Implications of ABWE's example on Trinity/Phelps/Olson?

I'm confused by this statement. Do you think Louise (or anyone else for that matter) is saying this? I don't really even understand what you mean by "requiring" these to receive national exposure.

Making a public statement of apology and/or acknowledging wrong-doing and/or "warning" the public about an offender are done on their own merit and for their own purposes... if doing so brings national/international attention, so be it. I don't hear anyone thinking that national exposure is the reason for making public statements. The focus should be on the victims -- both those abused and those who could be targeted in the future by the abuser. Making public statements is especially important when the abuse was originally minimized or covered up. When a victim's story has been minimized/denied by authority figures, shedding LIGHT on the TRUTH and acknowledging the minimization/denial is part of the healing, part of the repentance (of the authority figures), and part of the plan to make sure that things will be handled differently in the future.

I think, going one step further than ABWE, was New Tribes' Mission's response to their problem a few years back. They submitted themselves to GRACE (www.netgrace.org) and listened to what they had to say. Some of what GRACE had to say was stunningly condemnatory, and had to do with attitudes and "atmospheres" in the offending field office as well as the culture at NTM at the time. And they are correct. There is something about the Fundamentalist mindset that allows child molesters to invade, subvert, and nest. Fundies then fail to detect them, and sometimes even fail to act appropriately upon detection.

Jeri Massi, who is WAY out of balance in her view of Fundamentalism, has written brilliantly on this. She is NOT out of balance on the scope of the problem.

Really, Mike? And what is it about the fundamentalist mindset that allows this?

And how do you explain the fact that thousands of fundamentalist ministries have no hint of this going on? And thousands of non-fundamentalists (from Catholics to Evangelicals to Boy Scouts to Public Schools to sleepover parties to Congress) do have it going on?

I think the answer has nothing to do with the fundamentalist mindset, but has a lot to do with sin. And sin in the human heart is why it shows up all over the place--both inside and outside of fundamentalism.

As for the scope of the problem, I doubt anyone really knows. There's no question that most places where this happens are very quick to coverup, minimize, and defend themselves. But it seems a stretch to say that this is part of the fundamentalist mindset, doesn't it?

I'll accept Susan's interpretation of my statement within limits, but I just finished posting something stronger on another thread. My words there were "Spend a little time researching, and you'll begin to suspect, along with me, that it's happening in churches that self-define as Fundamental at perhaps twice the rate as in some other churches (Catholicism excluded, where they have their own set of problems)." So I guess I am claiming exactly what Larry is challenging me about, too. Though I agree with you, Susan.

Larry, I'm unable to prove my above-mentioned suspicion. I get what you're saying about the problem being sin. I have often thought that those who revile Fundamentalism for _____ (whatever the objection of the day is) will find similar flaws in the movement to which they flee. But this one does seem to be one where we are particularly vulnerable. I encourage you to read Jeri Massi's book "Schizophrenic Christianity", for one example, that is targeted directly at a large chunk of those who self-identify as Fundamentalists, and their dealing with this issue. While my subsequent correspondence with Jeri has convinced me that she would rather snipe at us from the bushes than help us fix things, I think she has figured something out about us that we need to recognize.

I've also moved through almost every flavor of Fundamentalism during my life. I think the problem is more related to the Hyles mindset and those like them than to some others in the movement, but I do believe the oft-mentioned good ol' boys network has, in the past, taught us to deal with this wrongly. Quite frankly, too many Fundamentalists seem to be too "political" (by which I mean in the politics of the movement) to make good decisions about embarrasing situations. Though I admit, we are getting better.

Thanks, Mike for the clarification.

With Susan (and perhaps Mike), I agree that fundamentalism should be leading the way in exposing and dealing with this type of stuff. And perhaps the "authority" issue is a key factor as Susan says. Again, though, that doesn't explain the problem in other circles. I think the "authority" issue is tied up in character. It's why the Bible demands character out of authorities. If you don't have character, you will abuse your authority.

However, to Mike directly, I am cautious because I think the broadbrush tendency that people hate about fundamentalism (that everyone not like us is one of them and needs to repent and become one of us) is true in those (and perhaps especially in those) who have left fundamentalism. Try disagreeing with one of them on something, and you will see very quickly that they really haven't left the attitude that they hate in fundamentalism. They have just changed its direction against fundamentalism instead of against non-fundamentalists. There is, for some, simply no room for honest disagreement with charity. You either agree with them or are wicked.

