The Position of Bob Jones University Regarding the Membership of Dr. Chuck Phelps on Its Cooperating Board of Trustees

... this thread would be a really weird place to post all the old accusations again.
Every possible accusation has already been made many, many times. All the reasons for and reasons against have been aired innumerable times.
So whatever there might be to discuss (if anything) repeating accusations again would certainly be pointless.

He is still on the Board?

Does this make Chuck Phelps an asset or a liability to my alma mater?

I agree, Hannah. At this point the facts are so intertwined with speculation, the average unconnected person is not in a position to properly separate the issues. But I'd think that the staff of BJU would be very invested in exploring all sources fully. The statement as written doesn't sound like this was done.

I do not want to see the innocent suffer, or the momentarily misguided, or even the one-time monumental screw up. But I've really had my personal fill of church leadership (generally speaking) thumbing their nose at principles in places like 1 Timothy 3, Titus 2, 1 Peter 2 & 3, as if those criteria don't apply to them.

But why doesn't he decide to take a season and focus on his local church, step away from the national spotlight and distractions?

Pastor Phelps has been a loyal graduate of BJU for many years. He has encouraged many students to attend BJU including his own children. Outside this event, Chuck has been one of the most respected pastors in America with an impeccable family and personal life. Chuck contacted the local police twice in a timely fashion regarding the perpetrator. He brought the perpetrator before the church for public discipline and eventually expelled him from the church. However, he also made serious mistakes by bringing the victim before the church and not clearly connecting the perpetrator with the victim who was a minor. Though I think his motive was good in helping the victim's mother place her daughter in a more stable family situation, the fact that she was sent out of state gave the wrong impression. I am certain that Pastor Phelps has deep regrets about this matter. Again, this entire episode is an example of how the horrendous sin of one man, Earny Willis, did so much damage to so many people including first and foremost the young lady, secondly Earny's wife and children who have been the totally forgotten victims of Earny's sin, the good people of that local church who have been tarnished and shamed by the actions of this very selfish human being, and ultimately against God by inciting the enemies of God to blaspheme his Holy Name.

It is this issue here that leaves many friends of Pastor Phelps and BJU scratching their heads. From what has been posted out there, I am not sure clarity has ever been brought to this issue. Why were these two brought to the church platform and why was it not make clear that Ernie was the father of the Tina's baby?

Until that is cleared up and cleaned up, there is going to be great tension on this matter.

You do have to be so careful with moose and muffins...

To clarify:
1) Ernie Willis was brought before the church for adultery, not the rape of a minor. There's a huge difference.
2) Willis wasn't removed from the church membership until several years later, for an unrelated adulterous relationship of which he would not repent. I believe the publicly stated transgression was "abandoning his family."

I'm sure there wasn't an intentional effort to mislead the reader into thinking that Dr. Phelps publicly handled Mr. Willis in an appropriate way.

Well, you may be certain, but a host of people aren't so sure, or simply don't believe it. I don't know how many times I've read something to the effect, "Why can't he just admit he was wrong?" If Dr. Phelps truly has regrets, I should think it helpful for him to itemize and publicly express both his personal regrets and his wrongdoings. In addition, and especially, he should communicate these things to Tina Anderson and ask her forgiveness. One would think this shouldn't be too much to ask. By the way, had he done so a long time ago, this thread would be non-existent, and there wouldn't be a "Do Right BJU" Facebook page.

This seems most prudent. The only wiser thing would've been for him to decline the board position in the first place.

First, I appreciate folks mostly avoiding rehashing the actual and supposed events. ... mostly.

Second, re Shaynus' post: It's important to remember that Baptist Fundamentalism is not monolithic. Never has been. So it's really hard to tell what a generalization like " Baptist Fundamentalism has a somewhat warped view of the purpose of church discipline" really means in concrete terms. Is there much confusion in this area? Yes. Really hard to tell how large that confusion is.

Third, it may well turn out that this move by BJU (the statement) leads to growing tension and a need to take other steps. I would really like to see SI not be a part of that problem, if it develops. That is, I think it's important that folks in the discussion steer clear of anything that sounds like a demand that BJU act in a certain way. If there ends up being some sort of tidal wave of protest, let it be somewhere else.
(SI doesn't exist as a place for people to tell other people what to do... whether individuals, institutions or whatever)
But there are aspects of this that are worth calmly discussing. I hope we can stay in that neighborhood.

