"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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

*****MODERATOR NOTE*****
This post was temporarily hidden from view pending verification of the comments quoted below. Bryan has told us that they came from the comments thread of the Monitor article that is referenced in the first post. Since they are linked to that article, we have chosen to republish them. This post has not been altered in any way other than the addition of the Mod Note Section.

-Jay C.
*****END MOD NOTE*****

From one of Brian's former youth staff:

From a former TBC deacon:

From a former(?) TBC member:

If you look back in those threads you'll probably find posts by me recommending in one way or another that we not pass judgment on people without facts that enable us to do so. I'm consistently against that. (Edit: I don't think I was involved much during the End of the Spear thing, so I'm not in those threads I don't believe)

As for speculation, I've been thinking about that a lot the last few weeks. While it's usually pretty useless (it's just guessing, after all) I don't think it's a terrible thing as long as people are clear that they are guessing. When it become foolish, and often wrong, is when we express our guesswork in the form of factual judgments.

I think, too, that some are overlooking something about the nature of IFB. The "I" in that acronym is not wishful thinking. Though it's accurate enough to say whatever happened happened "within our movement," the "independent" means that there is nobody with the authority or responsibility to make sure individual churches do what they should. They believe their Head is Christ (imagine that) and certainly each church will answer to Him, whether their view of independence is correct or not.

For those who believe some individual or group needs to take churches to task and punish them in some way for not doing things correctly, Charlie would be happy (I'm pretty sure) to tell you about the PCA and the merits of government via synods and such.

Meanwhile, the best anyone can do among independents is have some open talk on the issue, do some teaching, things like that. "Open" doesn't require that unsubstantiated accusations and judgments be passed without any restraint at all. We're trying to be fair here.

As for teaching/writing on the subject, we hope to soon feature some advice for pastors for dealing with these situations from a pastor who has dealt with quite a few. Beyond that, we can try to have better teaching in the colleges/seminaries, maybe pass some resolutions at the various fellowships/conferences, but independent is independent.

This is no small point. Let me state that I BELIEVE in the autonomy and independence of the local church. However, I am also intellectually honest enough to admit that there are weaknesses with that system, for sure, on a practical level, compared with the way that well-run denominations work. This particular case may or may not evidence some of them -- but at least it illustrates that when it comes to things such as the reception, discipline, dismissal and transfer of members, it is every man for himself -- or every church for itself, as the case may be. The way one Baptist church handles these things and the way another of an almost identical doctrinal position handles them might be 1,000 miles apart. Perhaps we need to begin by searching the Scriptures for a clearer understanding and praying for wisdom on how to IMPLEMENT the independence of the local church.

For the most part, independent churches have also been very sloppy and inconsistent when it comes to these issues. We have all been in Baptist churches where members were received during the "announcement" portion of the service with a process as sophisticated as, "If you vote for these folks to join, raise yer hand -- and if you are again' 'em, well you can raise your hand too!" Then something like this hits the news and everyone wants to go over these processes with a fine-toothed comb.

Similarly, I was chastised once for preaching a very non-emotional, non-situation-driven series of messages on church discipline -- "We don't need to talk about that -- we will deal with it when it happens." But when it happens, then everyone is sure willing to step forward and critique what went wrong.

For better or worse, the legal climate today is making this type of modus operandi a thing of the past, at least for thinking people. Businesses spend $1,000's on plans for disasters, emergencies, etc., so that when something happens, they have things defined down to who to call first, second and third, etc. and what to say to the media. Perhaps churches and ministries could spend a little more time thinking ahead and proactively as well.

FWIW, I watched an excellent video online from the Shepherds Conference of MacArthur discussing how things including membership, baptism, discipline, etc. are handled at Grace Church. I did not agree with everything he said, but I was impressed with the level of thought and planning that has gone into having a system in place.

Outside of going to a large, well-organized church such as that (sort of a denomination unto itself), however, I see no immediate solutions forthcoming to the problems posed by the independent church model.

P.S. -- Isn't it funny that even though we think we are so independent, when a story like this hits, all "independent" churches may become suspect. With the added degree of secrecy inherent within "independent" churches, the media has a double-edged sword to wield. Food for thought...

