Concord NH Rape Case Victim Goes Public

Fundamentalism can do better when it comes to these heartbreaking situations. Fundamentalism is willing to boldly speak out about a lot of things. Unfortunately, at the same time, we allow the embracing of ministries like the one in Hammond where serious moral failures were never repented of. Many fundamentalists will even prefer a ministry in its camp like Hammond over any ministry out there that decides to operate out of the fundamentalist box in any way. I believe this mindset creates and environment that hinders ministry leaders from properly dealing with these issues and now the world really does not see a difference between us and the Roman Catholic Church in these issues.

If Tina was made to confess her “failures” before a man who raped her against her will and before a congregation that did not understand a crime was commited against a 15 year old girl, then I can’t begin to imagine the pain that she has felt all of these years. Any help offered in NH or CO could not begin to heal that pain under these circumstances. If the police department did not do a better job locating her, then they did create this pain as well. Also, I read that the man who commited the crime against Tina admitted paternity in papers in CO. If this is true, then the people in charge of those papers messed up.

God is a healing God. His hand is able to touch and mend the most broken of hearts. I truly believe that if everybody on every side of this situation will truly look up to Him, they will find direction, healing, and reconciliation. I pray that healing will be the result.

I hope the child who was born out of this crime will know Jesus, love Jesus, and serve Jesus.

While all of the details of the this situation are not known yet, I do believe in general that fundamentalism can do better when it comes to these issues.

While we’re waiting for all the facts to come out, we do have some facts which we can evaluate.

An grown man had sex with an underage girl. That was a premeditated act that was a sin, a crime, and inexcusable.

That man never confessed his real sin to the church and was allowed to continue in the church with no consequences.

The people who knew this crime had been committed did not actively pursue justice.

The case of John Calvin and Servetus came to mind. Servetus had a non-Trinitarian Christology. He visited Geneva, was arrested and with Calvin’s consent was burned at the stake. Calvin was certainly wrong in that, yet we wouldn’t cast aside all that was good and godly about his life and ministry. I really don’t want to do the same thing with Chuck Phelps (he teaches a required seminary module that I eventually have to take). Maybe we will never be able to reconcile a single wrong action of what was, otherwise, a good and godly man. But it sure would be refreshing to see a fundamentalist leader look at an old action with fresh eyes and say, “I was wrong.”

Ron,

Just curious here,and I wish it wasn’t connected to this case because I have no desire to defend anything here. I wonder about the extent of this. I am not sure.

Do you think a person who may face legal issues should be required to incriminate themselves before the church prior to their legal proceedings? How much specificity should be required?

To get it off of this case, let’s say for instance that a man has been caught with child p0rnography. He is caught and confesses it to the pastor. There is an impending legal case. Should he be required to confess specifically that he was involved in child p0rnography to the church, knowing that he would be incriminating himself in the legal proceedings?

[Cindy] First, yes, Gloria Woetzel is Kurt Woetzel’s wife.

Unless she is going by another name in the letter, that is not correct.

From [URL=http://www.acswebnetworks.com/tbcnh/pastoral_staff] Woetzel’s bio at the Trinity Website[/URL] -

Mr. Kurt Woetzel Minister of Music

Trinity Baptist Church held its first services in Kurt and Suzanne Woetzel’s home. From 1980 to the present, Kurt has led Trinity’s nationally recognized music ministry and has been ably accompanied on the piano by his wife, Suzanne. The Woetzels both received master’s degrees in music from Pensacola Christian College. Kurt is a published author and travels with the Majesty Music College under the direction of his dear friend and mentor, Dr. Frank Garlock.

I do have some familiarity with Trinity (though I am far from an expert) from when I pastored in Maine. We had Dr. Phelps and another associate from Trinity speak for retreats our church hosted. I presented a workshop for their Leadership Conference one year. I have met Mrs. Woetzel before.

FWIW, I would see no problem with doing that if he were doing something both immoral and illegal that had serious consequences. I would think true repentance would be evidenced by making a similar statement before the police that he would before the congregation. In your scenario, Larry, what possible legitimate reason would a confessed child pornographer have to withhold such information from the authorities?

Several reasons, Greg.