The answer to these questions is simple if we forget what we know (and/or think we know) now, and ask ourselves what Pastor Phelps believed then.

Disclaimer: I'm sure someone will twist what I'm saying here. It's always that way. But just so anyone who does can stand justly condemned, I'm not asserting that any particular thing that Chuck Phelps believed is true. I'm just stating what he believed, and that what he believed provides ample explanation for his actions. Nor am I stating he was right (or wise) to put Tina before the church, though I am explaining why he did it, because it is easy to see why. I am stating that it would have been dubious both legally and spiritually to link Tina and Phelps before the church.

First question -- why was Tina brought to the platform?

He believed Tina consented. Now, we know the court found Wills guilty of forcible rape, but we can't possibly know exactly what Tina said to Pastor Phelps back then. He still believes it was consensual --maybe there are reasons for that beyond his public statements. The accuracy of his belief is not relevant to the question as to >why< he acted as he did. You can dispute his belief until the cows come home, but he believed it.

Furthermore, on his website, he says:

Tina wanted to make her statement public, unless he is lying (possible, but it needs "two or three witnesses" to make that accusation). Pastor Phelps believed she 1) had morally consented to adultery 2) was pregnant and 3) had a statement she wanted to share with the church. That's why she came before the church. A mistake, one he says he wouldn't repeat, but not so nefarious as people want it to be. I can easily see thinking, "You can't hide the pregnancy, so maybe it's best just to let it be known and read out her statement. People will respect and love her for being straight-forward about it, and this could really help her to go forward and put it behind her spiritually."

Second question -- why was it not made clear that Ernie was the father of the baby?
Multiple reasons. I greatly appreciate Pastor Harding, but I differ with him strongly on this. This should not have been mentioned publicly.
1. Confidentiality. Ernie Wills had confessed to a crime in confidence, and it would be legally murky to disclose it publicly.
2. Victim privacy. Tina was the victim of a sex crime, and you can't disclose that without the victim's consent. Since Tina did not want Ernie Wills to be prosecuted, she would never have given consent (whether Pastor Phelps asked her consent or not).
3. No need. He expected Ernie Wills to be prosecuted. The authorities would deal with him. This was about getting him headed in the right direction spiritually before the full force of the law fell and removed him from the church for an extended time. By the time he came back, everyone would know the nature of his crime, whether they guessed the identity of the victim or not.
4. Love. Love covers a multitude of sins. While (in his belief) Tina had sinned, she was now repentant, and there was no need to embarrass her further by identifying the father.
5. Love again. It really didn't matter who Wills had sinned with. He was coming to make things right before the Lord and the church. The pastor leads in "restoring such a one," and airing all the details wouldn't help. In general, the Biblical principles when dealing with the sins of someone who is now repentant lead us to say much less, rather than much more.

Phelps believed (rightly or wrongly) the following:
1. Wills had initiated the immorality ("the aggressor") and was guilty of adultery.
2. Wills was guilty of statutory rape, but not forcible rape.
3. Wills was honest about what he had done.
4. Wills was repentant and wanted to make it right before the church.

And he believed (rightly or wrongly):
1. Tina was the victim of a sex crime (statutory rape).
2. Though under the legal age of consent, Tina was old enough to consent morally, had done so, and was thus guilty of adultery.
3. Tina's actions after the first incident indicated willingness/consent.
4. Tina was repentant and wanted to make a public statement to the church.

If you can take yourself back more than ten years and put yourself in his shoes, it is easy to see why he made the decisions he did. In hindsight, it is clear that the public treatment of Tina's situation was a mistake, but under no circumstances should her situation have been linked with Wills. If you take yourself back, and put yourself in the situation of believing what he believed and actually loving both of the people involved, rather than wanting to crucify one of them, it's easy to see why he did what he did.

The only reason people can't understand is because they don't believe today what he believed at the time, and they aren't willing to really put themselves in his shoes and walk a mile or two.

Disclaimer (repeated): I'm sure someone will twist what I'm saying here. It's always that way. But just so anyone who does can stand justly condemned, I'm not asserting that any particular thing that Chuck Phelps believed is true. I'm just stating what he believed, and that what he believed provides ample explanation for his actions. Nor am I stating he was right (or wise) to put Tina before the church, though I am explaining why he did it, because it is easy to see why. I am stating that it would have been dubious both legally and spiritually to link Tina and Phelps before the church.

