"Regret and disgust that the perpetrator of the rape remained in the congregation for seven years "

I just simply ache for all those involved. And I am praying.

Dude,

The most disappointing thing is not that that your church’s attitude’s were questioned, but that a girl got raped. Then she got publicly humiliated before the people you think are the ones the most hurt.

The compassion and love of the congregation has been quite justly called int question - consider the situation from the girl’s perspective…

I think his point there is a. the most disappointing thing since word hit the press and b., that the congregation never intended to humiliate the girl.

I read this story last night. Pastor Fuller indicated that the girl should not have been brought before the church and the man should have been put out immediately. I am encouraged by his response. Not that I am directly involved, but insofar as this has cast a shadow on fundamental churches and how our churches exercise church discipline, he is saying the right things.

What I find odd is that Brian went to TBC as youth pastor in ‘98—the year Tina gave birth. In 1999, Tina returned to Concord & Trinity for her senior year of high school (but of course, according to Tina, wasn’t allowed back in the Christian school to graduate with her class). So she would’ve been part of Brian’s youth group….and Chuck never said anything to him about this situation? Furthermore, Ernie was still in the church, a member in good standing. Chuck didn’t give Brian a heads up, if for no other reason to make sure all the staff with oversight responsibilities didn’t keep their eye on a known rapist/molester? IF that’s the case…IF indeed Brian didn’t know anything about this…then that’s way too much secrecy and would reflect irresponsible shepherding.

I also find odd Brian’s statement that he didn’t know why Ernie was eventually removed from the church’s membership (in 2004). It’s incredible to believe that, when this story broke, he didn’t find out everything he could about all parties involved. Furthermore, he was a staff member when the dismissal occurred, and it really hasn’t been all that long ago. Seems that something like that would stick in one’s memory. Then again, maybe TBC has way more church discipline cases than the average church. Nevertheless, the clerk’s records would certainly provide that little detail. If not, again…too much secrecy?

Finally, instead of “the most disappointing thing is that our love and compassion toward people has been questioned,” Brian should’ve admitted, “the most disappointing thing is that we obviously failed to show love and compassion toward Tina and justice toward Ernie Willis, and the community is rightly angry with us.”

All that said, it’s comfortably easy to critique from afar. I’m praying for Brian & TBC to shed all masks, not give a hoot about image, be open and transparent in admitting failure, make the appropriate changes, and clarify “this is what we should have done & how we’ll handle such things from here on out.” Seems that’s the only way the church will be able to regain some credibility in the community.

Personally, I’m not one for going ‘digging’. I am sure there are things that happened before my dh and I began to attend and serve in our church, but unless we are in a position to really need to know, we leave it alone. Pastor Fuller is not only depending on his memory of events that happened 13 years ago, but at the time he may not have been made aware of the fact there was something he needed to be aware of.

I don’t think Pastor Fuller could have worded his statement in a way that made everyone happy. It is difficult to apologize for the failure of others when one was not directly involved in events and must depend on piecing the puzzle together from various sources. It sounds like he is still having trouble discerning the truth from conflicting reports. I also appreciate the delicate balance between being ‘transparent’ and discreet.

I had a brief communication with a person who was a member at Trinity and this person didn’t make the connection between Ernie’s and Tina’s “confessions” at the time of the incident . Is it possible that the leadership of the church were the only ones who knew the connection then?

I think the one thing that was clear is that pastor Fuller indicated that the way the church handled it then was wrong. I don’t know what he knew and when, but he seems to be dealing with the issues that concern Christians most: why was this girl made to come before the church?

Gossip, speculation, innuendo, slander…

Nobody commenting was there. Nobody commenting has all the facts. In cases like this it is best to keep quiet until everything comes out, as it will in due time. In the meantime, it would be better for everyone to just leave it alone and refrain from passing judgements. That would include Brian Fuller.

I believe this statement is a beautiful declaration of repentance and honesty. It is refreshing. Are there things in it that any of us would have said differently? Sure. But let’s not jostle the elbow of the guy at the helm as he navigates them through this storm — very capably, apparently.

dealing with the issues that concern Christians most: why was this girl made to come before the church?

Yes!

I think that many of us reach the conclusion that Phelps felt that this was consensual. This is the most logical conclusion given facts that can be established without relying on the statements of one person:

1. They were brought before the church at the same service. Phelps says this service was to discipline Willis but to love and support Anderson.

2. The congregation was not told at the discipline session that the incidents were related.

3. Willis remained at the church for seven additional years.

Just these three facts, that are not disputed even by Phelps, paint a picture that is clear enough that I don’t think it’s gossip, innuendo, or slander to describe it.

