"Regret and disgust that the perpetrator of the rape remained in the congregation for seven years "
Pastor finds ‘97 response regrettable “The most disappointing, hurtful thing in all of this has not been that we’re getting bad press. It’s not been that the story just keeps going and we want it to stop. The most disappointing thing is that our love and compassion toward people has been questioned.”
- 27 views
*****MODERATOR NOTE*****
This post was temporarily hidden from view pending verification of the comments quoted below. Bryan has told us that they came from the comments thread of the Monitor article that is referenced in the first post. Since they are linked to that article, we have chosen to republish them. This post has not been altered in any way other than the addition of the Mod Note Section.
-Jay C.
*****END MOD NOTE*****
From one of Brian’s former youth staff:
This post was temporarily hidden from view pending verification of the comments quoted below. Bryan has told us that they came from the comments thread of the Monitor article that is referenced in the first post. Since they are linked to that article, we have chosen to republish them. This post has not been altered in any way other than the addition of the Mod Note Section.
-Jay C.
*****END MOD NOTE*****
From one of Brian’s former youth staff:
By the way…you’re not sure why Ernie Willis was disciplined in 2004? That’s interesting because you remembered very well during a Youth Staff meeting in 2004 when you recounted exactly why Ernie had been disciplined and gave many details so that we as Youth Staff could pray for his children and wife.From a former TBC deacon:
Fuller knows exactly why Ernie was “dismissed”. I was in the Deacons meeting, Fuller was in the Deacons meeting. The details were fully discussed and revealed. The details were explained during the Sunday Evening Service when the DISCIPLINE was announced and voted upon and Brian was there.From a former(?) TBC member:
I remember vividly how Pastor Phelps talked about Ernie. He implored us not even to have lunch with him!….the entire church was made aware of why he was being expelled (at least we think they told us the truth). Fuller told all of us during a meeting. I know that he was aware.
Bro. Bryan- can you link to these quotes for us?
this is the first time I’ve heard so much about waiting for the facts and avoiding speculation. Piper’s sabbatical. Rick Warren’s delayed book. And there remain older threads on the End of the Spear and the Zichterman controversies. Certainly speculation ran rampant then. But this incident involves
If you look back in those threads you’ll probably find posts by me recommending in one way or another that we not pass judgment on people without facts that enable us to do so. I’m consistently against that. (Edit: I don’t think I was involved much during the End of the Spear thing, so I’m not in those threads I don’t believe)
As for speculation, I’ve been thinking about that a lot the last few weeks. While it’s usually pretty useless (it’s just guessing, after all) I don’t think it’s a terrible thing as long as people are clear that they are guessing. When it become foolish, and often wrong, is when we express our guesswork in the form of factual judgments.
I think, too, that some are overlooking something about the nature of IFB. The “I” in that acronym is not wishful thinking. Though it’s accurate enough to say whatever happened happened “within our movement,” the “independent” means that there is nobody with the authority or responsibility to make sure individual churches do what they should. They believe their Head is Christ (imagine that) and certainly each church will answer to Him, whether their view of independence is correct or not.
For those who believe some individual or group needs to take churches to task and punish them in some way for not doing things correctly, Charlie would be happy (I’m pretty sure) to tell you about the PCA and the merits of government via synods and such. :)
Meanwhile, the best anyone can do among independents is have some open talk on the issue, do some teaching, things like that. “Open” doesn’t require that unsubstantiated accusations and judgments be passed without any restraint at all. We’re trying to be fair here.
As for teaching/writing on the subject, we hope to soon feature some advice for pastors for dealing with these situations from a pastor who has dealt with quite a few. Beyond that, we can try to have better teaching in the colleges/seminaries, maybe pass some resolutions at the various fellowships/conferences, but independent is independent.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] I think, too, that some are overlooking something about the nature of IFB. The “I” in that acronym is not wishful thinking. Though it’s accurate enough to say whatever happened happened “within our movement,” the “independent” means that there is nobody with the authority or responsibility to make sure individual churches do what they should. They believe their Head is Christ (imagine that) and certainly each church will answer to Him, whether their view of independence is correct or not.This is no small point. Let me state that I BELIEVE in the autonomy and independence of the local church. However, I am also intellectually honest enough to admit that there are weaknesses with that system, for sure, on a practical level, compared with the way that well-run denominations work. This particular case may or may not evidence some of them — but at least it illustrates that when it comes to things such as the reception, discipline, dismissal and transfer of members, it is every man for himself — or every church for itself, as the case may be. The way one Baptist church handles these things and the way another of an almost identical doctrinal position handles them might be 1,000 miles apart. Perhaps we need to begin by searching the Scriptures for a clearer understanding and praying for wisdom on how to IMPLEMENT the independence of the local church.