I think that's kind of what Aaron wanted us to avoid.

Still I do understand your point that Pastor Phelps acted consistently based on his knowledge and perspectives at the time. What's in question isn't whether he did his best, but whether or not he made wise choices, and that's NOT something any of us here have enough time or knowledge to evaluate. But, I do think it is legitimate to question whether BJU should or should have gone through that process before his return to the board.

In some sense, as an alumna of BJU, this all hits a nerve that it hadn't previously. Before, I was a spectator from a distance, saddened by the obvious pain and controversy of the situation; but I really didn't have anything I could (or should) contribute. Now, with BJU taking such a public and vocal stand on the issues and basically lending their credibility to Pastor Phelps, I feel forced to come to some conclusion just for my own mind's sake.

Does anyone know when Dr. Phelps was placed back on the Cooperating Board? From what I understand, he had been on the board, but stepped down when he became president of Maranatha, only to be reinstated some time after he left the college and became pastor of Colonial Hills. Perhaps fellow board member Mike Harding could shed some light?

Bryan,

All board appointments are conducted privately by means of the executive council/committee and then announced at the subsequent board meeting to the Board of Trustees and the Cooperative board (of which I am a member). Board appointments and/or reversals have always been to my knowledge the sole perogative of the executive committee. No votes are taken either in the appointment or removal. Frankly, I do not remember when Pastor Phelps was reappointed to the Cooperative board. On account of my son's graduation, I missed the most recent meeting in May, 2011. The last board meeting I attended was December 2010, and I have no recollection whether Chuck was there or not. My educated guess is that once Chuck had resigned MBBC and subsequently became the senior Pastor at Colonial, he was reappointed to the Cooperative board at that time. As I said before Chuck has always been a very loyal graduate of BJU and a strong supporter of BJU. When Chuck became the President of MBBC he had to resign the board at BJU as a matter of policy. Once Chuck ceased to be the president of another college, I am reasonably sure that BJU would want to restore their relationship which formerly existed. Exactly when that happened I cannot say for certain.

None taken. I'm gun-shy, too -- as per my repeated disclaimer.

Pastor Harding, leaving the particulars of this case aside, what age is too young for a public statement of confession and repentance? If the father had been another 15-year-old, the pregnancy would still mean the sin can't be private. If the fact of the sin having happened is going to be public, why should the repentance not also be public? I'm not sure why 15 (16 at the time of the church meeting) is too young to address things publicly. I don't think age is the main issue here.

Well said, Susan. Very well said indeed!

I was asking (generally, not specific to this case) whether public confession is precluded for a 16 year old, not whether it is required. Perhaps my wording wasn't clear enough.

In general, if a sin is going to be known by everyone, it is good if everyone knows about the repentance, too, when it is present. Some benefits I see:
1. It helps prevent on-going gossip. If everyone knows, there is no speculation. "Is she pregnant? Did you hear?" etc, etc. That kind of stuff is horrible.
2. It gets the awkwardness and embarrassment all over at once. There isn't the repeated, "Oh, you're PREGNANT?!" from people as they discover it. It's done and dusted. She doesn't have to keep telling people.
3. It earns love and respect by being honest.
4. It lets people feel confident about how they can appropriately reach out to the person. If the sin is known but the repentance isn't, there's always the question of, "How accepting am I supposed to be? Should I be comforting this person or trying to confront her?" etc. One big advantage of public confession is it sweeps all that away and lets people get on with "restoring in the spirit of meekness."

But cases vary. Sometimes it isn't a good idea. Sometimes it might be better to read out a statement when the person isn't present. I don't know of any Scriptures that specifically mandate which sins or which circumstances require public confession. The principle of public confession is Biblical (James 5:16, Acts 19:18, implied in Galatians 6:1), but the extent is unspecified. It is perhaps a question of what is the wisest course, and that would suggest the answers are not the same every time, and makes it hard to judge from the outside.

is that Ms. Anderson spoke publicly to her fellow believers but didn't stay in that same fellowship of believers to receive their help and support after acknowledging her pregnancy. It would have felt less like a "confession" and more like an appeal for help if the congregation itself had had the opportunity to extend love and grace through the next several months. Church discipline (or whatever you want to call it in this case) works precisely because of this: proximity and established relationship. And when that is removed, it's hard to understand why she was standing in front of them in the first place.

