Was Tina Anderson at Fault? A Biblical/Cultural Analysis

Was Tina Anderson at fault? A Biblical/Cultural Analysis

My purpose in starting this thread is to address a critical issue. The matter of Tina Anderson, Chuck Phelps, et al., has provoked several threads, lengthy discussions, and of course, a 20/20 broadcast. It is NOT my intent in this post to question Pastor Phelps’ judgment (though that is an unavoidable side-effect of this post), but rather to use the debate his judgment has provoked as a jumping-off point.

Bob Bixby has already written elsewhere, brilliantly defending the logic of not blaming Tina Anderson for her rape (yes, I know I am using the term argumentatively).

Dave Doran has posted here at SI reminding us of the importance of a). not becoming so caught up in the details that we forget a very personal tragedy occurred, and b). remembering that our obligations of testimony require us to act in a way that does not bring shame on the cause of Christ before the world. By dissecting the particulars of the case and questioning our society’s judgment in setting ages of consent where it does, we shame ourselves and our Savior before this world.

I agree wholeheartedly with both of these fine men.

But I also understand the seriousness of answering the challenge that some have made in this matter. I want to spend some time giving a Biblical defense of the idea that it is not satisfactory to place blame on Tina Anderson in any way for what happened to her, and to argue that there is serious Biblical basis for arguing that Mr. Willis should have been asked to confess the crime of raping Tina Anderson rather than merely confessing a generic adultery before the church.

The argument being made by some can be summed up fairly in this way: “In a case where a teenaged girl of 15 years of age consents to sexual activity with an adult in his 30’s, it may not be quite appropriate to call it rape or molestation from a Biblical perspective. While the law would interpret it as such, the ages at which people were allowed and encouraged to marry in Biblical (and even Colonial) times would suggest that this is an arbitrary choice (though we all admit law must be specific). Therefore, in keeping “Biblical” and “Legal” categories separate, it may have been appropriate for Pastor Phelps to a). ask Mr. Willis to confess to the sin of adultery only, and b). place some responsibility upon Tina Anderson for her own actions in the matter.”

I add that the idea that Pastor Phelps did this point b). cannot be disputed. Whether Pastor Phelps intended Tina Anderson’s statement as a confession under discipline or not, the very act of not requiring Mr. Willis to confess to rape, and the very act of requiring her to admit that she was pregnant without putting her pregnancy in a rape context places some responsibility on Tina Anderson.

In refuting the above position, I present the following:

First, I would argue that we must take into account the words of our Lord in Matthew 18. In that passage, we find that anyone who causes one of these children to offend is subject to one of the most horrifying threats of judgment our Savior ever gave. Note, please that it is possible to lay blame for a child’s offense at the feet of an adult. The adult can “cause them to offend”.

Some are going to object because they would feel that the case of Tina Anderson is older than the children referred to by our Savior. Christ calls a “little child” (Gr. paidion) to his side, and lifts him up as an example of the kind of faith we need to exhibit. The passage shifts to “little one” (Gr. mikron) at the point where Christ addresses causing them to offend, and continues to use the same Greek word through the end of the section. The lexicons state that paidion can be used of a more mature child, rather than only for small children. This is exemplified in that it is used of a 12 year old girl (Mark 5:41-42). Pais is used of the 12 year old boy Jesus (Luke 2:42-43). Careful examination can find a number of incidents in which pais and padion are used interchangeably (though pais is also used of “servant”, with reference to a young servant boy. The term mikron is a curiosity here. Meaning “little”, it is more commonly a time word, used for short duration. Used of children only here in the New Testament, the lexical meaning must give way to the narrative’s use of the word “these”, indicating the same group of children for which Christ had already used the word “padion”. In short, the Greek words used in Matthew 18 cannot definitively be used to rule out application to what passed for an adolescent in that culture. At age 12, there were some senses in which Jesus would be accepted as an adult, and others in which he would be under His parent’s authority (as the story in Luke 2 makes clear). It should be noted that it is not safe to make the distinction that some have tried to make, indicating that padion is used up to age 12, and teknon is used thereafter, as it is not supported by a careful reading of the New Testament.

I therefore suggest that in spirit, if not in letter, we must accept the concept that we are given dire warnings against doing things can cause even adolescents (those in transition from childhood to adult status) to sin – and that adults who do so can be legitimately condemned for doing so. Thus, we must accept the premise that those under their parents authority are given a special status, whereby they are excused in cases where they have been “caused to offend” by another. They are not accepted as being at the age of full responsibility.

Some may object to this, saying that the Bar Mitzvah at age 12 is specifically intended to indicate full responsibility before the Law. But this was not so much true at the time of Jesus. Rather, the child prior to age 12 was seen as primarily under the moral instruction of the mother till weaned, the father till age 12, and the Law after age 12. This did not remove parental authority or the need for their guidance, as shown in the way Mary and Joseph treated Jesus in Luke 2.

