Concord NH Rape Case Victim Goes Public

[Mike Durning] But I think the speculation process helps us plan what we will do when we are confronted with this kind of situation in our church — particularly when linked to Scriptural reflections on the various scenarios we imagine may have been going on.

Exactly. If we can get away from trying to judge this specific case ourselves and instead focus on how these kinds of situations should be handled, maybe we can make some headway in fixing the problem. It’s curious to me that on the one hand folks are upset about a cover up, and yet at the same time demand that we don’t talk about it. I think we must discuss these situations, especially when they’ve become a matter of public record, but not in a way that tries to dissect and label what has happened at Trinity or any other church/institution, but take what we know about how people can and will engage in sinful conduct and how the Bible tells us to address those situations. I think we must also consider how best to convey to folks that they should not be afraid to come forward with information about a problem with church leadership or someone else in the congregation, what kind of ‘evidence’ is needed to make an accusation, whether or not someone who stands accused should be allowed to continue to minister, and if they are ‘found guilty’, what does the restoration process entail, and what does it mean to receive someone back into the ‘fellowship’ of the church? These are all IMO questions that this case brings to light, and why on earth should we not attempt to learn from it? We may have to ask some “What if” questions, but that’s what most planning is based on- speculation. I think most folks here can find the line between harmful gossip and healthy brainstorming based on these events.

I personally do not believe I have speculated here in this thread. I have posed a question, however, that no one here seems to have answered- that is, even if we assume the best case scenario (that the involvement was consensual), how is what transpired in the church immediately afterward justified (whether you take the account of Anderson or Dr. Phelps)? What facts could possibly come out that would justify that this man continued to be an active participant in the ministry at TBC? The best answer provided publicly has been that the police never followed up after the report was made. If I am in that scenario, I cannot imagine a situation where I would not then take it upon myself personally to follow up and see that either the man turns himself in voluntarily or that charges were pressed. If the legal system falls through and he is unwilling to turn himself in to the authorities- well, how much clearer can a lack of repentance be?

I am truly flabbergasted here- and it is not because I harbor any ill will or resentment at all toward anyone at Trinity. I have greatly appreciated Chuck, and value the ministry he has had in my life personally and to those I have pastored. A good friend and college mentor is a missionary sent from TBC. I am truly disappointed that this matter transpired, and as a father of three daughters, can only imagine the sorrow that has been experienced by the family of Tina as well as the Willises (no matter how the matter transpired specifically). I would genuinely appreciate an explanation, because I have thought about this a great deal since the story broke, and I would like nothing better than a reason to believe that this matter was handled properly by the church and leaders I have known and respected.

I believe that it is possible to be concerned about some of the things coming out of this situation at Trinity without being an enemy of that ministry, its present pastor, or its former pastor. I also don’t believe that you have to speculate to come to a few concerns.

Following up on a police investigation is easier said than done. It’s only on television that cops run around telling every Joe Sixpack in sight the status of an investigation. The most you can hope for is “The investigation is open and ongoing”. They have no duty to report to the church- legally the church is not part of the case- only the accused and the victim/family can receive specific information, and only the victim’s family can press charges. So I really don’t know what a church can do about a criminal case except nag. They could have called the local papers to complain about the lack of follow-up… but I’d think they’d want to consult with the family before they took any action that could have brought the case in to the public eye.

As for acts that are consensual, any participation by a person under the age of consent makes the act illegal. She could not have consented, and the fact that the man took advantage of her willingness or overpowered her physically makes him a sexual predator. I agree that he should have been removed from ministry and from membership roles until he had demonstrated repentance to the satisfaction of the church leadership. I think a good question is how would someone demonstrate repentance for such an act, and at what point/to what positions could he be restored?

I think a good question is how would someone demonstrate repentance for such an act, and at what point/to what positions could he be restored?

By turning himself in to the authorities with a full confession. The second part would be answered after the sentence was served.

[Greg Linscott]

I think a good question is how would someone demonstrate repentance for such an act, and at what point/to what positions could he be restored?

By turning himself in to the authorities with a full confession. The second part would be answered after the sentence was served.

My sentiments exactly.

Before commenting, let me state clearly that I am not making any comments about the particular on this particular case. I do not know what happened. I have not read most of the news reports on it, so my comments must not be construed by anyone either on SI or not on SI as support or defense of any one or any act or any thing related to this situation with TBC.

If I am in that scenario, I cannot imagine a situation where I would not then take it upon myself personally to follow up and see that either the man turns himself in voluntarily or that charges were pressed.

You can’t force someone to turn himself or herself in, and you can’t press charges since you are a not a party to the act. A church can exercise church discipline on someone, up to and including removing them from membership, but that is the extent of their authority. A pastor can strongly encourage someone to turn themselves in, and offer to go with them. But he can’t march them down there against their will.