I think ultimately that's what Susan's getting at--this is a huge fumble of handling/understanding church discipline and THAT reflects poorly on Pastor Phelps because it falls directly under the scope of his responsibility. To my mind, it's not whether he acted legally or ethically, but whether or not he acted pastorally, and that is a significant question that BJ needs to answer in order to be able to evaluate how it affects their relationship to him as a board member and speaker.

And truthfully I don't think it's a zero sum game. If Pastor Phelps publicly acknowledges his specific mistakes and seeks reconciliation with the parties involved, I don't see why he couldn't return to a position of honor and leadership in BJ circles. There's this beautiful thing called grace and sometimes it's a better testimony than never having messed up in the first place.

My last comment was written before I read Aaron's--didn't mean to prolong a discussion of details. But I do think what is significant is that BJ is essentially taking a side by publicly saying that they've evaluated the criticisms and find them generally unfounded. That is what has sparked the return to discussing details -- we are all now trying to evaluate not Pastor Phelps per se, but BJU's discernment.

But like Aaron said, I've got things to do--casserole, turkey, et al. Happy Thanksgiving to you all!

I didn't say everyone who challenges is bullying.
My point was that there has been a tidal wave of ranting against Phelps and of demands that one thing or another be "done about him."
I can't blame either him or BJU for seeing that as an angry mob that ought to be resisted.

But my point was that, agree or disagree with their answers, there are two questions here:
1. Is it in the best interest of the school to have him on the board?
2. Is it in the best interest of the school to let a mob of critics tell them how to do things?

It's sad that a valid point or two gets lost in all the raving, but that's the nature of things. And the statement shows that they have noted some of those criticisms. (Everybody, including Phelps himself, agreed a long time ago that it wasn't the best course of action to bring Tina before the church. People seem to keep forgetting that. I'm pretty sure I recall reading statements from him as well to the effect that he wished he'd been more aggressive in getting the police fully involved.)

It makes no difference whether or not I agree with BJU's position on the matter. But they are right to factor in the merits of resisting critics as well as the merits of listening to them.

One more thing: I would suggest that people who see their involvement on a board as being as trivial as having a finger dipped in a glass of water should certainly withdraw and look for leadership opportunities they actually care about. My assumption here is that both Phelps and BJU see the board role as an important ministry.

As I said, "Bullying" is probably in the eye of the beholder. Anyone who aspires to being a "bully" is simply mean, but few would admit to such an aspiration. But when we are on the receiving end of criticism, threats, challenges, etc..., it does feel like bullying and that's when it is wise to step back and ask whether or not there is any legitimacy in the complaints and to consider if it's just ridiculous to stand there and keep getting pummeled for something that isn't all that consequential. But I'm willing to consider that "consequential" might also be in the eye of the beholder.

I did not mean to imply that being on a board is "trivial" -- what I did mean to communicate was that, for all of our belief at times that we might somehow be indispensable to an institution, boards do not collapse and institutions do not fail because of the presence of any one single member. I certainly don't view my part on the boards where I've served as "trivial" -- at the same time, I don't see them as essential. I didn't word this very articulately, I realize.

I can only answer this from my own personal experience and practice: When it becomes all about *ME*, and it draws attention away from the ministry in which I am participating, I get out of the way. Of course I have never had this situation come up when I was serving as a Sr. Pastor. This has always been when I was serving in a support role to the senior pastor. But if my presence, my actions, my testimony is drawing attention away from the ministry, then I am interfering with that ministry, and I step out. I am not saying that this is what Dr. Phelps should do. This what the Lord has led me to do.

Keep in mind, the mainstream media has an agenda here. They are not going to be satisfied until Dr. Phelps is defrocked, removed from any position of influence, and lives in a cardboard box on the corner of State and Madison. They are not going to be satisfied until BJU either descends into religious/social liberalism, or closes its doors altogether. Until then they will continue to take shots at both, valid or not, to try to beat them down. We will continue to hear inaccurate or half-true stories meant to cast them in the most negative light, and designed to inflame.

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Ephesians 6:12) We need to remember that this is, at its core, an attempt by one spiritual force to destroy another - Godly - spiritual force. So, I temper my first comment with the second comment.

In the end, no matter what they do, about half of the people will be upset, and half will be supportive.

Quickest link rot ever.