For those who believe some individual or group needs to take churches to task and punish them in some way for not doing things correctly, Charlie would be happy (I’m pretty sure) to tell you about the PCA and the merits of government via synods and such. :)
For the most part, independent churches have also been very sloppy and inconsistent when it comes to these issues. We have all been in Baptist churches where members were received during the “announcement” :Sp portion of the service with a process as sophisticated as, “If you vote for these folks to join, raise yer hand — and if you are again’ ‘em, well you can raise your hand too!” Then something like this hits the news and everyone wants to go over these processes with a fine-toothed comb.
Similarly, I was chastised once for preaching a very non-emotional, non-situation-driven series of messages on church discipline — “We don’t need to talk about that — we will deal with it when it happens.” But when it happens, then everyone is sure willing to step forward and critique what went wrong.
For better or worse, the legal climate today is making this type of modus operandi a thing of the past, at least for thinking people. Businesses spend $1,000’s on plans for disasters, emergencies, etc., so that when something happens, they have things defined down to who to call first, second and third, etc. and what to say to the media. Perhaps churches and ministries could spend a little more time thinking ahead and proactively as well.
FWIW, I watched an excellent video online from the Shepherds Conference of MacArthur discussing how things including membership, baptism, discipline, etc. are handled at Grace Church. I did not agree with everything he said, but I was impressed with the level of thought and planning that has gone into having a system in place.
Outside of going to a large, well-organized church such as that (sort of a denomination unto itself), however, I see no immediate solutions forthcoming to the problems posed by the independent church model.
P.S. — Isn’t it funny that even though we think we are so independent, when a story like this hits, all “independent” churches may become suspect. With the added degree of secrecy inherent within “independent” churches, the media has a double-edged sword to wield. Food for thought…
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Louise Dan] By definition, speculation is simply contemplation or consideration of some subject (I just looked it up online). Speculation is not uninformed conjecture. The basic facts have been confirmed by both “sides.” I can understand concerns over uninformed conjecture. I do not understand concern over contemplation and consideration of such a serious subject. Now, I do agree that the big I in IFB means we have no authority in this situation. But if separation means anything, it should mean we have a need to examine this. I’m not going within a mile of Chuck Phelps realm of influence as long as he defends the church discipline practices that have been verified took place in this situation. It wasn’t just unfortunate. It was WRONG.
Louise,
Phelps has already stated that he not only communicated with DYFS and the NH police; he has also stated that he has his notes from these meetings/calls. So is it right, then, to assume that he should be avoided because he ‘didn’t do the right thing’ (which seems to be your position)?
If he went to them, and he did expect an arrest (as he claims), then he did the right thing legally.
Just some food for thought.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I have a agree with Louise and Rachel on this. Aaron is correct that he has consistantly called for a measured tone on this and all issues. But many of us on here (including me from time to time) have not been so measured. We tend to want to be careful when it is someone we like and not so much for those we don’t. I have tried to say If “this” happened “this” way then it was wrong.
To the present issue, I am greatly angered. A 15 year old girl was raped!!! It does not matter that it was statutory. The perp was allowed to stay in the church. Susan, I can confidently say biblical repentance did not happen because he did not turn himself in. In the case you had in your church, the peope involved werewas 18 and 15? It also sounds like the man in your church was put in the legal system. This was a 39 yr old and a15 yr old!! Maybe Phelps thought it was different because he thought it was statutory. Well, he was wrong - there is no difference morally or legally. This was a girl who had already been abused. Now Willis, who should have protected her violated her. In my church, he would not be restored until he turned himself in, even if he showed other signs of repentance because repentence did not take place until the perpretraitor did notsubject himself to the law.
There is something that angers me but to a much lesser degree. Look at all of the churches (at least three directly) and Colleges (at least BJ and NIU, MBBC and Central directly) that have been dragged through the mud b/c of how this was mishandled. Now mant think all IFBers are nuts and wrongheaded. I think this is something we can all learn. When we pastors make these decisions, they can and will affect more than our ministry.
I don’t think I have speculated. I have only gone on a few facts. Please correct me if I am wrong.
