Concord NH Rape Case Victim Goes Public

Independent…check
Fundamental…check
Baptist…check
Pastor named Phelps…check
That surely won’t help with public relations. Wouldn’t surprise me to see Fred Phelps and his lovely family picketting in Concord some time soon.

To Jonathan’s post a few up the chain… I think some of those questions are predicated on things we don’t know at this point.

But I would not be surprised if there was some forgiveness confusion involved. It’s pretty common—in evangelicalism every bit as much as in fundamentalism (based on what I’ve read and heard). What I mean is that people often don’t realize forgiveness is something that can exist only in relationships. People/groups only have the power to forgive what has been committed against them. Only God can forgive sins against God. Individuals can only forgive what has been committed against them (or partly forgive what was committed against a group of which they are a part), and crimes can only be forgiven (or not) by the state. The same act may provide opportunities in all three categories.

But sometimes churches/believers get to thinking that forgiveness means not turning someone in who has committed a crime. There is no relationship between the forgiveness a church/believer can provide and the debt a person owes to society (just as there is no relationship between my forgiving someone and God forgiving him).

This is an article with a quote from Phelps:

––– Forum Director ––—
Poster did not provide link . I found what may be the link added it

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gcKuFXet0XK6WOFgLmwLn…
––––––––––––

Phelps said he reported the rape allegations to police and child welfare officials within a day of hearing about them from Anderson 13 years ago and did nothing to conceal her whereabouts. He said he also told Willis he was calling the police and advised him to turn himself in.

“I never once got a call from the Concord police. … They simply didn’t do anything. This is unconscionable, what’s happening to the Church here and to my reputation,” Phelps, now a pastor in Indianapolis, said Thursday.

Police declined to comment Friday because of the ongoing investigation.

Phelps said Anderson’s mother made the decision to move her to Colorado, while his role consisted of helping to find a family for her to live with.

Phelps did the right thing in reporting the crime, but he seems to believe that all of his other actions were right. But these are questions that still need to be answered:

1. He says that the mother made the decision on her own for the girl to leave, but what input did he have? Did she come up with that on her own, or did she do so at his suggestion? If he greatly influenced the mother in doing this, what was his motive? Getting pregnant ouf of wedlock is not the stigma that is used to be; shipping a girl two-thirds across the country is a draconian measure in this day and age.

2. Why was the girl forced to confess to the church? Calling the police shows that Phelps believed a crime was committed on the man’s part. So, why didn’t the church treat her as a victim? Why was the victim of the crime treated by the church as guilty of some sin?

3. Why did the girl have to confess to something that wasn’t sinful on her part (being raped), but the man was able to make a confession that fell short of a truthful confession. Did the man say to the church, “I raped so-and-so.” What was the purpose of bringing this matter before the whole congregation if the congregation wasn’t given the truth. I know that all the details of a sin don’t need to be graphically explained, but there is a BIG difference between confessing being unfaithful to one’s wife and the sin and crime of the rape of a minor.

Church discipline is a necessary practice, but I have hardly ever seen it carried out in a biblical way. Unless there is some major light to shed on this, the way this whole ordeal played out is inexcusable and biblically indefensible. When I was in Christian college, a female student was raped by a male with whom she was alone in an elevator. Reflecting on that event made me ask: “Would I send my daughter to a Christian college (Maranatha) where such leadership would perhaps hold her responsible for a crime committed against her?” NOT ON YOUR LIFE!

1. He says that the mother made the decision on her own for the girl to leave, but what input did he have? Did she come up with that on her own, or did she do so at his suggestion? If he greatly influenced the mother in doing this, what was his motive? Getting pregnant ouf of wedlock is not the stigma that is used to be; shipping a girl two-thirds across the country is a draconian measure in this day and age.

2. Why was the girl forced to confess to the church? Calling the police shows that Phelps believed a crime was committed on the man’s part. So, why didn’t the church treat her as a victim? Why was the victim of the crime treated by the church as guilty of some sin?