Consequently: it is reasonable to infer that the fault for the sin of a minor can be laid at the feet of a misleading adult.

Secondly, I would argue that calling into question the appropriateness of a separate category for child molestation due to early marriage ages in the Bible misunderstands the cultural differences and similarities between their day and ours.

Now, we are not under the Law as New Testament believers, but the Law still functions as a moral guide in a variety of way, and a reflection of God’s Holy character. It is important to remember that many of the Old Testament rulings are “case law”, characterized by “if/then” instructions about situations that may arise within the culture. Even in the Old Testament era itself, they would have been used as guides and for principles, rather than in the way we use law today. As such, God does not promote or approve of all the cultural assumptions, but gives instructions to mediate the elements of that culture into a form that is more pleasing to Him. Since appeals have been made to the culture of Bible times (as in “If Tina Anderson had lived in Bible times, she would have been old enough to marry”, and “If she had been around in Bible times, she would have been stoned”), the Old Testament Law seems an appropriate place from which to draw cultural insight and answer the argument.

Let’s begin with an understanding that the underlying assumption of all Old Testament sexual ethics is that sexual activity is appropriate only with a spouse, thus the prominent place of the commandment against adultery in the Decalogue. That instruction is applied in many ways with many connections throughout the law. But the formula that arises is this: Sexual acts outside of those with the marriage partner are presumed to be adulterous. Rape, or “forcing”, as the Old Testament Law would put it, would be a subset of adultery, but more heinous by several measures.

The variety of instructions with regard to the violation of an unmarried young woman are difficult of direct application, the cultural situation being so different. Marriages between the rapist and the victim, dowries paid for violating a virgin, and similar instructions seem harsh and odd to the modern ears. But all of these are natural applications of the culture of the time, and made sense to the people of that culture and time. An analysis of these is beyond the scope of this post.

Most pertinent is the fact that Old Testament Law regarding the violation of a young woman revolves around the assumption that the father’s prerogatives have been violated if the woman is not betrothed (see, Exodus 22:16ff, for instance). The reason for this is that only the father can give consent to the marriage.

The point is this: Though daughters were frequently married at ages that today would be considered lower than our age of consent, the parental approval provided a protective layer, making sure that teen lust or impulsiveness did not allow a marriage where the husband was unable to financially support or provide a safe home for the daughter. Since we do not have the same cultural protections, the modern legal code’s age of consent for sexual activity and minimum ages for marriage without parental consent provide similar protections for those who are too young to make informed decisions.

Consequently, it is unreasonable to suggest that early marriage ages in Bible times call into question whether we should take government standards for age of consent into account for purposes of determining appropriateness of behavior. Age of consent and minimum marriage age regulations serve similar purposes to the father’s consent in the Old Testament period.

Thirdly, I would argue that Old Testament rape codes reveal that it is inappropriate in certain cases to blame a person claiming to be a victim.

The rape legislation of Deuteronomy 22 provides the standard of how to judge consensual and non-consensual sex, in order to determine if rape has taken place. Laying aside the issue of betrothed or not betrothed, which does not precisely match our cultural setting, these scenarios give us a paradigm from which to judge the consensuality or non-consensuality of a reported rape.

Deuteronomy 22:22-24 gives us the case of a woman “found” lying with a married man. They both are stoned for adultery. This is because they are “in the city” – small, cramped villages where the presumption is that if the victim had cried out, she would have been heard. Even in the larger cities, population density in ancient times was much higher than we would experience today. Because there were people nearby, and nobody heard her cry out, she is presumed to be consenting to the adultery, and both are stoned for the adulterous act.

In verses 25-27, we have the exception: a married man comes upon a woman and forces her sexually. They are “in the field”, an isolated place where her cries cannot be heard. He is put to death, and the woman is let go with no penalty.

We have to query the text a bit to apply it. In verses 22-24, the couple is “caught in the act” (think of John 8’s woman taken in adultery). Neither member of the couple has complained of rape. In verses 25-27, by contrast, they are not caught, but we presume the female who is forced complains. Since the event happened in an isolated location where nobody could have heard her cry out, he is executed as an adulterous rapist, and she is let go.

We now have an interesting possible application to the Tina Anderson case. The Deuteronomy 22:22-24 situation does not apply, because they were not caught in a generally public area. The one that best applies is the Deuteronomy 22:25-27 situation, in which the woman complains, and there having been nobody to hear her cries and rescue her, the man is assumed to be guilty of rape, and she is absolved of the charge of adultery.

We have in the Tina Anderson situation a matter in which she came to the spiritual authority with a report of rape, a la Deuteronomy 22:25-27. Rather than following the example of the Law, the example of our own culture from the early 1900’s was followed, and reasons to hold her partially responsible were sought. Mr. Willis reported the matter as consensual. Tina reports it as rape. Contrary to Deuteronomy, Mr. Willis is believed, and Tina is held partially responsible. This is evidenced, if by no other means, by the fact that Mr. Willis was not required to confess to anything other than adultery.