Steve, I get that you want to reduce the ministry significance of being on a board, as does Dan. But I'm pretty sure that in other contexts, you would read Romans 12:1 and preach that all of the believer's life is to be "spiritual service of worship."
Personally, I would not serve on a board unless I felt the Lord wanted me to do it and I would be doing it in service to him (Col.3:23). My original point on that was that a person in that situation has to consider "to what degree do I allow critics to determine what I do in service of the Lord?"
This question is important whether it concerns serving on a board or serving as an accountant, carpenter, plumber, or helicopter pilot.
It should be obvious that the question takes on proportionately more importance when the position involves leadership. But even if one is determined to view the BJU board cynically, it still fits solidly under Colossians 3:23's "whatever you do... as to the Lord and not to men."

I tried to re-read and compare the two versions, but I only have access to the Google cached version from 11/23, and it looks the same. Does anyone have a copy of the old statement? I would be curious to see what was changed.

Aaron Wrote:

Steve, I get that you want to reduce the ministry significance of being on a board, as does Dan.

Personally, I would not serve on a board unless I felt the Lord wanted me to do it and I would be doing it in service to him (Col.3:23). My original point on that was that a person in that situation has to consider "to what degree do I allow critics to determine what I do in service of the Lord?"
-------------

Aaron, you are misunderstanding me. A board is not always as significant as we think it is -- particularly, a cooperating board. I've been in conversations with people in leadership where the topic of adding boards and putting people on various boards to appeal to various constituencies or to acknowledge significant people and use their reputations for credibility. It that is "ministry" by your definition, then perhaps you are correct. It's not mine. If someone thinks that their individual presence on the board is what makes that board significant or is a "ministry" that could not or should not be performed by someone else (even if that person currently servicing diminishes the credibility of that board due to any number of reasons), then that is a level of arrogance that I find fairly disturbing. I'm not sure there is any more Biblical evidence to say that God "calls" us to a board than that fact that He calls us to be living sacrifices. I would also note that Scripture tells us that our good should not be the cause for evil speaking. Chuck may be thinking he is doing "good", but it is more than apparent that this is giving rise to tons of evil speaking.

If "I felt the Lord wanted me to do it" becomes the baseline standard for what we do in any part of life, then all manner of mischief and bullheadedness will be the consequence. There are some on the internet who believe that "God" has called them on a "mission" of exposing BJU and it's orb of influence and are trying to make a broad case that fundamentalism is rife with sexual crimes and cover-ups and that they are indeed doing "God's work"? Are they to be believed as well because they "feel" the Lord wants them to do this? It is easy to ascribe doing what we want to do as being "God's will" as some sort of trump card against which no one has the right to argue. I had that used on me more than once when my girlfriends would dump me in high school. I think it is about as reliable today. Scripture is a more clear guide and I see nothing there that would indicate that any board member should bring disrepute to an area of ministry (as in the Biblical definition of "blamelessness") and excuse it by declaring it "God's Will" for him. It's both selfish and arrogant.

Many of you know that I have been deeply concerned about how this matter was dealt with by Pastor Phelps. I have also elsewhere stated that the best thing we all can do from this is be fore-warned. Pastors and church leaders should be prepared with procedures that are well-thought out and detailed. These procedures must also obey Scriptural commands, honor the spirit of Scripture with regard to our protection of the weak and persecuted, as well as obey the relevant legal structures. Not having a well-thought-out policy with regard to these things predictably resulted in a tragedy for Tina and others.

The possibilities in this matter range from the inadvertent (“he carelessly sent the wrong message”) to the deliberate (“he worried more about the church’s well-being than Tina’s”). But we have no access to Pastor Phelps’ heart; we cannot know. In either case, we must be careful about castigating Pastor Phelps for errors of judgment in how this situation was handled. All of us in any Spiritual leadership role make errors in judgment. At times, we also fail to apologize for them in a timely fashion (as some say Pastor Phelps has failed). All of us in Spiritual leadership roles make errors that may cause people to turn away from the truth – errors that have eternal ramifications. In this way, we cannot say that Tina’s mis-treatment was any more serious a deviation than our own failures. All we can do is learn from this. No other purpose is served.

Some feel it is beating a dead horse to pursue issues of Pastor Phelps’ future. Others feel the horse can never sufficiently be beaten, until Pastor Phelps is drummed out of the ministry. But this is also not our business. Each church has to evaluate its own spiritual leadership according to their own perceptions of their qualification and I Timothy 3. And each para-church ministry, composed of believers, has to do the same. Members/supporters of either church or para-church ministries may show their approval or disapproval in a variety of ways.