What is the scope of this particular problem? i don't think anyone really knows. It is easy to see very visible and public cases and then extrapolate that everyone must be doing it and the only reason we don't know it is happening in every single fundamentalist church is because all the ones we don't know about are covering it up. (Of course, that's a bit of hyperbole, but only a bit.)

But we need to recognize that the churches who do not have visible abuse problems may simply not have abuse problems. It may have nothing to do with coverup at all.

I think there is way too much politics in fundamentalism. I think there is in ex-fundamentalism as well. Consider the politics of browbeating any who might suggest that we should withhold judgment until more is known, or the politics of disagreeing about how to address a particular problem (even though you agree on the problem). Fundamentalism has no corner on politics.

I don't question that perhaps this general issue is more prevalent in Hyles type fundamentalism. But I think (without any scientific evidence to back it up), that Hyles type fundamentalism is a minority, probably a pretty small minority. And I think even the Hyles types that would cover up abuse is probably a small minority of the small minority.

So I would just take the position of caution.

Again, I have no connection to anyone in these situations and have no desire to cover up anything or cover for anything.

Larry, I am mostly in agreement with you, though I suspect that if you define "Hyles-type Fundamentalism" as authority driven, external standards-based sanctification, and a lack of expository preaching, that they actually outnumber the rest of us -- and dramatically so in my part of the nation. And it's important to remember that these factors exist not as binary on and off features, but rather like dimmer switches. So the authority issues and external standards-based sanctification that make it easier for the molester to hide in the weeds before pouncing in our churches actually exist in most Fundamentalist and even Conservative Evangelical churches. They just exist to a greater or lesser degree, and provide camoflauge for these evil hunters to a greater or lesser degree.

A similar situation exists in public schools- it's called "passing the trash".

I used to think that it was just Hyles type churches. ABWE is an example that it is not just them. Louise is right.

Because there are two threads related to the ABWE issue, some of what I'm saying will refer to the comments in both...

A couple of people (at least one, but I think there were two) mentioned potentially separating from ABWE over this issue. Honestly, separating after-the-fact when repentance and reparations are being discussed doesn't make much logical sense to me, but it does tell me that a person takes the doctrine of separation very seriously. If it is taken this seriously, then why do I not hear separation being called for in the Trinity/Phelps/Olson issue that this thread is about?

As best as I can tell, Phelps response is still that he handled the situation appropriately. Phelps has denied that he instituted church discipline for Anderson, even though Tina and others who were present for the process say that it did happen. I've seen no acknowledgment from Phelps that he should have handled things differently, and Anderson has not received an apology from him. I think these two things would be the minimum that one would want to see in order to assume that he has repented and would handle things differently today. Without these two things (at an absolute, baseline, rock-bottom minimum!), I do not understand why separation is not being discussed in this case as well as in the ABWE case.

At least with the ABWE case they are:

*repenting and apologizing
*working toward reparations
*seeking third-party review
*attempting to change policies about how things are handled

Not to mention that separation from ABWE would affect missionaries that have had nothing to do with the Ketcham case.

If you feel that separation could be warranted there, then I do not understand how you would not also immediately separate from Phelps. I know that he has connections and friendships all over the place, but if separation is taken seriously and applied with the hope of correction and restoration, then why are his best friends not leading the charge?

I acknowledge that many people are ignoring this issue because they "don't know who to believe." The undisputed facts are that a 15 year-old girl was impregnated by a 38 year-old man. This was not disclosed to the church body (Anderson and Phelps both say that the connection between the man's "infidelity" and her pregnancy were not disclosed), and the man was allowed continued membership in the church which arguably placed other teens at risk. The man was never arrested, despite this being a crime of either statutory rape or forcible rape. AT BEST, Phelps facilitated the cover-up of statutory rape. That is the BEST CASE scenario, which is still grounds for separating from him, IMO.

I agree with Mike Durning.

Fundamentalism seems to drop its militancy when it comes to sexual abuse issues. Fundamentalists did not even spend half the energy dealing with the abuse in Jacksonville, FL that it has spent on other issues over the years.

Thanks for publicly voicing that here, Roger.

It is important to me that I publicly state that I believe Tina Anderson. I believe her story.

However, even people who choose to believe "something in the middle" of the two versions of these events should still see that separation is warranted.