I have a agree with Louise and Rachel on this. Aaron is correct that he has consistantly called for a measured tone on this and all issues. But many of us on here (including me from time to time) have not been so measured. We tend to want to be careful when it is someone we like and not so much for those we don't. I have tried to say If "this" happened "this" way then it was wrong.

To the present issue, I am greatly angered. A 15 year old girl was raped!!! It does not matter that it was statutory. The perp was allowed to stay in the church. Susan, I can confidently say biblical repentance did not happen because he did not turn himself in. In the case you had in your church, the peope involved werewas 18 and 15? It also sounds like the man in your church was put in the legal system. This was a 39 yr old and a15 yr old!! Maybe Phelps thought it was different because he thought it was statutory. Well, he was wrong - there is no difference morally or legally. This was a girl who had already been abused. Now Willis, who should have protected her violated her. In my church, he would not be restored until he turned himself in, even if he showed other signs of repentance because repentence did not take place until the perpretraitor did notsubject himself to the law.

There is something that angers me but to a much lesser degree. Look at all of the churches (at least three directly) and Colleges (at least BJ and NIU, MBBC and Central directly) that have been dragged through the mud b/c of how this was mishandled. Now mant think all IFBers are nuts and wrongheaded. I think this is something we can all learn. When we pastors make these decisions, they can and will affect more than our ministry.

I don't think I have speculated. I have only gone on a few facts. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I tend to agree with Don. No one here knows enough to say anything really definitive or even really educated about this case. It's all just speculation. What has been interesting to me is that so far most of the jabs have been thrown at one particular side (Chuck Phelps). No one seems to be speculating about other possible rationales why this story would be resurrected 13 years after the fact...

Does this say something about the level of frustration within fundamentalism -- perhaps having little to do with the details of this case?

Also, a caution if you are relying on TV news as the basis of your argument. I have worked in news journalism for 10 years, and have covered many stories which were also covered by TV news. They often come into a story cold, knowing none of the players or background involved. Then they condense a complex issue into a story that is, at most, 2 to 3 minutes long (including edited interviews) and try to present it in such a way that they can draw the most viewers. I have seen stories which I have covered get twisted up six ways to Sunday by the time they made it to TV news.

Don,

Where did I do what you are saying? The things that I mentioned have been stipulated too, not in news stories but by the parties involved. Again, this does affect us - this is OUR brand of Fundamentalism. In the only other post that I posted about this situation, i stated that I was so shocked about this especially because this is our "brand." This isn't Hyles or Gray, but us. To that end, it is relevant to us. But I totally agree that the best we can do with this is to look at this from a pastoral theology standpoint.

One of things I've asked myself over the last few weeks is, how do we let people talk about this without letting people say things they probably shouldn't or in a way they probably shouldn't? I've come to the conclusion that though SI is not a news organization, there are times when we sort of partly play that role. In western cultures we tend to view "the press" as a vital part of society for keeping government and business (centers of power) accountable to "the people." The media often do this badly, ooze self importance and condescension, pry into things that truly are nobody's business, etc., but over all, most of us would not want them to go away because there is value there.
The belief is that a culture of openness is healthy in general though in many individual cases it's ugly and repugnant. In Fundamentalism, there has not been anything approaching a culture of openness. The Internet, with all its attendant problems, affords some opportunity to redress that. The fact that folks will talk about things, in itself, makes the "I" in independent less mixed with another "I," isolation (or maybe "insulation").

So, though I think much of what get's said is not accurate or helpful, the fact that folks are free to say it is part of a culture of openness that--at least in this case--is needed. If indeed there is a widespread problem of IFB churches covering up serious moral failures and botching discipline, an increasing awareness that these situations will get talked about in threads like these, would--in some measure--make it more difficult and less attractive for leaders to try to go that route. If there is not really such a problem (I am very skeptical of the idea that IFB has more of this than the general population), a culture of openness can help make that evident and act as a hedge against it. The perception is definitely out there and if we don't allow discussion at places like SI, that perception just gains ground. Sometimes you have to just let perceptions stand. They aren't your fault or under your control. It's like the kids in the dark insisting the monsters are under the bed. But sometimes you can turn some lights on.