The Old Testament example means that the woman reporting a rape occurring in such situations should be believed. We might also conclude that asking leading questions and attempting to influence a minor to doubt his/her own conclusions and blame him/herself is a particularly hurtful way of violating this principle.

We move on to the last point, somewhat less tangible, but nevertheless, important. Some have noted that much of our modern culture’s thinking on the issue of molestation arises from feminist philosophy. While feminist philosophy is involved, and extends even to the extremes of the movement, where we find some espousing views so extreme that even marriage is considered a form of either rape or prostitution, this does not discount what may sound like a feminist theological concept: there is a strong trend toward the protection of the weak in Scripture. This applies also to a woman in a “force” situation with a man.

The emphasis in molestation thinking, today, as in sexual harassment theory, is built on the idea of disproportionate power. It’s not only the reason a rapist is convicted, but the reason a university president can be removed for involvement with an intern. The ability of the more powerful figure to force or pressure sexual involvement is difficult to estimate.
Similarly, in the case of a grown man like Mr. Willis, and a 15 year old girl like Tina Anderson at the time, the ability of the adult male to apply pressure, cajole, motivate by lust, fear, or other manipulations, cannot be overstated. In fact, it’s at least half of why molestation is wrong. The victim cannot appreciate the significance of the sexual activity, but they also cannot properly cope with the pressures applied by the adult.

So, do we see a sensitivity to these issues in the Old Testament Law? The answer is yes.
Deut. 21:10-14 specify that the beautiful woman a man wants to take after the battle must be married by him. He cannot use his power as her captor to simply enslave her sexually.
Even the divorce law of Deuteronomy 24:1 provides protection for the woman. Moses required the men to write a certificate of divorce so that the woman was free to find another man to support her. Otherwise, his power over her would be absolute: he could revile her, yet leave her in virtual slavery (both sexual and non-sexual) to him. And she would be utterly without recourse. He could neglect, abuse, and not provide for her -- even throwing her out – and she would not be able to marry another man to take care of her.

A survey of the Old Testament leads to a conclusion that the weight of judgment for sexual indiscretion always leans heavily toward the man – the one generally presumed to be the stronger and more influential of the two. The 10 commandments single out the male. The woman is given the benefit of the doubt in rape cases, as we saw. She is protected from a forced marriage to the man in such cases, by a requirement of the father’s consent. In adultery, both parties were killed, rather than just the woman, which is a departure from other ancient cultures of the time.

Throughout the Old Testament, we see great sensitivity to the protection of the weaker party and the oppressed. Even though some of these passages seem harsh by our modern standards, they were shockingly liberalizing by the standards of the time. God was planting a seed of sensitivity to the weak and oppressed in Israel.

Concluding thoughts:
One of the ugliest things about the Pharisaical interpretation of the Old Testament law was that it removed all this sensitivity of interpretation and dealt with the most unfortunate most harshly. Those who wish to use the example of Old Testament culture to justify an erosion of the categories of molestation as distinct from other sexual sin should beware, lest they be guilty of the same.

50 years ago in the U.S., a sexual assault survivor would be dragged before a public venue and find their reputation shattered as every action was second-guessed in an attempt to defend the accused assailant.

I suggest that what happened to Tina Anderson and Mr. Willis was not a step away from feminist thinking toward Biblical thinking, as some seem to be saying. It was merely a step back to an America where the rape victim is put on trial too. Going further back, to the Law of Moses, would have yielded a different result.

Regardless of the particulars, or anyone’s agreement with my points above, I think nobody can disagree that Moses would have had Mr. Willis stoned, rather than allow him to plead to a lesser charge.

Where does this leave us?
1). All attempts to soften the definition of Child Molestation in such a way as to place blame on teenaged victims are questionable. While the extent to which a teenager may have willingly participated in a sexual act due to manipulation is a legitimate issue for counseling, the stigma for the wrong-doing should not be placed on them.
2). All attempts to make the perpetrator of the molestation of a teen seem less guilty because the victim was old enough to know a little better than a small child should be rejected. The words of Christ with regard to causing a minor to sin, in some cases the Old Testament definition of rape, and the example in Scripture of dealing with the weaker out of love rather than using them to serve our purposes, all speak against this. It is a travesty that Mr. Willis was permitted to confess to adultery, and not to a sin (or combination of sins) far more serious.
3). It is important to keep the “legal” category and the “Biblical” category separate in our minds, particularly in the application of church discipline. It is reasonable to assume that such differences will exist. But it is not reasonable to assume that our culture got everything wrong. In this case, our culture’s view of molestation can be well-supported from Scripture.