Louise,

I'd like to make a very carefully qualified objection to your comments about Dan Nelson and BJA. I don't believe that you are being equitable with Dan. He was not hired by the current pastor at Colonial. Within a year of all of this coming to light, he is leaving there for a new ministry. To my knowledge, no one has argued that he had any connections to what happened with regarding to Tina Anderson. It seems like a serious smear to impugn him, and then BJA, simply because he was employed at Colonial when the new pastor came. This seems like a most extreme version of guilt by association. For the record, I don't know why Dan is leaving Colonial, but I wonder if you do either. Unless you know something more than you've written, it would seem that his departure could just as easily be interpreted positively by you.

Whatever wrongs have been done will not be corrected by attributing guilt to people who were not even involved.

Louise,

I agree with Dr. Doran on this. I think you may be overreaching on this one. I know no facts one way or ther other on this issue. Maybe we better wait on this one?

Louise, I don't think you realize how ironic all this is. For years, what was supposed to be so dreadfully wrong with fundamentalists was that they separated from people and ministries based on second hand accusation, unsubstantiated rumor or simply opinion... and that we separated from people/ministries simply because they failed to separate from other ministries.

So now, we're bad because we don't do those things?

I sincerely pray there will never be a day that I'm "separating" from leaders who, for all I really know, simply made some poor choices (along with a bunch of pretty good ones) in handling a difficult matter--and openly admit to making several poor choices.
Golden rule: do unto others what you want them to do to you. Louise, if you're ever accused of a crime or cover up and you have a plausible explanation that indicates you were trying to do the right thing and/or actually did the right thing, I'm going to at least suspend judgment until I know you're guilty. Most likely, I'm going to believe you as long as I possibly can.
I sincerely mean that. I'd do it for anyone.

This part is rock solid though. Public policy on this matter is a fabulous idea.

Rachel,

As a pastor, I totally agree with you!

To those who are reading this and agree with what I'm saying... or even half agree. I'm a bit busy and could use a little help answering these ideas.

(Though it would not be so taxing if those on the other side of the debate actually interacted with even half of the counter arguments I've mentioned over the last several days. I just keep repeating them. I should program some hot keys I suppose. "Still-unanswered argument #13").

Louise,

No one is arguing about the rapist's culpability legally or morally in this issue. Phelps has documented he handed the case over to the authorities in a timely manner.

The disagreement revolves around the girl. For that aspect, we don't have enough facts to draw a conclusion yet. If she was restrained and raped, bringing her before the church was wrong. If she entered into a relationship that resulted in repeated consensual encounters, she has some sin to deal with as well. If the male in question had been a 16 year old classmate, the issue of statutory rape would be off the table. Then it would be a question of forced vs. consensual sexual activity. For the girl's part in this circumstance. the issue remains the same regardless of the age of the male.

For some reason, several in this discussion refuse to acknowledge the possibility of any wrong doing from the girl. She says one thing. Phelps indicates another. Too few facts are present right now to make a judgement on this aspect of the case. Perhaps she was wrong then and is lying now. Perhaps Phelps was wrong then and is covering up now. We just don't know yet.

I am sure I'm going to regret stepping into this, but it's hit the point where I find it hard not to comment. I don't plan to engage in a long back and forth about any of this, but feel compelled to make a few comments.

First, this is not some hypothetical debate about made up characters and situations. This involves real people and has real ramifications. To imply or conjecture, therefore, about possible guilt of a minor who was sexually assaulted by an adult is flat wrong. For Willis to have sex with her was by definition a sexual assualt. Willis committed a crime. Period. Raising questions about whether it would be so if we lived in another time or place is not only a waste of time, it is contrary to our biblical obligation to do what is right not only in the sight of the Lord, but in the sight of men (2 Cor 8:21). We don't live somewhere else or in another day. We live now, right here. The fact that our culture considers it to be morally repugnant and criminal in nature should end the conversation.

Second, I can see absolutely no relevance for introducing the issue of consent into this discussion in the first place. If it is being claimed that she was not being put before the church in relation to church discipline, then raising her culpability now seems to counter that claim. If she was being put before the church as some aspect of church discipline (I would assume expression of repentance leading to restoration), then it was a serious, grievous mistake given the criminality of Willis' actions. There is no consent in rape (statutory or otherwise). Introducing allegations of Tina's culpability for Willis's sexual assualt looks an awful lot like blameshifting, i.e., turning the focus toward her instead of any potential wrongs done by others.