It seems the underlying issue related to both of your areas of question is that Tina was a student in Trinity Christian School. Apparently it was deemed unacceptable for her to continue to be enrolled as a student in the church’s school, so her mom’s options were public school and home schooling. The mother was on her own (dad was in prison), so there was no way she could homeschool her daughter. Nor did she consider public school an acceptable alternative [Sidebar: Tina may have gotten some rotten information in the public school setting, but she wouldn’t have been treated as a pariah. Let’s mull over that one.] So, that’s where the idea of sending her to Colorado came into the picture. All of this makes me wonder how differently this would’ve played out in any fundamentalist Christian school setting. I don’t really have firsthand experience with all that many schools, but I got to wondering how many of those that I’m familiar with would allow a 15-yr-old pregnant girl to remain enrolled, even if she were a victim of rape or incest. Anybody out there heard of a pregnant girl being allowed to continue attending a Christian school?

Well….I’ve been busy enough in the shadows of the cacti, that I’ve been limited in my participation here at SI. My apologies to the three of you that enjoy my posts. This one brings me back.

My first comment is let’s wait for all sides to fully bring to the table “their side.” Sometimes ministries and leaders are lied about. This is why the Scriptures say what they say about confirming what is accused by way of witnesses.

My second comment is a bit “off trail” but I believe an appropriate “off trail” if what has been said actually happened the way it’s been presented then I might respond with the following:

I’m not sure I’m on board with the exegetical/theological basis of having sexual failure brought before the congregation if and when it turns into pregnancy, otherwise all other sins are ….. “tucked away.” Of course I’m clueless “if” or “how” Chuck and Trinity handled other failures. Now if this kind of public communication (bringing brothers and sisters before the congregation) is for the purpose of restoration in a spirit of meekness, forgiveness and restoration….and is practiced consistently accross the board to all sins that we believe should make it to that level…..I’m all for it! However, I’m not convinced that this practice is really the result of serious exegetical thought. I sort of think it’s not…what I do know is that this is right out of “the type A fundamentalist ministries especially if we have a Christian School” type approach to discipline. What I know has happened in some ministries “out there” is that a 15 or 16 or 17 year old kid would be paraded in front of the congregation (especially if they were enrolled in the Christian School attached to said church), while adults with as clear a failure in the same ministry would be “left alone.” Now I don’t know that certain “failures” by adults vis-a-vis “guilty teen” are actuality “covered up” by leadership in these kinds of ministries….. but at best I’m uneasy here. Back to this particular sitatuation….I’m uneasy here. Believe me…being the pastor of a church I’m wanting to give Chuck the benefit of the doubt. There have been times we as a leadership team at SVBC have dealt with “sin issues” privatly and then were accused of not handling the issues because what we did in “private” never made it “public.” I’ve even had to keep my mouth shut afterwords (that is not defend ourselves to our critics) about what we did in private. All that to say I do want to give Chuck and the leaders the benefit of the doubt. What’s hard about that here is that we are talking about a crime that was committed against a minor. So….I’m grateful Chuck reported this within 24 hrs. I’m hopeful that much more happened behind closed doors. I’m sad to see that we moved this gal from NH to COL? What I know is that too often (and I mean way too often!) a gal having any kind of a pregnancy (either by consensual or not….sorry to add that…..) in a ministry like …… some Type A churches with a some Type A Christian schools (and I’m clueless if this NH ministry is this way)…..lives with a reputation of having “failed” (even if she was violated) and too often in these kinds of ministries, this person is “tagged” and there is not an attitude of grace that extends the love and reception that Paul demands of the Corinthian Church towards the young man who was called to account in the first epistle to the Corinthians. Having said that, I’m with Adam here…..I know hindsight is 20-20 and it’s easy to say “We would do better…..different…..etc….” The reality is ministry is messy. I hope I’d have the clarity to drive this guy to the police station myself and have him “booked” right on the spot. I will do one bit of arm-chair quarterbacking here - from a Shepherd’s point of view - How in the world would I encourage a gal like this to be shipped away from my spiritual care after she was violated to the spiritual and emotional depths that this kind of violation brings? How in the world can you do that as a pastor? Especially when this young gal has no “active father?” Isn’t the local ministry amongst other things to opperate as a hospital of grace for these kinds of things? I’m grateful that the family in COL was willing to open their arms to this gal. I’m assuming there was a church connected to this family that also ministered to this gal, so I’m grateful for all of that….especially if this COL family and any ministry connected to them was “strong in grace.’ All things being equal…to me…..it’s simply not the best situation to take this gal out of her home and away from her church home right when she needs them the most.