To the present issue, I am greatly angered. A 15 year old girl was raped!!! It does not matter that it was statutory. The perp was allowed to stay in the church. Susan, I can confidently say biblical repentance did not happen because he did not turn himself in. In the case you had in your church, the peope involved werewas 18 and 15? It also sounds like the man in your church was put in the legal system. This was a 39 yr old and a15 yr old!! Maybe Phelps thought it was different because he thought it was statutory. Well, he was wrong - there is no difference morally or legally. This was a girl who had already been abused. Now Willis, who should have protected her violated her. In my church, he would not be restored until he turned himself in, even if he showed other signs of repentance because repentence did not take place until the perpretraitor did notsubject himself to the law.
There is something that angers me but to a much lesser degree. Look at all of the churches (at least three directly) and Colleges (at least BJ and NIU, MBBC and Central directly) that have been dragged through the mud b/c of how this was mishandled. Now mant think all IFBers are nuts and wrongheaded. I think this is something we can all learn. When we pastors make these decisions, they can and will affect more than our ministry.
I don’t think I have speculated. I have only gone on a few facts. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
The problem with the speculation in this thread is that no one involved here has all the facts. It is worse than useless to get all riled up and judgemental about one another because none of us knows the whole story. The ‘facts’ that have been alleged have yet to be tested and examined in a court of law. We are all making opinions based on news reporting. If you have ever been interviewed by the press you will know how difficult it is to get a reporter to actually tell the truth. They seem to always put their spin and bias into it, in my experience, even in a “friendly” story.
In this case, I can envision scenarios where the facts as they are known could be painted in an entirely different light. I’m not going to bother to try to articulate those scenarios. Who knows if my imagined interpretation is right? Until more facts are established, the correct interpretation can’t be known.
I can’t imagine how it helps the cause of Christ for us to get our feathers in a knot about something that happened a long way from most of us and in which none of us are involved directly.
The best we can take from this story is to take warning. We need to be very wise when it comes to handling church discipline situations. It could well be that mistakes were made in this case. But we all can take note that our best intentions can be seen entirely incorrectly by a hostile world, even if we are wise and correctly follow Biblical principles. Perhaps I should say especially if we are wise and correctly follow Biblical principles.
Beyond that, there isn’t much for us to say. I think it is acceptable for SI to alert us to important ongoing news items regarding this story, but I think it is unwise and really unbiblical to allow this kind of ranting and raving and speculation to go on. It is true that a horrible thing happened, but our gossiping and speculating about it isn’t godly, it is wicked.
In this case, I can envision scenarios where the facts as they are known could be painted in an entirely different light. I’m not going to bother to try to articulate those scenarios. Who knows if my imagined interpretation is right? Until more facts are established, the correct interpretation can’t be known.
I can’t imagine how it helps the cause of Christ for us to get our feathers in a knot about something that happened a long way from most of us and in which none of us are involved directly.
The best we can take from this story is to take warning. We need to be very wise when it comes to handling church discipline situations. It could well be that mistakes were made in this case. But we all can take note that our best intentions can be seen entirely incorrectly by a hostile world, even if we are wise and correctly follow Biblical principles. Perhaps I should say especially if we are wise and correctly follow Biblical principles.
Beyond that, there isn’t much for us to say. I think it is acceptable for SI to alert us to important ongoing news items regarding this story, but I think it is unwise and really unbiblical to allow this kind of ranting and raving and speculation to go on. It is true that a horrible thing happened, but our gossiping and speculating about it isn’t godly, it is wicked.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson] The problem with the speculation in this thread is that no one involved here has all the facts. It is worse than useless to get all riled up and judgemental about one another because none of us knows the whole story. The ‘facts’ that have been alleged have yet to be tested and examined in a court of law. We are all making opinions based on news reporting. If you have ever been interviewed by the press you will know how difficult it is to get a reporter to actually tell the truth. They seem to always put their spin and bias into it, in my experience, even in a “friendly” story.I tend to agree with Don. No one here knows enough to say anything really definitive or even really educated about this case. It’s all just speculation. What has been interesting to me is that so far most of the jabs have been thrown at one particular side (Chuck Phelps). No one seems to be speculating about other possible rationales why this story would be resurrected 13 years after the fact…
The best we can take from this story is to take warning.
Beyond that, there isn’t much for us to say. I think it is acceptable for SI to alert us to important ongoing news items regarding this story, but I think it is unwise and really unbiblical to allow this kind of ranting and raving and speculation to go on. It is true that a horrible thing happened, but our gossiping and speculating about it isn’t godly, it is wicked.
Does this say something about the level of frustration within fundamentalism — perhaps having little to do with the details of this case?