It would be highly unlikely and irregular to discipline a church member for infidelity and combine this with a plea for the congregation to love and support a pregnant teen (especially when the congregation was not told that the pregnancy was the result of rape — statutory or otherwise!) However, if you believed that the statutory rapes were consensual acts, it would be “logical” to “discipline” the teen as well because you believe that she sinned, not that she was sinned against.

It would be “logical” to not tell the congregation that the two incidents (pregnancy and infidelity) were related if you thought that it was consensual and you thought that the poor man was a victim of his own lusts and had been tempted beyond control by the teen. If your sympathy were with the man because you believed that he had been unfaithful, but that it wasn’t “really” rape because it was consensual… then you wouldn’t tell the congregation AND you would allow him to remain in the church after he “confessed” and “repented” his sin. The fact that infidelity (not also statutory rape) was all that Willis confessed to in front of the congregation also lends credence to this.

Disclaimer: I don’t agree with ANY of this “logical” thinking, but I can see it happening all too easily.

Given that many other claims and statements (that I didn’t include because they are more easily disputed than the above three facts) ALSO indicate that Phelps thought that Anderson had sinned, this is why I think she was made to come before the church. And it’s what makes many of us ill: the idea that a pastor wouldn’t understand that a 15 year-old could be raped more than once by a man and it still be rape, not sinful participation.

I agree Rachel, that certain facts are not in dispute, but the motives and interpretation of those facts certainly are. For example, we know that

1. They were brought before the church at the same service. Phelps says this service was to discipline Willis but to love and support Anderson.
2. The congregation was not told at the discipline session that the incidents were related.
3. Willis remained at the church for seven additional years.

What if the congregation was not told because the investigation was ongoing? Or because the Andersons asked the pastor not to mention details? We still don’t know whether or not Willis repented in some fashion that was deemed acceptable and thus was allowed to remain at the church.

On one aspect of this, I can state that I think that bringing a young girl before the congregation was unnecessary. The issue could have been addressed with her seated next to her family, but church culture leads us to view the front of the auditorium as the ‘official’ area for business with God to take place.

So while we have access to a few facts, we don’t have all of them, and we definitely don’t know the thinking of the people involved at the time that all this occurred. Bro. Karl pointed out earlier in the other thread that sometimes behavior that ‘seemed like a good idea at the time’ can be interpreted as suspect later, and there is really nothing you can do about it but learn from it.

So while we have access to a few facts, we don’t have all of them, and we definitely don’t know the thinking of the people involved at the time that all this occurred. Bro. Karl pointed out earlier in the other thread that sometimes behavior that ‘seemed like a good idea at the time’ can be interpreted as suspect later, and there is really nothing you can do about it but learn from it.

Having ALL of the facts about every situation before we are “allowed” to make a judgment is an impossible requirement. It is often used to shut down those attempting to hold leaders accountable for their actions.

And, I can think of no way that allowing this man to stay in the congregation to “seem like a good idea at the time” unless Phelps didn’t think he was a threat because Phelps felt like it had been consensual.

[Rachel L.] And, I can think of no way that allowing this man to stay in the congregation to “seem like a good idea at the time” unless Phelps didn’t think he was a threat because Phelps felt like it had been consensual.

Or if he felt that the man had repented, or both. There is a young man in our church who is a convicted sex offender, (the act was consensual, but the girl was a couple years his junior and below the age of consent in OH) but he has asked the church to forgive him. If we don’t let him attend because of his offense, where exactly is he supposed to go to church, KWIM?

I don’t think we are in the position of holding anyone accountable in this situation. It is reasonable to discuss what we do know and armchair quarterback to a certain extent, but to make judgments and draw conclusions? That’s going too far IMO.

[Louise Dan] I have been reading stories here for months and this is the first time I’ve heard so much about waiting for the facts and avoiding speculation. Piper’s sabbatical. Rick Warren’s delayed book. And there remain older threads on the End of the Spear and the Zichterman controversies. Certainly speculation ran rampant then. But this incident involves the RAPE of a CHILD. And it occurred in a movement we all call home. If it’s ever right to examine, speculate, and address any issue, the seriousness of the crime and the fact that it was WITHIN our movement mean THIS is it.

Speculation is usually not helpful, since it produces no solid information. Are you arguing that the seriousness of this situation demands speculation? Wouldn’t it be safer to speculate in less serious situations? Aren’t some so serious that speculation should be avoided?