Concord NH Rape Case Victim Goes Public

Will Rogers once said, “Don’t believe anything you read in the newspaper and only half of what you see.”

I think this goes doubly for the news media today.

My skepticism about this situation comes from the fact that all of the information we are getting is coming in edited form through the news media. I am reluctant to depend on the news media for *facts* in any situation.

I do have a bias here. Dr. Phleps was an undergrad at the same time and school as were my dear wife and I. We have made his acquaintance on one or two occasions since. My mother was a member of Trinity at the time she passed away in 2000. We have been thoroughly un-impressed with the person and ministry of Dr. Phelps. Yet, I have been involved with enough of these situations in general to know that we do not yet know all the facts, and to know, also, that the media is no friend of Godly Christianity. We cannot determine the propriety or impropriety of his involvement from media reports.

By the same token, this is in no way a negative comment on the accusations leveled by Tina Anderson. I know her “not at all”. I have no reason to doubt her (or support her, for that matter).

I just know (IMHO, from my own extensive observations) that the media in general has an agenda, and what we are being fed is very much colored by their agenda.

[BryanBice]

do we know that she was “expelled” from the school?

What we do know is that she was a student in the school when she became pregnant; but then when she disclosed her pregnancy, she had two options: public school and home school. Expelled? I believe what I read was, “not allowed to continue as a student.”

That is SOP at many Christian schools- regardless of the circumstances, they will not allow a pregnant girl to continue to attend. If that was the rule at Tina’s school, then they were following procedure. If they made an exception in her case, then they were being very unfair.

But this is exactly the kind of spin that people have been accusing Trinity of- what may be SOP in many Christian schools across the country is being portrayed here as nefarious- is that being objective? Methinks not so much.

As for other objective facts- where is the verification that Tina was made to apologize to the wife? That is IMO bizarre. Has someone produced this letter?

I have an objective fact- hindsight is 20/20. Who’d’ve thunk that these events would be resurrected 13 years later? It’s amazing to me how sharp everyone’s memories are of this event.

As a pastor and as one who led a church to put a child protection policy in place, I follow this story with interest. Let me preface my comments, as Larry did, by making it clear that I am not intending to condone or condemn any of the individuals involved or their actions. I’m simply trying to think through what we know (or think we know) about this case for the sake of our own ministries. Also, additional information may come out at any time that will cause us to reconsider our views.

I think it would be helpful to focus on each of the individuals involved and also to distinguish the actions of the church as it relates to the law and as it relates to biblical principles and the

The Adult Male (alleged perpetrator)

As it relates to the law. If there was a reasonable suspicion that he had sex with an underage girl (and if he confessed to doing so, there was obviously reasonable suspicion), he should have been reported to the police within 24 hours. According to Pastor Phelps, this was done. (I find it very interesting that no mention was made of this during the CBS Morning Edition interview with the alleged victim.)

Questions:

1. When no investigation seemed to be forthcoming and no arrest was made, did the church follow up by contacting the police again? If not, why not? No, the church is not required to do so, but given the serious nature of the crime, one would think follow up would be made.
   As it relates to the church. We are told that he was brought before the church and confessed to being unfaithful to his wife. We are also told that he was removed from leadership position(s), but allowed to continue as a member of the church. He was allowed to serve in certain ministry capacities (orchestra, greeting), but perhaps not others.
   
   Questions:
   
   
   
   1. Why didn’t he confess to the fact that the unfaithfulness involved an underage girl? Would this affect how church members viewed his sin and subsequent restoration? Was this full confession not made in part to protect the girl?
      
   2. Why was he allowed to continue as a member of the church after committing such a crime? It must be because church leaders thought he had repented. This must be why he was not excommunicated from the church and why he was allowed to continue in certain ministry roles (although perhaps not others).
      
   3. But if he had repented, why didn’t he turn himself in to police? Does his failure to do so mean he hadn’t truly repented? This, to me, is the key question as it relates to this man and the church’s actions regarding him.
      The Teenage Girl (alleged victim)
      
      As it relates to the law. As others have pointed out, according to the law there can be no consensual sex between an adult and a minor. It is, by definition, statutory rape. If this happened, she is in the eyes of the law the victim. A church that subjects itself to the governing authorities as biblically required (Rom. 13:1-7) must view her, at least in part, as the law views her and allow this to guide their response towards her.
      