SI doesn't yet have a policy that is easy to apply in these situations. Doubt we ever will. Forum policies come down to key words that tend to be adjectives folks read in different ways and apply in even more ways. (If moderating is like refereeing, it's like refereeing in a game where the lines are faint, sometimes move and the lighting is really bad... and your glasses are fogged up). But what most of us on the team hope for is that even if a particular conversation doesn't shed much light on much of anything, the over all conversation is a healthy one.

We won't let just anything go, and the thread won't stay open forever, but these issues need to get talked about despite all the ways we fail to talk well about them.

Thanks for that.
Got an idea though. We're bouncing this one around in the Team/Moderator forum also.

Would we all agree that

1. There's much of the who did what and when and why we don't know and probably never will know
2. Even if we did know, there is nothing we can do about this particular case other than say "For shame!"

1. We keep reporting news as it comes out. This is part of the "culture of openness" I referred to.
2. For now, rather than wrangling over what really happened or didn't really happen, we talk about hypothetical scenarios.

My reasoning is that if we keep posting news, but don't talk about the case itself, nothing is "hidden" or "stifled" except people's outrage at one thing or another--and we've kind of been there, done that. Maybe allowing more outrage is actually a good thing when there is actually more information (it does speak to the whole area of affections... if we love what God loves, and hate what God hates, we are angry at what God is angry at and delighted at what God is delighted at.)

But beyond keeping the actual information open, what is there to discuss in a profitable way? I think several have hit on the answer already: pastoral theology. I'd expand that to "ecclesial theology."

What can be profitably talked about in these areas can be done with hypotheticals: what should a church do if it discovers scenario A has happened? What should it do if the scenario is actually B? What should it do if years later it realizes it should have handled scenario A or B differently? Where does the pastor's leadership figure in all of this?
This can all be talked about profitably without any reference to the real world case in Concord. Since we are powerless to directly impact that real world case anyway, we can probably talk more effectively in hypothetical scenarios than in ref. to the real one.

Of course, the critics will still say this is IFB covering up as usual. To some, you are not doing the right thing unless you are emoting all over the place. But hey, you can't please everybody.

Emphasis mine.

Don, I think this is a great idea. The pendulum seems to go back and forth on this one. We don't want anything approaching the scriptural definition of gossip to be present, but I have also seen (and been a part of) churches where because any discussion in any context is so severely squelched as "gossip," there's no information on which church members can correctly act as described in Acts and decide together on decisions that must be made. In essence, everything is hidden and any church vote is a rubber stamp. Even after the decision, no one in membership knows what happened, and any discussion on it is strictly forbidden as being "gossip."

I certainly don't have all the answers on how to make the distinction effectively, but it is something that can and should be discussed.

Completely off topic, but maybe someone would like to start a thread (I am not very good at phrasing thread OP statements). Some real situations with me, as a pastor, I have asked mature women to talk to other women about some things that needed to be addressed, but was accused of gossip, was it? A staff member communicated with me about a Christian school family and some problems they were having with them, the parent accused me and that staff of gossiping, although the issue needed to be brought to the attention of me so that I could give Biblical counsel. At the same time, I have sought to not communicate about a problem because I thought it might be gossip and have been accused of not being open. The whole gossip thing is difficult and deserves some thought and possible discussion based on the Bible, so I would be glad to hear some wisdom from others regarding this topic.

I agree it's easy to slip from a proper discussion of an issue into gossip. On the other hand, the membership needs sufficient information to make an informed decision. For lack of better wording, they are sitting as a jury. Though there are matters that fall within Eph 5:12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. There are times when a church must properly clean out a shameful stench.

I've made this point before, but it bears repeating I guess. The law & crime are one thing, God's law & sin are another. These are distinct but usually overlapping categories. As believers we must honor both. So the church has obligations to law, and obligations to Scripture, so to speak. It must handle sex involving minors as rape because the law specifies that category and draws a line at a certain age (I'm pretty sure most would admit the line is a bit arbitrary but you have to draw it somewhere so, it is where it is.) So the church has to deal w/the crime of rape according to law. How does it deal w/the sin? This may not be so cut and dried since the Scriptural categories do not line up precisely w/the legal ones. We don't have verses that say age 16 = rape of a minor (consensual or not), vs. age 18 = a couple involved in fornication. See what I mean? But there should be no debate at all that churches and pastors have to honor the law fully and deal w/the legal category of "crime" but also honor the spiritual category of "sin." We don't have the luxury of looking at a crime and saying "we're just going to handle it as sin."