Third, as much as I don't care for how some of this is being pushed and promoted, let's not lose sight of the fact that very wicked things have happened and, sadly, many people have sufficient cause to believe that all the people in charge do is cover things up. My wife and I watched the 20/20 show with a sick feeling in our stomachs. Was it too broad of a brush? Yes, definitely. But it would be utter foolishness for any of us to use that to ignore the sad, terrible fact that this stuff has indeed happened and it has happened in our ecclesiastical neighborhood. I believe that this almost incessant jangling over technicalities and hypotheticals looks a lot like a defense mechanism. We ought to be grieving that we have tolerated pastors like Jack Schaap and preaching like the stuff played on that show. We ought to be broken about the fact that sexual crimes have too often been ignored under the banner of reconciliation when virtually no other crimes would be treated that way. We can't bury our heads in the sand. We should not do or say anything that gives child abusers any room to hide from their wickedness.

Fourth, I really don't expect the main parties driving the 20/20 show, etc. to be satisfied with or won over by statements, resolutions, etc. There is way too much distrust for that, and in many ways I can understand that. If all you've experienced is a culture which painstakingly covers its own backside at the expense of victims, you're not going to think that changes quickly. In fact, you're probably inclined to think the latest statement is just a more sophisticated smoke screen. The only way for credibility to be restored is to act credibly. Do the right thing. Keep doing the right thing. Perhaps one day they will believe you, but that isn't the main thing anyway. One day we will all give account to the Lord and having done what's right is what matters then.

I willingly concede that there is a lot about this present situation which I don't understand. I wasn't there and am not prepared to act like I was. I will not hesitate to say, though, that: (a) putting a minor in front of the church in a situation like this was wrong; (b) raising questions of culpability in this case at this point contradicts statements regarding non-discipline; and (c) raising the issue of consent at all in a case of sexual assault is wrong.

Dr Doran said so much better in one post what I was trying to say last week. I was trying to engage someone last week (can't remember who) and I erronously conceded that consensual sex was possible with a minor. It is not! I never intended it to come out that way. Doran hit this on the head. We all need to be vigilliant going forward. And I think we need to rethink what we believe seperation is about.

To clarify, Bob, Tina was 15 when she was raped, for the 2nd time by the same 30-something married man. Phelps didn't find out she was pregnant from that rape until 4 months later, after she had turned 16. And frankly, there are plenty of reasons for doubting his "facts" and "good" motives, not the least of which is his bandying about the "age 16" line and the effort to minimize the crimes involved by couching this as an "ongoing covert dating relationship."

Thank you Dr. Doran.

Aaron,
You say we should judge this on a case by case basis - let's do it. Can you see how it is that someone who has been sexually abused by her step-father might have a skewed view of authority? Can you see how that when she would confide in another authority (the father of the children she is babysitting), that her view of authority might affect her view of that relationship? I don't understand how you can argue that this is possibly consensual (or that you can understand how Pastor Phelps would look at it as if it were) because of the circumstances of this case.

I'm thankful for the strong stand Dr. Doran took in his comments here. I also note that Bixby's latest post on this attacks the idea of the supposed 'consensual' nature of this quite convincingly too. He also notes this, which I haven't seen anyone at SI (having read the filing thread and this thread about the 20/20 show) point out.

The perpetrator of the crime confessed to 'adultery'. He didn't confess to 'pedophelia' or 'rape' or 'sexual assault'. That is hugely important. Everyone says they are not letting the perp off the hook. He is guilty of rape. He is a child offender/molester. He is guilty. But when he stood before his church to supposedly repent, he admitted to adultery not that far more serious crime. So just in that sense of the discipline case being brought against the man, Pastor Phelps apparently saw no problem letting the man confess to adultery. And that's enough? He doesn't need to confess to more than that?

Another point, which wasn't brought up in the 20/20 case oddly enough, but which StuffFundiesLike (of all places) brought to my attention, was the fact that we can't claim the churches in the report were just oddities, small inconsequential churches totally disconnected from other IFB churches. Matt Olson was named in the report, and he is the current president at Northland Baptist Bible College. Chuck Phelps was president of Maranatha Baptist Bible College. Jack Schaap who wasn't named but had lots of face time, is president or chancellor of Hyles-Anderson College. These are highly influential institutions in fundamentalism. What these men do, and how they do it, is emulated by hundreds of young pastors and church leaders going out into thousands of IFB churches. This can't be a non-story that says nothing about fundamentalism in general. It says alot about fundamentalism in general, in my opinion.