1. Because of the law itself — Child p0rnography is not entirely clearly defined by the law, and there are some legal issues surrounding it that are still being litigated, according to my understanding. He may not be guilty before the law, but once he confesses it, it can be used against him.

2. Because of sentencing issues — Certain crimes may carry say, 20 years, while other crimes may carry 10 years. I am not convinced that biblical repentance means volunteering for the maximum. A person may know he is guilty of a 20 year crime, but the prosecutor for the sake of saving the trial expense and risk of acquittal may say, “If you will plead to the ten year crime, we will call it even.” But if he has confessed to the 20 year crime, he has in effect committed legal suicide. Does he still have to confess to the 20 year crime? I am not sure he does. And what if he is offered probation? Should he turn that down because he knows he committed a greater crime. I would say, generally speaking, in legal situations, the less you say the better. I wonder if we don’t need to separate biblical repentance from legal issues. They are not necessarily connected (see below).

3. I also think that police/authorities are entitled to more information than the church body as a whole is. I am not sure anyone is helped by very specific admissions. For a man to confess that he was unfaithful to his wife (read no connection to this case at all) is significantly different than confessing that he carried on with 15 women. I don’t think the latter is necessary information to demonstrate biblical repentance.

4. Furthermore, if he has confessed it at the first confrontation or the second (cf. matt 18), then it does not necessarily have to come before the body for confession. The exception, in my mind, is when it will become public information. As a pastor, I want to be on the front end of that news cycle, to say to the body, “You are going to read some things, some which may or may not be true. I want you to know that we know, that we have dealt with it, that there is fruit of biblical repentance and accountability.” I don’t want the church finding out in the newspaper. Of course, there is some experience involved in that judgment.

Let’s take another case: Does someone who confesses to using drugs have to turn themselves into the police in order to demonstrate biblical repentance? What about someone who confesses to selling drugs? Or someone that drove while drunk and didn’t get stopped? Does biblical repentance involve confessing everything that we know and volunteering to take the max?

Can someone say, “I did wrong. I broke the law, but I have repented and am following Jesus. One day it might come back to haunt me, and when it does, we will cross that bridge and deal with it.” Assuming that it does not involve someone else, is that wrong? I would entertain the argument, but I don’t convinced as of not that it is wrong to take that approach. Again, I am not convinced that biblical repentance means committing legal suicide.

In the bottom line, it seems more complex than “Get up front and tell everyone exactly what you did.” We need to weigh the need of people to know specifics, the legal issues that might arise, the way that a church body can help a fellow believer, etc.

Again, none of my comments here should be interpreted to apply to the TBC case in any way.

Child pornography harms and exploits other people directly- particularly the children involved. In that way, it differs from your examples of drug use and drunk driving. I am thinking especially of someone who was involved in production/distribution- though regularly viewing it is also serious.

I agree with your points, esp. 2 and 4. But to answer if someone can say “I did wrong. I broke the law, but I have repented and am following Jesus. One day it might come back to haunt me, and when it does, we will cross that bridge and deal with it.”- like Zacchaeus, I see a big connection between repentance and demonstrable fruit. If someone realizes that they have been guilty of reprehensible crimes against God and humanity by producing child porn, I would say that repentance would not only involve turning one’s self in to the authorities, but exposing the distribution ring, getting the children to safe places and homes, and so on. Similar things might be said if someone had committed murder, for example- turning one’s self in would be crucial, I would think.

That being said, the actions of, say, a repentant prostitute or drug user might be different that those of a repentant pimp or madam or high-level drug dealer. For that matter, someone who breaks the speed limit and is repentant would have a different course of action with the authorities than someone who committed a hit-and-run.

Production/dissemination is different than using and the law recognizes that at least to some extent (similar to drugs, BTW). Murder is certainly up there. Prostitution is another interesting case. There’s a lot of ins and outs that I haven’t thought fully through. I have dealt with some and have given some thought to it. I would hesitate to say that there’s an easy “one size fits all” answer. I am curious though as to why you would disagree with 1 and 3. I think 1 is an ongoing case law situation, and not sure why 3.