Bob Jones University has stated their own opinion – that Pastor Phelps made mistakes, but has attempted to deal with the matter appropriately after the fact. Those who feel that BJU has misinterpreted Pastor Phelp’s actions or attitudes can show their disproval in material ways (not enrolling, not sending gifts, etc.). Those who agree can continue to support them.

As for me, I treasure the time I had at BJU. I learned much. I did not always approve of their management. But I don’t even always approve of the management of my own church. Management is hard. Mistakes are made.

I know that BJU’s administration has always made their decisions with little regard for the message it will send. It’s part of the old “Do right till the stars fall” thing. They have done what they believe to be right in this matter.
I wish they had calculated that there would be a firestorm over this; that re-accepting Pastor Phelps to the board would be counted callous disregard for the entire area of molestation, no matter what disclaimers they made to the contrary. But that is not their nature.
I wish Pastor Phelps had calculated it also, and had said to them something like “Are you crazy? I’m poison. Don’t touch me for at least a decade.”
I wish Pastor Phelps would make a clear statement that he recognizes he handled the situation wrongly, and explain his thinking at the time clearly. Such a statement would do much to warn us of pitfalls we must avoid. It might also remove the fangs from the most virulent attackers of Fundamentalism, who hold the movement as identical to some kind of labor union for child molesters (though perhaps I’m being over-optimistic in thinking that).

Lastly, I’m glad that our church doesn’t have “Fundamental” over the door. Too much baggage, friends. When someone calls and says “Are you a Fundamental church?”, I have to spend about 10 minutes answering that question. The best move we ever made was emphasizing the “Independent” and de-emphasizing everything else.

Aaron, this is an incredible double standard. We don't need to contact Tina personally but we do need to contact Chuck Phelps personally? And BJU did NOT contact Tina privately. Tina has stated this clearly.

The reason Penn State is not simply a victim vs. Sandusky issue is the exact same reason this one is not.

Similarities and differences are worth noting.

Similarities:
Abuse occurred

Differences:
Where the offense happened (Sandusky case: Penn State.... Willers case: not BJU)
Chain of command involved (Sandusky case: Penn State personnel... Willers case: not BJU personnel)
What leadership did (Sandusky case: failure to notify police.... Willers case: police notified... also not by BJU since they were not involved)

It really is a stretch.

PLewis... I don't think he's trying to inflame emotions (though that tends to be the result). It's just that to him a particular version of what happened and a particular view of what ought to be done about it are both obvious, and I imagine it's pretty frustrating to find that others don't see it the same way. (I know the feeling... just not in this particular case)

That article is so encouraging. How wonderful to see a church making the hard, right choices despite counsel from lawyers and insurers.

I think if some of you ever find yourself being sued, you'll think differently about lawyers.
It should be obvious that "using lawyer in order to be legally cautious" does not equal "making false or misleading statements."

The case could be made that, when being legally threatened, it's folly not to use a lawyer.

On the other hand, of course nobody believes the lawyers are infallible or always have Christian ethics. Solution A: reject all lawyers. Sane solution: get a good lawyer when you need one.

Edit: We've unpublished several posts that were straying too far into repeating old accusations of Phelps. Some folks continue to think that they will become more true if they repeat them with more vehemence. But whatever actual reasoning is involved one way or the other has already been heard many times.

I haven't seen anyone bashing lawyers here--not sure where your assumption that people will think differently about lawyers is coming from. I suppose that some of those comments were in deleted posts and I just missed them. Point is that there is a difference in "retaining a lawyer for counsel" and "using a lawyer as a sort of shield from Scriptural confession and repentance". The article link posted by Mike was proof that not everyone views the counsel of attorneys in the same light--that is very refreshing.

Matthew

I've had to deal with a couple of issues with ladies/immorality in our church, and I do see that we don't tell everyone (members) things unless it is ongoing and nonrepentant.

The one thing that really strikes me as very odd as far as leadership decision making is the way T gave up her baby for adoption. If it wasn't really her choice, kind of forced upon her, I think that's really, really overstepping personal bounds of decision making and responsibility. Her mom was probably involved in this, too, but I think, as a person in leadership, I would've left it more to the family how the pregnancy played out, just offered some kind of support, options, counseling, etc.