I can partly answer this one. The very strong social consensus is that the relationship between a child and an adult is such the adult is inherently controlling in the situation and therefore all sex is rape in that kind of relationship. Whether this is biblically supportable or not is certainly something to think about. In the eyes of the law, that's how it is. So churches/pastors have to deal w/these things that way w/respect to the crime. But when we're examining the case to deal with it spiritually, do we simply accept the categories and lines society hands us? I think not! (The same society is trying pretty hard to hand us completely different lines as to what constitutes a marriage, for example). But whether the social science consensus is right on that point or not, we have to be very sensitive to it even in dealing with the situation spiritually as sin.
I think that particular point is quite difficult to sort out, though what to do about the law is plain as day... just follow it. Fully.

An off the top of my head response to this is that civil law dictates how we'll handle such a situation in the church when the biblical guidelines are ambiguous. So in the 38 & 15 yr old immorality situation, the church needs to treat the entire matter as a crime against a child, which demands 1) far more severe handling of the perpetrator, and 2) nothing but care and protection of the victim (no public displays...no dismissal from the Christian school...etc....so as to avoid further victimization).

As far as the "sin" question is concerned, I believe the consequences for the sin of a minor are best left to the parents. I'm really not so sure the church should be in a position of "punishing" children still under parental authority. Some of us lead churches where baptism automatically means church membership, and when it comes to children, the only stipulation on their membership is they have to be 18 to vote. This, of course, makes children susceptible to church discipline, and we've got huge problems trying to practice that wisely, consistently, and appropriately. Do we bring a 17 year old pregnant girl before the congregation for discipline? how about 15? 13? Where's the line? Do we bring a 13 year old boy before the congregation if he was fondling an 11 year old neighbor girl? How about the 14 year old who's been experimenting with pot? or smoking? or drinking? or sneaking out of the house at night? or any number of things adolescents do that are wrong? I've witnessed firsthand the disparity this setup creates. For example, a 16 year old girl who had sex with her boyfriend was publicly brought before the congregation to repent & ask forgiveness. But a 15 year old boy who vandalized church property was dealt with privately. Strange, of course, because the girl's sin was the result of...well, I think we know. But there was certainly no malicious intent, animosity toward the church, her parents, the Lord, or anyone. The vandal, on the other hand, acted in anger and malice toward the entire congregation! Oh, and what about bus kids who make professions of faith and are baptized even in late elementary years, but then get into sinful behaviors in Jr. High and early high school, while still riding the bus to church on Sunday morning? I've never heard tell of a bus kid disciplined in the church for premarital sex (or any other offense, for that matter).

Perhaps we should reconsider our church constitutions' membership requirements, creating a "provisional membership" category for baptized children under age 18. Then, when they reach 18, they decide whether or not to become full members. Provisional members will have made a profession of faith & been baptized, but their accountability is to their parents. If a 17 year old provisional member gets pregnant (or gets a girl pregnant), in terms of discipline, it's a family matter, not a church discipline matter. And should the offending 17 year old be rebellious toward the parents, full membership (if it were even applied for at age 18) would be denied. In contrast, an 18 year old full member in the same "sin boat" would be subject to church discipline.

No doubt this proposal creates its own questions, so have at it.

I said the same thing in the other thread:

Louise, if my hypothesis is correct - and it's the only thing that seems to make sense based off of the bits and pieces of hard fact that we have - then she was a young adult. I'm not giving Willis any wiggle room, but if she DID lead him astray or OR refused to stay away from him after the first sexual encounter, then she has to bear some kind of culpability. Whether we like it or not, 15 year olds aren't exactly fighting to retain the dignity of marriage (these days).