The issue with Zaccheus is that there was someone that he could repay. And it also wasn’t illegal, was it? But how does someone who merely (and don’t read too much into that) but merely looks at child porn repay anyone? Surely a child was harmed in producing it, and that person must pay. And yes, if there was no market for it, he wouldn’t produce (actually he probably would because it’s not a profit crime). But how does one repay or make restitution? I think perhaps that is an issue that must be considered as well. Are we in danger of some form of Shylock-ism, demanding our pound of flesh for no real reason that public shame and humiliation. I think we should be cautious of our own depravity.

On your last line about speeding vs. hit and run, I specified earlier the difference between civil infractions and crimes. Speeding is a CI and hit and run is a crime. I think we handle them differently. I don’t run down to the police station every time I speed, cuz then I would have to go once a month or so. But hit and run is a misdemeanor I think.

It’s late and I’m tired and incapable of any long answers. Simply put, Larry, I would say, yes, if you’re guilty, incriminate yourself and pray for mercy. If i recall, the first question the judge is going to ask the defendant is, “How do you plead?” The truthful answer is, “Guilty.”

I didn’t disagree with the other numbered points- I just thought the ones I mentioned were especially strong.

Repay/restitution- I think there, exposing the ring so production is halted is one possible way.

I agree with Ron that it is late, too. Good night, all.

http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2010/05/spinning-scandals/ Spinning Scandals

[JohnBrian] http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2010/05/spinning-scandals/ Spinning Scandals

1. I’d love to see some “rock solid evidence” on either side of this case instead of Tuesday Morning Quarterbacking.
2. The new rebuttal regarding any disagreement is to accuse the other of ‘drinking the Kool-Aid. Still sitting here waiting for some evidence to surface. And drinking coffee.
3. Each situation must be weighed on its own. It is regrettable and shameful that there have been cover-ups in other situations, but one calico cat doesn’t mean that every cat in the universe is a calico.
4. The generalization that circling the wagons is a common characteristic of all Fundamentalism is the pot calling the cornflakes black.
5. Not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes good people faced with a crisis will do things that seemed like the best recourse at the time. It is important, however, for wrong decisions, regardless of the intentions, to be admitted and reparations made- on both sides.
6. Any time you say you are waiting for ‘rock solid evidence’, that in itself is evidence that you are One Of The Bad Guys. In order to be a Good Guy, you must immediately accept the second-hand stories and horrific anecdotes at face value .

I’ve seen plenty of spin in my life. I’ve seen Biblical principles used to manipulate and control others with fear… but that is not a Fundy thing, it’s a wickedly sinful human thing. We all must deal with our deceitful hearts that constantly look for scapegoats. The best thing IMO to do with an event like this is to stop trying to do an autopsy when none of us have access to the body, but take what little we do know and humbly prepare ourselves for the possibility that we may one day be faced with a similar situation.

I think Larry has brought up some excellent points to consider. We do have a legal system that must be considered in any situation. Some behaviors are immoral and/or unethical but not illegal. In our legal system there are categories of infractions- civil and criminal. In any case, we are supposed to presume innocence until evidence of guilt is presented or a confession obtained. I think the presumption of innocence is Biblically supported. And evidence can only be given by those directly involved- being the friend of a friend of Aunt Martha’s catsitter is not being directly involved.

A new article posted this morning gives more details and provokes more questions and concerns.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/woman-i-was-afraid-to-tell-of-rape

I find this whole situation sickening. Between the actual crime to the cover-ups…it’s nauseating.

There was absolutely no reason for that 15 year old girl to be publicly disciplined at church. She is the victim.

The perpetrator was clearly unrepentant for his crime or he would have confessed the rape to his church and asked this young girl for her forgiveness. Unfaithfulness to his wife was only a small part of the story.

At the end, for me this girl was just that : a girl. This deacon from Trinity caused permanent harm to her not only through the rape; but the emotional trauma of being ostracized from her family and giving up her baby for adoption. It is unbelievable to me that the rapist was allowed to continue his life until now.

[Cindy] 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.

There will be no support from me for Christians who took part in ruining a young girl’s life until apologies are made for their wrongdoing. Specifically how they spoke to this girl, the fact that she was publicly shamed at her church, and for allowing the perpetrator to continue fellowship with their church.