Leaving Willis in his church roles, and with people unaware of his real actions, also gives me the shivers as a mom/church member. We've had one person in our church secretly plan murder (bought arms, etc.) and another secretly drink, and when we were told, my husband, as pastor, immediately removed all church activities from those homes, not to mention their leadership involvement. Esp. when minors are involved. Even if parents don't know the details, we still need to protect their kids.

So . . . I really don't think anyone can judge Phelp's heart those many years ago, probably not even he himself, but some of it seems to be odd from decision-making standpoint.

To Hannah's question, I don't think that clergy sympathy has that much to do with it my case. False-accusation sympathy definitely does. I've experienced a boatload of that, just not in newspapers.
So when I hear alot of "So and so did this because [insert harsh judgment of motives]" there's no question that it raises my hackles. That standard applies equally well to Tina as it does to Chuck. I'm in favor of assuming the best possible motives for what everybody did in the situation (excepting Willers--he's been clear about what was motivating him) and in the versions of events they have recalled.
People make mistakes when remembering details of events from more than a decade ago. (I make mistakes when remembering details of events from three days ago.) And the more emotional we were at the time, the less accurately we remember the particulars. We remember best how we felt.

There's just no need to be judging anybody's motives in this beyond how they've described them themselves. It's pointless in any case. We simply cannot know these things.
It's a mystery to me why--when people describe what they were trying to do and meant to do--we cannot simply accept that as true.

Edit to add: Phelps made some bad choices in handling the case. Everybody knows and agrees on that, including Phelps. That horse is so, so dead. Can we stop beating it?

Edit again to add: just google "Pastor Chuck Phelps" and see what's out there. After a page or two of that, it's pretty hard not to feel bad for the guy.

Mrs. Anderson. I can only speak for myself. Dr.Phelps was in the same graduating class as my wife an I were. We have had opportunity to be in the congregation when he was the speaker. Personally, I don't have any use for the man. BUT...

When I observed the kind of "piling on" we saw months ago when this all started, my immediate response was to stop and wait until we had all the information. It had nothing to do with innate leniency, but with sensing (all those months ago) the growing lynch mob mentality, based on the "reporting" of a self serving, ratings seeking, agenda driven reality series. (I will not dignify it even by describing it as a "news magazine".)

Sort of. At the risk of being accused of "flogging my own blog", this post explains a lot of my perspective on it. I don't think the principles I've given there are limited at all to pastors. There is almost always a lot more to the story that isn't known. Any reasonable person would say that something that happened more than a decade ago has a lot to it that isn't known any longer. Unless you really understand both sides of the story (probably almost no one does in this case), perhaps harsh judgments are out of place.

I'm always nervous about Internet justice, anyway. It's hard for me to see how the world will be made better by my going on the web and proclaiming that someone is either evil or just. I wrote this here on SI a few months ago about CJ Mahaney:

That would be my main reason for refusing to join the Phelps Phrenzy. It's not circling the wagons -- I certainly am no supporter of either Phelps or Mahaney. It's simply not my job to set myself up as their judge, unless I were considering some kind of ministry link. BJU has looked into it. I hope and pray they have done so well.

But I do think that pastors are perhaps more likely to put themselves in Chuck Phelps' position and say, "Wow, that might have been a lot harder than people think."

None of what I'm about to write is an endorsement of Phelps' actions. But just suppose....

Suppose he is telling the truth and Tina did write a statement that she wanted read to the church. Suppose he refused. He could have been accused of treating her like a little child, ignoring her spiritual need for restoration, etc. Would it have still been the right decision to refuse to read the statement? I think so, but the point is he could have been criticised either way. It's a no-win.

Suppose he told the church that Ernie Willis was the father of Tina's baby. People would be out to destroy him because he violated her privacy and revealed she was the victim of a sex crime. Instead, he's attacked for not revealing that information. No way to win.

Suppose he (against Tina's request) pursued matters until there was a prosecution. Tina could have criticised him for dragging her through the legal system, and destroying a man's life and family when she didn't want it. "He was more concerned with justice than mercy. Why couldn't he notify them if he had to, but then just leave it (and me) alone?" Should he have followed up more? Yes -- but none of the parties wanted him to at the time. He might have had more criticism if he had done so. Can't win.