A church is essentially a third party to a legal situation such as this. They can report it, and they must in most cases … child sex abuse is generally not covered by clergy privilege as I understand it; in most states clergy are mandatory reporters. But the church can’t force a police department or a prosecutor to take action. And in most states, only a victim can press charges.

Again, I have no idea on this particular case what happened, so my comments must not be construed by anyone either on SI or not on SI as support or defense of anyone or any act or any thing related to this.

By turning himself in to the authorities with a full confession. The second part would be answered after the sentence was served.

I wonder what biblical evidence would you use to support the idea that biblical repentance means chasing down legal consequences (as opposed to accepting them when they come)? Is there any biblical case where this was done? Or a passage that suggests it should be done?

I think this is related to the conversation that we were having earlier. I would fully say that if a person knows that the police are looking for him, he should turn himself in. If he has hurt someone, the police will be looking for him. But again, I know I brought this up before, I am unsure that repentance means chasing down punishment or consequences in all cases. Again, I am not commenting on this particular case. But if a victim (of a breakin, an assault, a rape, or whatever) declines to press charges, does biblical repentance mean insisting on them?

Let’s a say a guy steals $100 from someone. He repents and gives the $100 back to him, and the victim says, “Fine. No problem. I am not pressing charges.” Does biblical repentance mean that he go to the police anyway? Why or why not?

Let’s say a man rapes a woman. He repents and asks her forgiveness and she says, “Fine. I forgive you. I just want you out of my life. I don’t want to see you again. I won’t press charges.” Is he still bound to turn himself him in the name of biblical repentance?

And what if the prosecutor declines to prosecute? Should he lock himself up for ten years because he knows that’s what he should have gotten for it? To that, I think you would say no. But why? If biblical repentance means accepting the consequences, does it mean accepting them only when an authority says to accept them. In other words, why must he turn himself in when the authorities aren’t looking for him, but he doesn’t have to accept consequences when the authorities aren’t looking to impose them? Do you understand the tension there?

To me, there are some complexities that may be being ignored here. I am not sure what all the answers are, or any of them, but these are some questions that at the very least seem reasonable to ask.

To your specific question, I have no idea why the man allegedly continued in ministry at TBC, so again, I don’t want to defend anything that may or may not have gone on there. And I don’t want my words here being used in anyway as a comment on the situation at TBC because they are not.

I wonder what biblical evidence would you use to support the idea that biblical repentance means chasing down legal consequences (as opposed to accepting them when they come)? Is there any biblical case where this was done? Or a passage that suggests it should be done?

In our scenario, he has not only violated a person/people, he has violated a law. This is not the same as committing adultery with another adult. Proverbs 28:13 says “Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.” This may not be adequate to base an entire system of doctrine on, but I don’t see the converse where it would be wise or permissible to wait until confronted, either. If you rob your employer, do you confess but wait until the funds are missed? Does the adulterous but repentant spouse wait for the partner to discover before informing of consummated unfaithfulness?

To your other scenarios- I think your examples would be cases where mercy is demonstrated- but that’s not up to the offending party to determine.

But the church can’t force a police department or a prosecutor to take action. And in most states, only a victim can press charges.

Let’s assume this was all true- the party refused to confess. I am arguing that in this case, that would demonstrate a lack of true repentance, which leads to the question of why he would be allowed to continue in membership, at the very least.

I realize there is a tremendous difference in level of offense, but in Greg’s scenario, anyone who has ever exceeded the speed limit would be required to go and turn himself in to the authorities of his own volition because he has broken the laws of the state. Mere confession of that sin to God would not be enough, he would have to also make restitution to the state as well. I really do not think we truly believe these principles in their entirety, It is only when large issues arise, (large being a relative term), that we seek to apply these truths.

Luk 19:8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.

Zacchaeus is often set forth, and rightly so I believe, as demonstrating a truly repentant heart. He doesn’t wait for wronged parties to come to him now that he’s professing faith in Christ. He voluntarily, publicly announces his readiness to accept the consequences for his past mistreatment of people. The impression seems to be that there have been so many nameless victims in his years of tax collecting that he couldn’t begin to identify them all in order to go to each personally & make restitution, hence the public offer. If some victims of his cheating missed out on the restitution because they chose not to come forward and he forgot who they were, fine. From a repentant heart, he made a genuine, concerted effort to right the wrongs.

As a pastor confronted with an “Ernie Willis”-type crime, I would expect a genuinely repentant heart to be manifested before the congregation by an acknowledgment of a crime committed that demands he relinquish certain responsibilities and refrain from some ministry opportunities. I would furthermore expect him voluntarily to turn himself in to the authorities and accept the legal consequences. Should his victim not press charges or for whatever reason not cooperate with an investigation (and if she were in my church, I would strongly encourage her to), or if the charges for whatever reason are dropped, or if the police fail to pursue their investigation and take the matter to trial, or if a judge gives probation when he could’ve given years in prison, then “Willis” has been the recipient of a merciful outcome. I wouldn’t insist on expulsion from the church because he didn’t get all that the law demands he could get. Incidentally, I wouldn’t bring the man’s membership status before the congregation for a vote (the final, most public stage of church discipline) until after he committed himself to me and the deacons that he would voluntarily turn himself in.