Also, a caution if you are relying on TV news as the basis of your argument. I have worked in news journalism for 10 years, and have covered many stories which were also covered by TV news. They often come into a story cold, knowing none of the players or background involved. Then they condense a complex issue into a story that is, at most, 2 to 3 minutes long (including edited interviews) and try to present it in such a way that they can draw the most viewers. I have seen stories which I have covered get twisted up six ways to Sunday by the time they made it to TV news.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Don,
Where did I do what you are saying? The things that I mentioned have been stipulated too, not in news stories but by the parties involved. Again, this does affect us - this is OUR brand of Fundamentalism. In the only other post that I posted about this situation, i stated that I was so shocked about this especially because this is our “brand.” This isn’t Hyles or Gray, but us. To that end, it is relevant to us. But I totally agree that the best we can do with this is to look at this from a pastoral theology standpoint.
Where did I do what you are saying? The things that I mentioned have been stipulated too, not in news stories but by the parties involved. Again, this does affect us - this is OUR brand of Fundamentalism. In the only other post that I posted about this situation, i stated that I was so shocked about this especially because this is our “brand.” This isn’t Hyles or Gray, but us. To that end, it is relevant to us. But I totally agree that the best we can do with this is to look at this from a pastoral theology standpoint.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
[Louise Dan][Jay C.]It sounds to me (I’m jumping to conclusions here) that the girl had a woman’s body and continued contact with the man after the first rape. Maybe to Phelps and others, it didn’t look like she objected that much— (I’m only speculating—don’t shoot me)—sometimes I can’t tell the difference between a 15 yo and an 18 yo. girl/woman. However, I believe the man is fully responsible for his actions and hold him at fault, wholly, —even if the girl set out to seduce him—but if you were looking at a situation where the girl seemed willing to let the man into the house… Probably since I’m a woman, I can’t begin to understand why a 39 yo man can’t control himself around a 15 yo girl…but maybe men are more understanding as to this point.
Willis’ was a pedophile rapist, and Phelps clearly from the FACTS knew that. Obviously he knew a crime had been committed against the child because he himself says he reported it to the police.[Louise Dan][Jay C.]
She was sent out of state against her will (by her quoted testimony).
This would be her MOM, not Phelps, who should bear the ultimate responsibility here. Did Phelps have legal responsibility for her? Somehow I doubt it. That WOULD have been an overstepping of his authority.[Louise Dan][Jay C.]
You failed at pure religion. I could give him a break if he’d just acknowledge it and repent.
I believe, from the sounds of it, that they were trying to protect her by sending her away. Obviously they thought it best. If the man wouldn’t leave her alone, yet she (or her mom) wouldn’t press charges….seems to me as well, that the best way to get her out of a bad situation is to remove her physically…(as recommended, since I doubt he dragged her, as in the Seven Brides for Seven Brothers)! If the girl was in a fragile state emotionally, then sending her away seems like a way for her to heal. (at least one way)
I agree with Susan. At first I was also upset at the apology. The only thing that makes sense (that they aren’t saying) is that they believed at the time that it was consensual, even if she was underage. Time will tell. We will probably all have lost interest in it by then, if the facts ever do come out. Sometimes people don’t say what they are really thinking anyway…and only in heaven, where true motives, thoughts are exposed will everything become clear.
But I do agree, Roger, that this has affected OUR brand of fundamentalism. But, I do wonder about the resurrection of such a case 13 years from when it happened….and well after the young woman became a legal adult.
One of things I’ve asked myself over the last few weeks is, how do we let people talk about this without letting people say things they probably shouldn’t or in a way they probably shouldn’t? I’ve come to the conclusion that though SI is not a news organization, there are times when we sort of partly play that role. In western cultures we tend to view “the press” as a vital part of society for keeping government and business (centers of power) accountable to “the people.” The media often do this badly, ooze self importance and condescension, pry into things that truly are nobody’s business, etc., but over all, most of us would not want them to go away because there is value there.
The belief is that a culture of openness is healthy in general though in many individual cases it’s ugly and repugnant. In Fundamentalism, there has not been anything approaching a culture of openness. The Internet, with all its attendant problems, affords some opportunity to redress that. The fact that folks will talk about things, in itself, makes the “I” in independent less mixed with another “I,” isolation (or maybe “insulation”).