Suppose he refused to let the rapist attend church any more. "He is unforgiving, and won't obey Galatians 6:1. He won't even let that man come to church after he confessed!" Instead, he is criticised and people suggest he even let Ernie have "church roles". Phelps loses either way -- someone is going to criticise.

Sometimes, you just can't win, you are going to be criticised no matter what. Perhaps my limited experience as a pastor does make it easier for me to see that aspect of it. I've been in situations where I couldn't win. I've been in situations where I could only "win" by breaking confidentiality, but to do that would not be a "win", either, even if the person whose confidentiality I broke never knew about it.

I hope, if I faced the same situation, I would do as Ron Bean described. But I still hesitate to criticise another pastor who was trying to deal with the spiritual needs of two families. After the fact evaluations are always easier than making the best decisions when you are in the crucible.

edit: This is not intended to persuade anyone of anything. It is an answer to Mrs. Anderson explaining my perspective, in answer to her question. I'm unlikely to respond to follow up posts about it, especially the "supposes". They are just illustrative of the dilemmas pastors may face in difficult situations.

I find it interesting how many times posters have to go back and clarify what they meant because they were misunderstood. Either because they didn't say something the "right" way or their true feelings were mistinterpreted. Once clarified, all seems to be forgiven or at least accepted.

However, Chuck Phelps has not been afforded that same courtesy. What he said and did in 1997 is all that matters...not that he was perhaps misunderstood 15 years later when memories fade and when people are influenced by media exposure. I think Chuck has worked to explain his position, to clarify if you will, and that much of what he said and did was taken in a way he did not envision.

I was reading a short story to my kids the other day, written from the perspective of a child in the 1950's. Times were different then, and the kids kept asking questions about the kinds of things that were taken for granted- kids carrying knives and guns, for instance.

We are viewing this situation with 20/20 hindsight, when what the average pastor and churchgoer knew 10 years ago about child sexual molestation probably wouldn't fill a thimble. I don't think ignorance is an excuse, but ignorance explains why one could be misguided but not malicious.

Ditto Aaron on the apology idea.

Availability of information does not mean that all pastors are well informed. There is still the problem of church leadership looking at problems through a telescope, not really believing that they will ever have to deal with these issues, or, like a child who thinks there's a monster in the closet, they close their eyes as if the problem will disappear if they pretend it doesn't exist.

Which lends the question of how these men end up in church leadership positions...

Anyway, I've experienced again and again, working with my dh as SS Admin, the refusal of church leadership to quickly and effectively enact even basic child protection policies because they think it breeds an air of paranoia and suspicion in their church.

Which lends the question of how these men end up in church leadership positions...

Anyway, my point is that while ignorance is not excusable, it is not the same as malice.

I want to publicly thank Mike, Jay, and Aaron for providing some healthy perspective and balance. Also, I think the warnings given by Bryan are sobering. No pastor can read them without a sense of immense responsibility when these matters occur. Unfortunately, I am absolutely certain that a much broader agenda is going on behind the scenes where very godly individuals who have sacrificed their entire lives to serve God with a perfect heart will be publicly villified in the future. As Jay pointed out with his "no win" scenarios, dealing with these matters is analagous to wrestling with skunks, no matter what happens one is going come out of it smelling quite badly. Sin, particularly of this kind, is awful, ugly, repulsive, damaging, and eternally destructive. We are all sinners capable of horrendous behavior. By God's grace some are regenerated sinners. As regenerated sinners I pray that we all will think, write, and evaluate with humility (Gal 6:1) and discernment (Matt 7:1-6).

Dan, Mike and others.... thanks for the encouraging words. It is often hard to tell if anything good is coming from the back and forth. ... and of course we never can tell what the folks are thinking who read but don't post.

As for the apology idea, I put it out as a suggestion for a couple of reasons. For one, the whole "angry group making demands" dynamic in our culture has become so excessive and tiresome. Second, people just tend to think more about what we suggest than what we demand. Three, it's often doubtful that we've got any right to demand what we feel like demanding.

I'm not saying it's never right for folks to get together and, via petition or whatever, make themselves heard--and maybe demand that some wrong be righted. It just runs against my conservative temperament I guess.

Maybe someone should start a petition protesting this outrageous removal!

That was a joke. If somebody starts one now, I will feel really bad about it.

It seems appropriate to me to remove the page, now that Pastor Phelps has removed himself. It is, at best, irrelevant to keep it up. At worst, it would provoke further complaint.