      As it relates to the church. It appears that she was brought before the church and made to “confess” or acknowledge her pregnancy. Allegedly she was also “forced” to write a letter to the alleged perpetrator’s wife asking for forgiveness. Eventually she was sent to live in Colorado with another family, who homeschooled her.
      
      Questions:
      
      
      
      1. Why was she brought before the church? It seems to me there are two possible reasons:
         • Church leaders believed the sex was consensual. What if (please notice I said “WHAT IF”) both the adult male and the teenage girl gave similar details regarding the encounter? What if both said the encounters were consensual? Yes, according to the law he is at fault no matter what and she is the victim, but what about according to the Bible? Would there be any sense at all that IF she admitted it was consensual that there was sin involved on her part? Or would you just ignore this aspect of it because the law says it can’t be consensual because of her age?
           
         • Church leaders viewed her as a victim but wanted to proactively address her pregnancy before rumors would spread. But why would they have her stand up in front of the church? Wouldn’t people naturally assume that this pregnancy was the result of immorality between this girl and an unidentified teenager? Wouldn’t this affect the way they viewed her?
           
         
         
      2. Why was she forced/encouraged/asked to write a letter to the alleged perpetrator’s wife? Again, IF the church leaders truly believed the sex was consensual, is it justified to encourage her to ask forgiveness from the wife of this man? Or does her age mean she bears no biblical responsibility in this matter at all?
         
      3. Did the church “cover up” this situation by “shipping her off” to Colorado? As Aaron has pointed out, if this was their intention, they did a poor job of it. She was in the public eye for several weeks in Concord before moving to Colorado. And if it was her mother’s desire for her to move to Colorado, I don’t see what blame the church shares in this aspect.
         The key question for me is this: Even if church leaders truly believed the sex was consensual (and of course we don’t know that for sure), why didn’t they follow up with the police to ensure this man was arrested? Why didn’t they encourage him to turn himself in to police as an evidence of true repentance?
         

[Javert in Les Miserables] The law is inside out / The world is upside down

I’ve sat by and watched, and I think that the only thing that we can all agree on is that nothing makes any sense.

I have a hard time believing that the police didn’t pursue a rape charge, that the pastor wouldn’t have reported a rape charge when he heard about it, or that the deacons / elders at TBC would have allowed anything nearly resembling anything like this ‘discipline’ to occur with their blessing. I also find it incredibly hard to believe that the rapist was allowed to continue to even attend TBC after all was ‘said and done’.

Times like this make me glad that God is not a respecter of persons, and will deal justly with all men in His time. That’s when the truth of the matter will remain…but it doesn’t make it any less odious to bear / listen to now.

–—edit–—

[Greg Long] But if he had repented, why didn’t he turn himself in to police? Does his failure to do so mean he hadn’t truly repented? This, to me, is the key question as it relates to this man and the church’s actions regarding him.

Look, I’m not trying to bring up the whole Lordship Salvation thing, but if he wasn’t willing to demonstrate his repentance by turning himself in, then I don’t think anyone can argue that there was actual repentance. Repentance involves a willingness to admit to one’s error / mistake (I’m not calling this a mistake, but speaking more broadly of what repentance is) and a willingness to make it right. It doesn’t look like that was present. If this guy wasn’t willing to admit to his guilt, then the church ought to be held doubly accountable for ensuring that the police picked him up pronto.

[Louise Dan] Here is a link to an interview with her. This is her first person account. Maybe some think she is lying. But in terms of moving away from media spun hearsay to an objective first person account, this is it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEad7KyA29o

I have had the opportunity to be interviewed for TV. Unless the person being interviewed is exceptionally strong willed, the interview, content and comments are controlled by the reporter. As mentioned above, pertinent details were left out of the CBS interview.

The CBS reporter was going someplace with his interview, and he skillfully led Tina Anderson right to his chosen destination.

This is not so say she is wrong, or lying, or in any way being disingenuous. Nor is it to say that Dr. Phelps or Dr. Olson have done anything wrong. All I am saying is, Consider the Source (CBS News).

I don’t think it is realistic to hold the church ‘accountable’ for not attempting to make sure the police followed up. They could make some calls, and who knows- maybe someone did- but they are NOT going to be given details on the case, so there is no way for a church to know what actions the police are taking unless the victim or accused obtain and pass on those details. And even then, details may not be made available if the investigation is open and ongoing.

Just for grins and giggles, ya’ll try calling the cops and nagging them about some case in which you are not directly involved. Have fun with that. ;)

If someone is to be held at fault that the case was not pursued or prosecuted, the blame on that score lies with the officers and the lawyers assigned to the case. As much as I love and support law enforcement, they do drop the ball on occasion. And let’s not forget that Tina’s family/legal guardians should have made sure this man was prosecuted- they were really the only ones in this case with that power.