Perhaps the reactions of fundamentalists to this issue will say even more, unfortunately. Will radical change happen? Will policies recommended by groups like GRACE (see earlier in the thread) become the new standard that churches will be encouraged to adopt? Or will a culture that allows dynamic leaders to have free reign and overlooks the convenient spins and cover-ups which have happened and continue to happen, continue to be the norm.

I agree with Mike Durning both that the fundamentalism represented by SI (a more careful version), is not as predominant as that espoused by Schaap and his wannabes. I also agree that abuse seems far more prevalent in these circles than others.

What is sad is that some of the victims and their families have descended into exactly the kind of behavior they say they detest in IFBism. They take quotes out of context and read meanings that aren't there, and have begun to slander and insult and threaten, and claim they are calling the 'authorities' on those who have disagreed with them on some aspect of this case. If they hate bullying tactics so much, why are they so quick to employ them? The only people who are 'allowed' to speak out are those who agree with them wholeheartedly, and all others need to be silenced? Sound familiar? So because someone has been a victim they have some grand calling that gives them unquestioned permission to attempt to victimize others? Well, ain't that convenient.

I've been told repeatedly to shut up, that I've been reported to authorities, that I must be hiding something, that if something bad happens to me or my kids, I've just brought it on myself... so really now- if someone has some underlying philosophical differences about responsibility, they are now to be branded as criminals, and if their family is victimized, they deserve it? This has gotten seriously sickening.

I think I've gotten to the 'answer not a fool according to his folly' part of the program.

**** Forum Director Response *****

Known facts:

• Jocelyn Zichterman was featured on the ABC 20/20 program
• She is the sister of Jason Janz
• Jason Janz did found this site. Aaron Blumer has owned this site for 4 or 5 years (I don't recollect the exact date). Jason is no longer associated with this site (does not own, is not an administrator nor moderator)
• Jocelyn does claim that Jason abused her when they were children

(Edit: The transition was actually May 15, 2008, so not quite 4 yrs yet -Aaron)

But according to some, this is proof that there was a cover up. Lack of evidence is evidence in and of itself.

Are you saying that Susan is?

No- you've missed the point, which was that they are claiming that there is an environment of intimidation that allows child abuse to flourish in 'the IFB', and then they employ the same intimidation tactics they say they despise. There are some who are accusing others who disagree with them of abusing their children and claiming they've called 'the authorities'. So let's just pretend that the authorities have no brains whatsoever, and did show up and try to remove my children from my home- that's not victimizing my kids? Yeah- let's just scare the freckles off Susan's kids- that teach her to open her mouth on the internet? That is trying to get at me through my children. Of course they are blowing hot air, but I have no doubt that if they thought they could literally put my family thru hell, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

This is becoming less and less about child abuse prevention and more like virtual hysterics and self-promotion. The very idea that teaching children to reduce their risk is the same thing as teaching children they are responsible if they are ever abused or assaulted? So... all those videos by Nightline and Oprah and websites like childluresprevention.com and authors like Gavin de Becker are trying to place blame on victims?

To hearken back to the OP, we need healthy accountability and dialogue, not more bullying and emotional outrage. ABWE provided a very nice blueprint for others to follow. We can attempt to right wrongs of the past where we are able, and hopefully the courts will able be to bring justice to the Willis/Anderson case- but IMO our focus needs to be on prevention where we live and worship and fellowship, to protect children today and in the future.

Will you allow an open conversation to take place if and when he releases such a statement?

Bob -

Since when is Ron Hamilton the chief IFB musician? Last I knew, he did recordings for kids, not adults. As for Schaap - I already said that I don't support the FBF and really can't anymore with the direction that they're heading (said that when the Vaughn-Schaap meeting was announced). Yes, we do have ourselves to blame - if we're all dumb enough to follow along like sheep. Maybe that's the real problem here.

Of course, maybe that's my problem - I don't really care about that kind of stuff anymore, like I said yesterday. My problem is probably that I don't communicate with HAC, the FBF, BJU, NIU, Trinity, or whoever else is out there.