I hope my thinking out loud here is appropriate. Frankly I’m sickened to think about what’s happened here. All of us in leadership should spend some extra time on our knees and our faces before God pleading with him to spare us from these kinds of “events.” When they do happen let’s pray that God will give us grace and wisdom to act with leadership, responsibility and mercy.

Straight Ahead!

Joel

I agree, Bro. Joel, that it seems hypocritical to bring ‘certain sins’ before the congregation while others appear to be swept under the rug. Sometimes this is true, but sometimes I think it is perception. There are situations that are public by their very nature- any criminal activity that is made public record and the obvious signs of pregnancy are two of them. There are times IMO when full disclosure to the congregation is for the purpose of stamping out conjecture and speculation, not to punish or humiliate someone. I would think it would be less hurtful for everyone to know what happened so that gossip is minimized and true healing can occur. On the other hand, there are churches that look more like The Montel Williams Show with all the public confessing of sins that are better left between the affected parties and the Lord.

I also agree that the way young girls are treated when they’ve become pregnant (consensually or not) is often ludicrous. Fornication repented of is not the unpardonable sin ( and every unrepentant rebel should be treated the same way, not banishment just for fornicators), and a pregnancy that is the result of rape is NOT the time to further shame the victim by stashing her away like damaged goods not fit to see the light of day. I also notice that the young men responsible for the plight of these young girls are usually not shipped off to Timbuktu, nor are they held financially responsible for the child they’ve had a part in creating. What is truly shameful is the scapegoating and whitewashing that takes place, when a better testimony would be to face up to the facts and deal with the problem fairly and Biblically. Then perhaps Baptist churches would not have the ‘cult’ stamp applied quite so often.

In this particular situation, unless there is some documentation to support one side or the other, it’s going to come down to “He said, she said”. I think the only thing that can be gained from discussing this is to help us consider the reality that people are going to be caught up in sinful situations, purposefully or not, and church leadership need to be thinking about the Scriptural principles that should guide the church in dealing with sin, restoring the fallen, and healing the wounded, as well as the public ramifications of their actions.

Without commenting directly on the situation, which appears very disturbing but I don’t know enough actual facts about it to say much, let me just comment on the confession issue. As always, sin really complicates life and there are no easy answers, particularly when there two authorities involved (state and church). Perhaps with some discussion of this, we can turn this conversation to something that would actually be profitable.

At least two people I think (Adam and Ron) have questioned the nature of the man’s public confession, and I think it is a good question. I also think it is a bit more complex than simply saying the man should have made a complete and open confession of legal crimes. In our legal system, under the 5th amendment, a person has the right against self-incrimination. He never has to testify against himself in court or in a deposition. He does not have to answer questions. He can get a lawyer whenever he wants to advise him. He cannot be compelled to testify against himself. Therefore, it seems to me that it may be unwise for a man to make a public confession in a situation in which there are (or should be) impending legal proceedings because anything he says in the church becomes evidence against him, and anyone who hears it can be called to testify (except the pastor, in most cases). To wait until the legal proceedings begin and progress is not unacceptable. He can (if he wants) wait until the legal case is made, and make his guilty confession a part of his plea bargain.