However- it is fair to mention that rape cases are particularly difficult for people to deal with. The first question folks ask is “What did she do?”- as if a girl/woman wants to be forced or purposefully put herself in harm’s way. On the other hand, we know that certain places/behaviors place one at higher risk, so then there we are- back to putting part of the responsibility on the victim. It’s enough to make your head do a Regan MacNeil. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-happy089.gif We don’t know that this girl wasn’t flirting with disaster- having been guilty of that myself (and grateful to have escaped unscathed) it isn’t an unreasonable question. It doesn’t matter legally if that were the case, but it does, as Bro. Greg pointed out, have ramifications where the church is involved.

But- I don’t care if she was pole-dancing in her living room when he knocked on the door- that man was a wretch to do what he did. Considering the victim and the circumstances, I think he should have made a full confession and let the chips fall where they may. What better testimony to one’s family, friends, and the victim herself would it have been to show some sackcloth-and-ashes sorrow for his crime.

Self preservation is a strong instinct though- we’d better take a good long look in the mirror on that score.

I have a novel idea. Why don’t we just email Chuck Phelps with our questions? I know everyone thinks they are the MONK of this investigation but it might help to get it straight from the horses’ mouth. He may or may not respond but at least you would have made the attempt to get the story from him. Go to the Colonial Hills Baptist Church of Indianapolis website and shoot him a message or just pick up the phone and call. I think this will be better than just the constant back and forth over the basic reports. I hurt for the young woman who has endured such a terrible ordeal and I pray for justice and healing for her. I have an email myself that I am ready to fire over to Pastor Phelps—maybe this would be a good method to not only document your questions but also the responses given…

Matthew Richards

[Susan R] I don’t think it is realistic to hold the church ‘accountable’ for not attempting to make sure the police followed up. They could make some calls, and who knows- maybe someone did- but they are NOT going to be given details on the case, so there is no way for a church to know what actions the police are taking unless the victim or accused obtain and pass on those details. And even then, details may not be made available if the investigation is open and ongoing.

Just for grins and giggles, ya’ll try calling the cops and nagging them about some case in which you are not directly involved. Have fun with that. ;)

If someone is to be held at fault that the case was not pursued or prosecuted, the blame on that score lies with the officers and the lawyers assigned to the case. As much as I love and support law enforcement, they do drop the ball on occasion. And let’s not forget that Tina’s family/legal guardians should have made sure this man was prosecuted- they were really the only ones in this case with that power.

However- it is fair to mention that rape cases are particularly difficult for people to deal with. The first question folks ask is “What did she do?”- as if a girl/woman wants to be forced or purposefully put herself in harm’s way. On the other hand, we know that certain places/behaviors place one at higher risk, so then there we are- back to putting part of the responsibility on the victim. It’s enough to make your head do a Regan MacNeil. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-happy089.gif We don’t know that this girl wasn’t flirting with disaster- having been guilty of that myself (and grateful to have escaped unscathed) it isn’t an unreasonable question. It doesn’t matter legally if that were the case, but it does, as Bro. Greg pointed out, have ramifications where the church is involved.

But- I don’t care if she was pole-dancing in her living room when he knocked on the door- that man was a wretch to do what he did. Considering the victim and the circumstances, I think he should have made a full confession and let the chips fall where they may. What better testimony to one’s family, friends, and the victim herself would it have been to show some sackcloth-and-ashes sorrow for his crime.

Self preservation is a strong instinct though- we’d better take a good long look in the mirror on that score.

I understand what you’re saying, Susan, and of course you’re correct…no one can force the police to investigate anything.

But shouldn’t the pastor either A) told the man if he were truly repentant, they would go together to the police station to turn him in to the police, or, B) if the man was unwilling to go, made at least one follow up phone call to the police? No one has suggested that either thing happened. And if the man was unwilling to go, shouldn’t he have been disciplined from the church?

Matthew, I appreciate your suggestion, although I’m not sure Pastor Phelps can respond to multiple requests to explain the situation. He has had several opportunities to clarify things; some of what he’s said has been helpful, but (IMO) many unanswered questions remain.

[Susan R] I don’t think it is realistic to hold the church ‘accountable’ for not attempting to make sure the police followed up. They could make some calls, and who knows- maybe someone did- but they are NOT going to be given details on the case, so there is no way for a church to know what actions the police are taking unless the victim or accused obtain and pass on those details. And even then, details may not be made available if the investigation is open and ongoing.