--edit--

I had the wrong post on the Vaughn going to Schaap; the link should be http://sharperiron.org/comment/11561#comment-11561

Did you notice the hymnal that was being used by the church they were showing from Connecticut? Majesty Hymns. I was being a little sarcastic with the chief IFB musician, which is why it was in quotes. My point is this - it is difficult to say that it is not most of main stream fundamentalism that is implicated because of not taking a stand against the foolishness that is HAC when you have BJU, FBF, MBBC, NIU, and scores of churches that follow along those organizations. You can argue, well we are independent, which I agree I am, but some of the same ones who are arguing that there is no connection to HAC, have close ties with those organizations that do.

Is that enough for an association? Using the hymnbook they publish? I don't think some of us are talking about the same thing when we say 'association'.

So if you read a book that a Satanist also buys and reads, are you associated with Satanists?

Anyone can buy a Majesty Hymns book. They're sold on Amazon for crying out loud.

Bryan stated:

I do not find your reasoning for rejecting Phelps testimony very compelling but even perhaps part of the problem here. I do not know from a personal witness standpoint but Phelps website is compelling and Tina's mother verifies Phelps facts. Were you a first hand witness as Tina's mother was? Unless you were there I am not interested in your understanding of the case. If you are a first hand witness who was involved at the time then I apologize but recommend you refrain from the internet and handle your testimony by writing to the church and the police and making yourself available to rebut any statements you know first hand are wrong.

This discussion may be good evidence of the twisted reasoning and mindset that is unrighteous judgment and that at times brings great shame to Fundamentalist oriented Christians. Let us all just shut up unless you have a direct and personal involvement in this matter. If you have such personal involvement then you don't need to be on the internet to tell others.

It has been brought to the attention of my hypothetical 20/20 journalist that the Matt Olson family did not actually house Tina Anderson, but only arranged for her housing with another family in their churhc. Hypothetical 20/20 regrets the error, and will run a retraction tonight at 3:35 AM.

This next quote is from http://www.drchuckphelps.com/specific-answers-to-some-difficult-question...

This statement is misleading. The fact that it is misleading is revealed by many here at SI who have been talking at-length about it not being statutory rape "if" she was 16 at the time.

The public record reveals that Tina's birthday is August 22, 1981. Her daughter was born March 21, 1998. She was 16 years, 7 months old when the baby was born. Therefore she was 15 years old when she was raped.

It is a benefit to Phelps if he can make people believe that she was not 15 when the rapes took place. This is why his misleading statement above is so worthy of note. Tina was 16 when she told her mother and her mother told Phelps (so one can't accuse Phelps of lying, just being disingenuous). She has never denied that. But being 16 when it "came out" doesn't change the fact that she was 15 when she was raped.

It appears that the defensive response from so many quarters is driven by personality rather than principle. Try this thought on for size: every detail in the current case is exactly the same, except the pastor in question is Jack Schaap. Or some Catholic priest. Or Joel Osteen.

No one would be on Sharper Iron talking about the moral culpability of the rape victim. No one would be parsing the various levels of meaning in the word consent. No one would be doing anything but screaming or laughing (depending on their personal choice of response) about a "dating relationship" being offered as a valid excuse for pastoral failure in responding to sin. No one would be worrying about the potential pain that pastor was feeling.

But because the pastor is someone many respect and look up to as a leader, all of those things are happening--not out of principle, but due to the person involved.

My brethren these things ought not so to be.

By the way, ABWE just hired the third party investigator, GRACE to investigate the sexual abuse by Don Ketcham and how ABWE handled the situation over the past 25 or so years.

http://www.abwe.org/news/article/abwe-board-and-grace/

Maybe Trinity Baptist could follow suit and hire GRACE as well to help deal with their sexual abuse situation.....

No one has said that rape victims are culpable in any way. No one. On SI. Has ever. Said that.

And if they did, the moderators / admin team would talk with that person. That's why we have a comment policy.

It's a pretty sad commentary on this thread when we have to even make statements like Susan's.

Many of us are feeling sad/appalled that we've had to say some of the things we've had to say. Things like "AT BEST this was statutory rape, and the perpetrator should not have been allowed to stay in the congregation. He should have been marched to the police station"

ETA: Actually, I'm appalled that I've had to make any of the posts I've made on this topic. Tina's police report is compelling. I believe her account.