I think he absolutely should take spiritual responsibility and legal responsibility. But I think those are two different issues. I don’t think taking responsibility biblically and completely means necessarily giving up your legal protections or jeopardizing a legal case. It does not mean volunteering to take the full maximum penalty under the law. Biblical responsibility does not mean hanging oneself. A person who has committed murder does not have to go and also commit suicide in order to take responsibility (i.e., life for a life). He doesn’t have to make the prosecution’s case for them. One can in fact, break the law criminally (or civilly, but remember they are different) and never turn himself in and never be prosecuted or arrested, and still be biblical in his response.

So I am not commenting on what should have be done with this man. I don’t know enough to know what was done or said.

Furthermore, while a pastor or church member can encourage a person to turn themselves in to the police, and volunteer to go with him, they cannot force the person to go. They can, and should, take all necessary legal steps of reporting the crimes (and it appears by all accounts that that was done). No one suggests that Phelps failed to report it the police, or tried to cover it up. It sounds like the police also dropped the ball in at least some respects. So again, I don’t know the ins and outs (and I doubt that anyone here does, beyond the news reports), so I don’t want to take any position on that, except to say that this is disturbing in many respects.

Rape is a heinous crime against God and man, as is child molestation or abuse. It should never be covered up by the church, by the pastor, by the deacons, by anyone in authority. No one in authority should ever encourage a victim to cover it up for any reason, or to hide from testifying or being interviewed by legal authorities. So please don’t mistake my comments for any sort of defense of anything that happened in this particular case. I don’t know what happened.

BTW, some have complained about requesting the church members to not say anything about it. There are also good reasons why, in some cases, a church can legitimately ask members not to comment but rather to let all church positions be made through a spokesman for the church. There are some things that a church member may simply not know, or may be incorrect about. If those statements are made, it could greatly confuse the situation and end up putting untrue things out to the media. This is not in any way a call to cover up anything or to “submit to authority.” It simply recognizes that there are times when it is good for a church to speak with one voice by one who actually knows enough about the situation to speak truthfully. A lot of confusion can be caused by well meaning people who simply don’t know everything. Nothing should be covered up by the church. Just speak with one unified voice.

As a side note, it is interesting how many critics of fundamentalism complain about the lack of due process in church disputes and abuse of authority situations, about how leaders make judgments off the cuff without hearing both sides and doing the research, and then proceed to do exactly the thing they complain about.

So again, I repeat, I am not defending Phelps or TBC or anyone. I simply do not know, though this situation looks very bad. My main point here is about the legal issues and biblical responsibility.

Just watched the tail end of an interview Tina was doing on the CBS Saturday morning news show. The video will probably be on the website later this morning.

Source Link: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/unfair-to-trinity-baptist-church

It has been distressing to see how one-sided the reporting has been over the past couple of days as my church, Trinity Baptist Church, has been dragged through the mud over a crime that took place 13 years ago.

I was a friend of the young lady at the time, and I can assure you that when she went public with her terrible news, the families in the church supported her, assured her of their love, and tried to do what was in her best interest. There never was any desire to “cover up,” or “whisk her away.” There were no questions from the authorities that were left unanswered by staff at Trinity.

I remember having her over to my house in the weeks after the news broke and before she left town. I remember her coming back to visit the church, after having had her baby, and recall warmly welcoming her. I remember writing to her. I know members of the church who have prayed for her many times since those days.

It seems that the Monitor has purposely hunted up people who are bitter against Trinity (or Christianity in general) for some reason and has not balanced that by doing any research amongst people on the other side. The Monitor should be asking the authorities why they did not fully investigate this years ago, rather than blasting a church that tried to support her.

GLORIA WOETZEL

Concord

I would guess (but am not certain) that Gloria Woetzel would be somehow related to Kurt Woetzel, best known in our circles for co-authoring Music in the Balance with Frank Garlock.

