strengthens his resolve.
The allegation
No one is allowed to leave Kevin's church without his written approval.
The evidence
The Constitution of Illawarra Community Baptist Church gives three ways membership may end: By letter, by exclusion, and by death. Exclusion means excommunication. Letter means written approval from Kevin, and then it is limited to people leaving to attend what he considers "another church of like faith and order."65 Resigning is not an option.
This is not just theory. In practice, it is enforced. Jason Harris resigned membership at ICBC in April 2006.66 Kevin later rejected his resignation saying "You signed our constitution after very carefully reading and considering it, and the method of dismissal is clearly laid out... No amount of denying facts can change them."67 He goes on "Can you show in the Bible where anyone was permitted to resign from a body of Christ? Can you show it by precept, principle or example? If not, the case is closed right there."68 "You can't resign from a marriage, nor can an eye resign at will from a body, nor a brick from a structure. Yet Christ's church is pictured in Scripture as all three: a body, a bride and a building.69 More than a year later, Kevin announced a hearing to be held on 27 June, 2007 regarding Jason being excommunicated.70 After two more years of harassment, a second hearing was called for 3 June, 200971 at which Jason was "to answer charges of deliberately being divisive with intent of Bodily72 harm."73 On this date, Jason was officially excommunicated,74 more than three years after his resignation and after three years of membership at another church.
The implications
Once you join Kevin's church, you're trapped. The only way out is to keep him happy enough to approve your departure in writing.
The allegation
Kevin sees issues as black and white.
The evidence
Kevin does not believe in the notion of "agreeing to disagree." Rather, he says "God's Word isn't confusing, nor open to private interpretation, nor contradictory. Truth is absolutely absolute. Two opposing viewpoints can't both be right."75
The implications
If you disagree with Kevin, you're almost certainly wrong.
Verification of context
2 Email sent from Kevin Harris to ██████████████ (ID2011123101-0601)
3 Email sent from Kevin Harris to ████████████ (ID2017040701-0303). Emphasis added.
4 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031703-0111).
5 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031605-0107).
6 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031703-0111).
7 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031703-0111).
8 Referring to 1 Corinthians 7.
9 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031603-0105).
10 Email sent from Joy Harris to Kevin Harris (ID2017031604-0106).
11 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031605-0107).
12 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031603-0105).
13 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031605-0107).
14 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031605-0107). Emphasis added.
15 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031701-0109).
16 Email sent from Kevin Harris to ███████████ (ID2017040701-0301).
17 Email sent from Joy Harris to Kevin Harris (ID2017031702-0110).
18 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031703-0111).
19 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031703-0111).
20 Email sent from Joy Harris to Kevin Harris (ID2017031702-0110).
21 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031701-0109).
22 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2011051302-0512).
23 Email sent from Kevin Harris to ███████████ (ID2011123101-0601). Emphasis added.
24 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2013071401-0901).
25 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031703-0111).
26 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031703-0111).
27 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031703-0111).
28 Email sent from Joy Harris to Kevin Harris (ID2017031606-0108).
29 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031703-0111).
30 This question was in clarification of something he had already said about a seventeen year old, so "child" here clearly refers to someone much younger than seventeen.
31 Email sent from Joy Harris to Kevin Harris (ID2017031702-0110).
32 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031703-0111).
33 Gender specific pronoun removed to protect the victim.
34 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2011042001-0504).
35 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2011051302-0512).
36 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2011051101-0508).
37 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2011051303-0514). Note that he uses legal terms here, but he is not referring to actual prosecution. Rather, he is referring, in context, specifically to deciding (as a pastor or counsellor) whether to take the victim's story seriously when the alleged perpetrator denies the crime.
38 The name of the victim's family is redacted.
39 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031703-0111).
40 Email sent from Joy Harris to Kevin Harris (ID2017031702-0110).
41 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031703-0111).
42 Email sent from Kevin Harris to █████████████ (ID2017040701-0303). Emphasis added.
43 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031703-0111).
44 The transfer of the woman from the Dad to the husband.
45 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Kezia Dennison (ID2011013102-0404). Note that neither Genesis 38:11 nor Leviticus 22:13 say what he says they say.
46 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Kezia Dennison (ID2011013101-0404).
47 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Kezia Dennison (ID2011013101-0404).
48 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031605-0107). Second instance of emphasis is added.
49 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031605-0107).
50 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2011112301-1002).
51 Email sent from Kevin Harris to ████████████████ (ID2011123101-0601).
52 Email sent from Kevin Harris to █████████████ (ID2017040701-0301).
53 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Kezia Dennison (ID2011013101-0402).
54 Email sent from Kevin Harris to ████████████ (ID2017040701-0301).
55 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Kezia Dennison (ID2011013102-0404).
56 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031703-0111).
57 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2011051401-0518).
58 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031605-0107).
59 Email sent from Joy Harris to Kevin Harris (ID2017031702-0110).
60 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2017031703-0111).
61 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Joy Harris (ID2011052802-0528).
62 Email sent from Kevin Harris to █████████████ (ID2017040701-0303).
63 Email sent from Kevin Harris to ████████████ (ID2017040701-0303).
64 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Jason Harris (ID2013011002-0806).
65 Constitution, Illawarra Community Baptist Church, Article VI, s 2 (ID2017042601; ID2017042602)
66 Email sent from Jason Harris to Kevin Harris (ID2017062701).
67 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Jason Harris (ID2013011002-0804).
68 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Jason Harris (ID2013011002-0806).
69 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Jason Harris (ID2013011002-0806).
70 Letter to be read at public hearing for Jason Harris (ID2007062701).
71 Notice of second public hearing for Jason Harris (ID2009052601).
72 "Bodily" here is a play on words referring to the local church as "the body of Christ."
73 Notice of second public hearing for Jason Harris (ID2009052601).
74 Notice of church discipline for Jason Harris (ID2009060301).
75 Email sent from Kevin Harris to Larry and Joy Harris (ID2010103001-0711).