All I’m saying is that if I were the pastor, I couldn’t rest until the accused was arrested and I knew that the case was being vigorously pursued…so I’d be a horrible nag until I saw some kind of movement from the Concord Cops. I certainly wouldn’t allow him to roam free within my church after this ‘discipline’ that he went through either.

I am familiar with a very similar situation. The pastor encouraged the perpetrator to contact the police and the went with him as he turned himself in to the authorities. The pastor then went to the church and, in a members only meeting, told them what happened. It can be done.

[Louise Dan] 4) He did not confess impregnating her as a minor. The church was not publicly informed that he did.
5) He was removed from some church offices, and that was the extent of his discipline.
6) She was asked by Matt Olson to write a letter of apology to her rapist’s wife.
7) Some authority figure in the church led her to believe that she was at least partially responsible.

These four points do not belong in the known facts column. Someone has asserted them; we have not heard specific denials. So they may be true, they may not. There appears to be a consensus on #4, but I’m not personally convinced yet.

Several have remarked that a number of things don’t make sense about the situation. Any chance that this could be because we do not yet have the information necessary to make sense of them?
Thought the thread was going reasonably well yesterday, but we’re a good ways into guessing land again today, it seems. How about if we chill until something more comes to light?

This is typical spin- if someone makes an accusation and no one ‘denies’ it, then by default it must be the truth. So- a journalist can write an article about how Jim Peet eats three bowls of Cocoa Puffs every night before bed. The headline reads- “Jim Peet does not deny that he is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs”. Must be true then.

As for what the church leadership did to pursue the case, we just don’t know. It may be that they didn’t follow through at all and allowed a criminal to remain in their church without dealing with him appropriately. It may be that they took actions we are not aware of, and they haven’t seen fit to share this info. It could be that 13 years later, everyone is pretty foggy on exactly what happened.

Which is why it is best to consider ourselves in this matter, because we can’t do a cotton pickin’ thing about this particular case except take serious note as to what our churches should do to prevent it from happening to us.

Pastor Phelps’ most recent statement (http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-pastor-rape-case-controversy-060310,0,22…) is helpful in some respects, specifically in the fact that he did contact the PD a second time. I still don’t understand why the man was not either encouraged to turn himself in or disciplined from the church.

OK, Let’s stop and think for a minute.

Has anyone involved in this thread ever done any thing with the purest, most innocent of intentions, only to be accused of improper motive and action?

An example: in our first ministry together, my wife wanted to hold a “Tupperware party” for the ladies of the church. The honest, sincere purpose of the event was to create a time of fellowship, and provide a service. Because our apartment was a third floor walkup, and several of the ladies were elderly, we asked the associate pastor for permission to use a room in the church. Permission was given. Because we were new to the church, my wife went to the church directory to make sure she did not cause offense by inadvertently leaving anyone off of the guest list.

The event was held on Saturday. On Sunday, without any warning, the senior pastor got up and declared an event had happened the day before: it had not reached to level of commercialization of the church, but it had come close. Since he had not come to us with his concerns (as would have been Scriptural), we went to him after the service to plead our innocence, explaining that we had even asked permission before proceeding. He then proceeded to tell us that not only had we come close to commercialization of the church, but we had improperly used the church registry for the purpose of solicitation.

Please do not make this example the topic of the thread. It is used as an illustration only: our intention and his perception of our intention were totally opposite.

In the current situation, is it possible that EVERYBODY is telling the truth as they perceive it? Is it possible that Dr. Phelps did everything he said he did, with the purpose and intent he has ascribed, with the best and purest of Godly intentions, but that Tina’s perception of the situation was totally different?

Tell the truth: hasn’t that happened to you in your ministry? It *has* happened to me.

Once again: this not a defense or criticism, support or attack, of any of the principals involved in this heart-rending situation. Based on my own experience and interactions, I would not, by choice, be a member of a church pastored by Dr. Phelps. And I have no knowledge of Tina Anderson. (I do not consider reports by CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, FoxNews, NPR, QVC, QED, XYZ, or any other media outlet a basis for factual knowledge of this situation.)

That’s a great point, Karl. However, there is a difference between questioning a person’s motives and questioning his actions. Although some of the news reports have questioned Pastor Phelps’ motives (cover up, running a cult, etc.), I don’t think there is a lot of that going on here.