From the comments underneath the original

I also speak as a former church member
By concordmom42 - 05/29/2010 - 2:23 am
And I didn’t leave because of a disagreement of any kind. I moved too far away to continue attending.

I have no bitterness or malice of any kind toward the church members with whom I am still in friendly contact, the current pastors and leadership, or former pastor.

I can tell you unequivocally from personal knowledge that Tina DID tell someone that she was raped and that in the church discipline session that Pastor Phelps did NOT tell the congregation it was rape. To this day, there are those defending Pastor Phelps’ actions that believe Tina shared part of the blame—they thought it was consensual because of what they were led to believe (and yes, they understood then and understand now that such a thing would be considered statutory rape because of her age, but because they believed what they were told, they simply thought the police did not pursue it because it was consensual).

I can also state with confidence from personal knowledge that the home situation of Tina was very difficult—stepdad in prison and a mom that never was a strong advocate for her daughter or her son.

Did the police drop the ball? It certainly appears that they could have been more aggressive. I am sure as the case moves forward more will come to light on that part of the situation.

ppayette, your frequent posts suggesting that this victim seduced her attacker are way out of line. Choose to believe that the pastor did his best. But stop violating the victim further by suggesting what does not have one ounce of truth to it.

You ask why Ernie was allowed to run around for 13 years. I have a question related to that. Why did the church leadership at the time not report this to the congregation during church discipline that Sunday evening as rape? Why did they let Ernie play in the brass ensemble and help chaperone activities with teens after this?

[Jonathan Charles] 2. Why was the girl forced to confess to the church? Calling the police shows that Phelps believed a crime was committed on the man’s part. So, why didn’t the church treat her as a victim? Why was the victim of the crime treated by the church as guilty of some sin?
3. Why did the girl have to confess to something that wasn’t sinful on her part (being raped), but the man was able to make a confession that fell short of a truthful confession. Did the man say to the church, “I raped so-and-so.” What was the purpose of bringing this matter before the whole congregation if the congregation wasn’t given the truth. I know that all the details of a sin don’t need to be graphically explained, but there is a BIG difference between confessing being unfaithful to one’s wife and the sin and crime of the rape of a minor.

These are only “remaining questions” if the events they are predicated on actually occurred. I don’t think we have it from the folks at Concord that any confession was required, do we?

In any case, I advise pressing hard on the “speculation brakes” and giving this some time to work itself out. It appears that more facts are coming to light, and I’m also sure the police in Concord are going to turn up some facts in their investigation.

Joel… on the theology of bringing certain matters before congregations vs. keeping others hidden (probably a better direction for the discussion), the principle I’ve often heard (and agree with) is that circle of impact determines the circle of confession… or something like that. The idea is that confession should be public to the degree sin is public. In the case of a pregnancy resulting, it’s a little bit different though. There, it’s not that the sin is more public (than when there is no pregnancy) but that the results are more public.
What you have then is a situation where it is impossible for the body of believers to be unaffected or uninvolved. At a minimum they will see and wonder what happened. Realistically speaking, they will talk about it and speculate. So then the reason for “public confession” is not so much “public sin” but the health of the body. Open talk about what happened is necessary to end the rumor mill (or preempt it) and also establish a clear path forward for the victim (if she is a victim, or for the sinner if that fits… or both if both fit).
Let’s remember too that shame and alienation are unavoidable in this situation even if the woman involved is absolutely innocent. That’s just built in. And if the circumstances that resulted in the pregnancy are not disclosed, the woman has no direction to go in rebuilding relationships.

Not sure I’m saying it very well, but the gist is, there can be more than one reason to have “open talk” in the congregation about an incident.
But whether the “open talk” takes the form of confession depends on who’s doing the talking and whether she has anything relevant to “confess.”