There is no doubt that something happened, and that Phelps felt strongly enough about it to go to the cops and DYFS. Why they didn't (or couldn't) act on his information is where the mystery lies. After all, the young lady's mom requested that she be sent to CO, as Becky pointed out. That wasn't a TBC move. Should they have made her stay? Well, if the cops wouldn't investigate it because the truth came out that she consented...well, there's not a whole lot they can do, esp. if she won't press charges. As I said before, this wouldn't be the first case where a woman slept with a guy, then cried rape afterward. According to one statistic I saw, 4.7% of rape victims get pregnant. Maybe she was raped and fell into that category....I don't know.

Finally, has anyone else remembered that most young adults married in their teens in Biblical times? I think we do ourselves and teens a disservice when we write off teenagers as something more than kids but less than responsible adults. They're responsible enough to drive cars and obey laws, but immune to criticism when they make horrific, life-destroying choices? I don't think so.

I don't like this issue, but I certainly am not ready to throw Phelps in the electric chair and then dance a jig over his body. All we have now are rumors and opinions, and not enough facts.

Refused to stay away from him?!!! The second sexual encounter happened when he came to HER house while she was alone. Did you see the picture of her in the newspaper taken with the infant right after she gave birth? She was a CHILD!

But you are right on one point -- Phelps probably did assume it was consensual and that she had perhaps seduced the guy. Because that seems to be the first line of reasoning around here. That if a 15 year old sexual abuse victim gets pregnant by a 38 year old married church usher, she likely bears a lot of the responsibility for letting it happen. If fundamental Christians don't stop thinking this way, the movement is going to be destroyed like the mormons in Texas. We either correct such thinking from within ourselves and set up safeguards to make sure it doesn't happen again, or fundamentalism is going to get a label like they did with the interracial dating issue. And that label will stick, and it will undermine every other good thing those in the movement attempt to do, until someone in leadership stands up and says, "No more!"

This has got to be my last word. I am disturbed too deeply to say anything more of value.

Good question, Don. Let's make it even closer to the original (as we have been told) and use the example of stolen money. Thief repents (or doesn't...but somehow gets caught), confesses to police, they take a statement, don't arrest, AND THE MAN WHO WAS STOLEN FROM won't press charges. Then what? Does a bystander take him to the police and insist that the police arrest? Wouldn't that be interfering in a police case?

I think you are having trouble separating the issues here. Whether or not a young girl can legally consent to sex is not the question- we understand that in modern America, this constitutes rape. But spiritually speaking, a young girl can consent- she may not understand the danger or the ramifications of her actions, but she can engage in a sexual relationship with anyone- man, boy, girl, woman... we need to stop treating young girls like they are helpless and stupid and give them the mental and spiritual tools they need to fight their own desires, as well as protect themselves from predators. What Tina did nor did not do is something we cannot know and I am not trying to draw conclusions about her specifically- but something we can do is with the girls in our lives now to equip them properly and decrease their risk, and we can also talk about the policies our churches should have in place to deal with these kinds of problems.

Roger- I agree that on the face of it it looks like the guy did not repent- but I think we can get into trouble when we start trying to quantify 'sincere repentance'. However, in a case like this, where a young girl has been victimized in more ways than one, I think it is likely that more steps could and should have been taken to hold the guy accountable spiritually (since the church can't hold him accountable legally).

It is a fact that some offenses carry different weight than others- folks get caught up in trying to be fair and equitable, but if we take into account the natural consequences of certain behaviors, we can understand that shoplifting a pack of gum has much different ramifications than engaging in sexual activity. Spiritually both are sin, but the mental and emotional processes are different, and we have to deal with those differences. I think we also have to create a climate in our churches where authority is held just as accountable as the laity, where kids can refuse to obey an adult when their instincts kick in to warn them of something hinky and they don't have to worry about getting into trouble, where the proper respect is paid to how parents want to handle incidents involving their kids, and where counseling is available without worrying about confidentiality. We can get so caught up in teaching kids to respect authority without question that we rob them of the ability to protect themselves from predators because they are afraid to disobey an adult or they think it will be assumed that they are lying simply because they are young.