A personal illustration, perhaps? When I was in 8th grade, a buddy & I were in a store and he dared me to steal a pen, which of course I did to prove my manhood. At that time in my life, I wasn’t particularly concerned about living for the Lord & pleasing Him. In my senior year of high school, however, the Lord graciously worked in my life and brought me to a place of repentance for my selfish, self-centered, godless living. The pen incident immediately came to mind. After a few days of struggle, I went to the store with a couple dollars in hand, sought out the manager, told him what I did, asked his forgiveness, and gave him the money. When he regained his composure, he took the money and expressed thanks for making the effort to get this right. When I nervously walked into that store, I had no idea the outcome—and wasn’t even really thinking about all the possibilities. I knew I’d done wrong, even committed a crime, and needed to make it right with that store. Certainly this pales in comparison to Willis’s crime, and certainly his life situation was far more complex (with wife & children), but for everyone involved—Willis, his wife, his children, Tina Anderson, her mother, the membership at Trinity, Colonial Hills, and Tri-City Baptist Churches, the student body of Trinity Christian School, Matt Olson, Northland, the citizens of Concord, NH, and more—it would’ve been far, far better had he demonstrated true, godly repentance and taken full, public responsibility for his crime.

I realize there is a tremendous difference in level of offense, but in Greg’s scenario, anyone who has ever exceeded the speed limit would be required to go and turn himself in to the authorities of his own volition because he has broken the laws of the state. Mere confession of that sin to God would not be enough, he would have to also make restitution to the state as well. I really do not think we truly believe these principles in their entirety, It is only when large issues arise, (large being a relative term), that we seek to apply these truths.

Large is a relative term, and scale does matter here.

If one realizes that a cashier gave an extra penny in change, most would be much less likely to even consider returning it than they would $10 bill.

Exceeding the speed limit is a matter of law, but it is applied relatively even by those who enforce it. Is it a moral wrong when your speedometer registers 57 in a 55 coasting downhill? Do you take the time to confess that specifically as sin, or do you remind yourself to watch and be mindful that you don’t exceed posted limits?

In this specific case, the scale does matter. And I don’t think that general principle is inconsistent with Biblical reasoning.

Tina Anderson’s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDVveQP0KKM

Chuck Phelps: http://www.wkxl1450.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&…

I’m just curious here. Chuck states that the public treatment of Tina and Ernie had a three-fold purpose. First, to quell rumors. Second, to demonstrate loving care for Tina. Third, to prepare the congregation for the bombshell of Ernie’s impending arrest. Do these stated reasons raise any questions in anyone else’s mind?

There has been quite a bit of research in the last 20 years about the reliability of eye witness/firsthand testimony, and it’s been discovered that eye witness testimony can be highly unreliable. Factors such as stress and previous experiences can color their perceptions. It is reasonable to think that each ‘side’ may be presenting what is in their minds accurate accounts, but one’s biases, maturity, and experiences can drastically affect memory and perception, so the assumption that an eye witness testimony is irrefutable no longer holds. That is why documentation is so essential for churches to take seriously. You really never know when you are going to need proof that an action was benign instead of criminal, unethical, or unScriptural.

[BryanBice] I’m just curious here. Chuck states that the public treatment of Tina and Ernie had a three-fold purpose. First, to quell rumors. Second, to demonstrate loving care for Tina. Third, to prepare the congregation for the bombshell of Ernie’s impending arrest. Do these stated reasons raise any questions in anyone else’s mind?

It makes perfect sense to me. What questions should it raise? Since she became pregnant, there was certainly no way the matter was going to remain private.

Susan makes a good point about documentation… and I would think that if “public” action occurred (let’s keep in mind that a meeting of the church is not really “public”), it would documented in the meeting minutes.
But since investigation is ongoing, I’m sure those kinds of documents will be scrutinized.

There may be the possibility that the Concord Police Department dropped the ball big time in their investigation. That being said, I’m reminded of the wise man who, when I told him that I hoped people could put two and two together, told me, “You have to give them the ‘four’ !”

It seems that there were two separate church meetings, one in which Ernie confessed to being unfaithful and the second in which Tina’s pregnancy was addressed. Was there anything said that informed the church that Ernie was unfaithful with Tina (and thus guilty of a crime) or was the church left to figure that out? Personally, being familiar with the Granite State mentality, i can’t see a whole church silently accept the presence of a man who would do such a thing with a minor.