If the story is going to be that this was consensual, then on what basis was this conclusion reached? Did they take the man’s word that this was consensual (I’m assuming that was his story)? Did the victim just come right out and w/o pressure say that it was consensual? Was she pressured into saying that it was consensual? If so, did the fact that she had a difficult home-life lead people to assume that it might have been consensual (“Well, look at her home life; a girl with that kind of background is apt to get into these kinds of situations”)?

Should the fact that this woman went on to get a degree from Maranatha and then taught in a respected Christian institution in Arizona lend credibility to her story? She didn’t come out of this and renounce Christ and turn to live a wicked life. She seems to have been serving the Lord, inspite of this that occurred in 1997, and she seems to have a Christian family.

I agree that we should let all of the facts come to light. There are still unanswered questions but we should wait for the facts. There are many things about this that angers me, but I hope it is untrue that this man was restored to playing in the orchrestra and was a worker in the youth group. But let’s wait to find out.

Going forward. I should give a little more background. I was a bus kid who was in Christian School all the way through high school - sometimes I was a member of the church and sometimes I was at a different church. I came from a broken home (my mom had 5 kids and my dad had 6 and they married and had me. When i was 4 my mom and dad split up. I did have a stepdad). I know first hand what it is like to be stigmatized in Christian Schools. It was almost always unintentional, but we were treated differently (sometimes pitied, sometimes looked down upon). I should say this never happened to me at the last Christian School that I was at.

I also have had the privilege to teach at two other Christian schools. I saw “high risk” kids treated badly. If there was something that went wrong, they were the first thrown under the bus. I battled that a lot at one of the schools that I worked at. And when it came time let kids back in the school after expulsion, “high risk” kids were not let in as easily at “good kids” from good families, even the the “good” kids were the ring leaders. It has been years since I worked in a christian school, so I hope this has changed. But my experience was that kids such as the young lady mentioned here were the first alienated when something when wrong. Fair treatment overshadowed by the possibility of loosing tithing families ( I was told essentially that one time).

First, yes, Gloria Woetzel is Kurt Woetzel’s wife.

I do have some personal knowledge of this situation and we need to wait until all the facts come out.

As far as the being ostracized ‘bus kid’. I will have to disagree from my circumstances. I was the ‘bus kid’ although I didn’t ride the bus. I was the kid from the home of unsaved parents. I was the kid that came to a Christian school every day smelling like smoke because my mom smoked. I NEVER felt ostracized. I was taken in to a loving church/school family. There was a family in our church that loved me and took me under their wing. Their daughter and I were and are best friends. I practically lived at their house and went on vacations with them. Not all ‘outsiders’ are treated badly.

Back to the Trinity situation…I doubt everything was done perfectly, but I’m sure that Pastor Phelps did what he thought the Lord wanted him to do. He’s a godly man with many years of ministry behind him. Let’s not throw stones until we know the entire story. And whatever it is, we need to support our fellow Christians.

Cindy,
I am glad you had a great situation as a bus kid. In the several schools that I have first hand knowledge, only one treated the kids the way you were treated. Again, most of the time it was completely unintentional.

As far as this current situation, I think we should wait. Fellow believers should be supported. And any wrongdoers should be punished and corrected for God’s glory.

BTW, I used to have the smoke smell too. I felt badly my mom would work so hard trying to help me get my things ready when I would go to college. I never had to heart to tell her that I had to rewash everything when I got to BJ every semester. :)

this is a sad story indeed with many blanks to those of us on the outside. My prayer is that justice would be served even though this clown should have been prosecuted a long time ago. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out but our prayers should be for those hurt by these heinous and despicable crimes. If there was any cover up or obstruction involved I am sure it will come out during the reopened investigation.

Growing up under the Hyles regime, cover ups and shuffling people around to protect the guilty were common place. I hope that this was not the case here—time will tell. If it was the case then certainly those who were in positions of power should be held 100% accountable.

Matthew Richards