Everybody- get on Amazon or go to the library and check out two books- The Gift of Fear and Protecting the Gift by Gavin de Becker. I mean it- if you don't read those books (or something similar) then you do NOT understand the dilemmas your women and children face every day.

Quote:
EVEN IF the 15 year old dressed provocatively and solicited the 38 year old's attention, our government still calls it RAPE.

Regardless of what the government may call it, why is this the girls fault (implied in the statement) that the man made the wrong decision? This is nothing more than the 'prettying up' of:

Quote:
poor man was a victim of his own lusts and had been tempted beyond control by the teen

Which was someone's statement that they did not believe but used as an example. But this type of hiding the problem behind softer phrasing is indicative of many thoughts in the church.

If the devil tempts someone (and for many people, Christian or not, the devil does not even have to get involved), the problem is not the temptation. The fault is not the temptation. The fault is the decision of the sinner to act on the temptation. It is the sinner's fault.

Also, regarding the church discipline involved here. Why were they brought before the congregation to repent? Is every church member who lies required to appear before the church congregation to repent? Is every married church member who lusts after his neighbor's wife/husband required to appear before the congregation and repent for adultery? I know that some are going to say that it is the seriousness of the offense. But, is not the determination of the 'seriousness' made by man and not by God? I have heard people talk about some readings of scripture in which the implication is that some violations of the ten commandments are worse than others. But I would again say that these are man made differences and not those of God. If we take the commandment that is second only to the great commandment, does every church member who does not love his neighbor as himself have to appear before the church congregation and repent on each event?

As an example of how interesting this church discipline approach could become, every member of the church who is divorced and remarried should have to come before the congregation and repent for the sin of adultery, unless the divorce was based on fornication.

Sorry if this is off the main topic, but the general gist of some of the statements became rather interesting to me.

One thing I must say is that church discipline can become very complicated. It must be a VERY prayerful activity seeking guidance from God and removing all personal prejudices and emotions.

It is academic if the only case you are looking at is Anderson's- she isn't the only girl to ever be victimized, and there are things that we can teach our girls today to help them understand how not to be victimized. This means educating oneself and taking responsibility for one's actions. Being responsible for oneself does not equate 'laying blame', just like acknowledging that a woman shouldn't walk down a dark alley alone at night doesn't mean that if she does she 'deserves' to be attacked. Also, understanding that young people have a sinful heart that results in them making poor decisions does not mean that kids 'deserve' to be taken advantage of. But if we ignore that our young people are sometimes engaging in risky behavior because they are immature, naive, and don't understand the ramifications of their actions, we are in essence crippling them, and they will be picked by predators like a gazelle with a broken leg.

Don,
To your analagy, if I was convinced that the man had gone to the police and made a statement and still nothing happened, then i would believe that repentance had taken place.

This whole situation gives me another reason why I firmly believe that I am justified for being heavily involved in our community for the gospel sake. Because of that, the Lord has allowed me to meet enough people that it gives me opportunity to learn more facts in this situation than if I were simply a pastor who was not involved. Praise the Lord for his opportunities! Food for thought.

We all misread each other at times, and I apologize if I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say.

I agree that the problem or fault lies with the sinner, but when we are dealing with the spiritual aspects of this topic, (and not the legal ones) we have to acknowledge that the victim and the perpetrator are both sinners. Just as it is wicked for a man to attack a woman because she is walking down a dark alley at night, the woman must realize that it is unwise to walk alone down a dark alley at night.

I did a Google of "at risk victims categories" and came back with a good quote from this article:

The same kind of distinction is found in de Becker's books, and he teaches women how to lower their risk of being victimized, and in Protecting the Gift he teaches parents how to teach their children. It's good stuff that in no way violates Scriptural principles of gender roles or proper submission to authority.

This is a solid point. It is certainly likely that Christian influence has contributed a great deal to our laws.
Don... I don't think we should quibble about "violence." If there is not consent, that's "violent" either way... though I see your likely point that "violent" means different things to diff. people, especially in a situation (I'm not talking about any particular situation, least of all the Concord one), where the "non consent" is inference from the nature of adult-minor relationships even though the child may have formally consented. I would still say that is a serious form of violence even if there was no physical injury of any kind.