So, though I think much of what get’s said is not accurate or helpful, the fact that folks are free to say it is part of a culture of openness that—at least in this case—is needed. If indeed there is a widespread problem of IFB churches covering up serious moral failures and botching discipline, an increasing awareness that these situations will get talked about in threads like these, would—in some measure—make it more difficult and less attractive for leaders to try to go that route. If there is not really such a problem (I am very skeptical of the idea that IFB has more of this than the general population), a culture of openness can help make that evident and act as a hedge against it. The perception is definitely out there and if we don’t allow discussion at places like SI, that perception just gains ground. Sometimes you have to just let perceptions stand. They aren’t your fault or under your control. It’s like the kids in the dark insisting the monsters are under the bed. But sometimes you can turn some lights on.
SI doesn’t yet have a policy that is easy to apply in these situations. Doubt we ever will. Forum policies come down to key words that tend to be adjectives folks read in different ways and apply in even more ways. (If moderating is like refereeing, it’s like refereeing in a game where the lines are faint, sometimes move and the lighting is really bad… and your glasses are fogged up). But what most of us on the team hope for is that even if a particular conversation doesn’t shed much light on much of anything, the over all conversation is a healthy one.
We won’t let just anything go, and the thread won’t stay open forever, but these issues need to get talked about despite all the ways we fail to talk well about them.
The belief is that a culture of openness is healthy in general though in many individual cases it’s ugly and repugnant. In Fundamentalism, there has not been anything approaching a culture of openness. The Internet, with all its attendant problems, affords some opportunity to redress that. The fact that folks will talk about things, in itself, makes the “I” in independent less mixed with another “I,” isolation (or maybe “insulation”).
So, though I think much of what get’s said is not accurate or helpful, the fact that folks are free to say it is part of a culture of openness that—at least in this case—is needed. If indeed there is a widespread problem of IFB churches covering up serious moral failures and botching discipline, an increasing awareness that these situations will get talked about in threads like these, would—in some measure—make it more difficult and less attractive for leaders to try to go that route. If there is not really such a problem (I am very skeptical of the idea that IFB has more of this than the general population), a culture of openness can help make that evident and act as a hedge against it. The perception is definitely out there and if we don’t allow discussion at places like SI, that perception just gains ground. Sometimes you have to just let perceptions stand. They aren’t your fault or under your control. It’s like the kids in the dark insisting the monsters are under the bed. But sometimes you can turn some lights on.
SI doesn’t yet have a policy that is easy to apply in these situations. Doubt we ever will. Forum policies come down to key words that tend to be adjectives folks read in different ways and apply in even more ways. (If moderating is like refereeing, it’s like refereeing in a game where the lines are faint, sometimes move and the lighting is really bad… and your glasses are fogged up). But what most of us on the team hope for is that even if a particular conversation doesn’t shed much light on much of anything, the over all conversation is a healthy one.
We won’t let just anything go, and the thread won’t stay open forever, but these issues need to get talked about despite all the ways we fail to talk well about them.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] We won’t let just anything go, and the thread won’t stay open forever, but these issues need to get talked about despite all the ways we fail to talk well about them.Your willingness to allow the latitude you do, while at the same time maintaining the control you do, is the reason SI is the only Fundamentalist forum that I am a member of.
Thank you.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
Thanks for that.
Got an idea though. We’re bouncing this one around in the Team/Moderator forum also.
Would we all agree that
Got an idea though. We’re bouncing this one around in the Team/Moderator forum also.
Would we all agree that
- There’s much of the who did what and when and why we don’t know and probably never will know
- Even if we did know, there is nothing we can do about this particular case other than say “For shame!”
So would it improve the conversation that needs to occur in this area if- We keep reporting news as it comes out. This is part of the “culture of openness” I referred to.
- For now, rather than wrangling over what really happened or didn’t really happen, we talk about hypothetical scenarios.
My reasoning is that if we keep posting news, but don’t talk about the case itself, nothing is “hidden” or “stifled” except people’s outrage at one thing or another—and we’ve kind of been there, done that. Maybe allowing more outrage is actually a good thing when there is actually more information (it does speak to the whole area of affections… if we love what God loves, and hate what God hates, we are angry at what God is angry at and delighted at what God is delighted at.)
But beyond keeping the actual information open, what is there to discuss in a profitable way? I think several have hit on the answer already: pastoral theology. I’d expand that to “ecclesial theology.”
What can be profitably talked about in these areas can be done with hypotheticals: what should a church do if it discovers scenario A has happened? What should it do if the scenario is actually B? What should it do if years later it realizes it should have handled scenario A or B differently? Where does the pastor’s leadership figure in all of this?
This can all be talked about profitably without any reference to the real world case in Concord. Since we are powerless to directly impact that real world case anyway, we can probably talk more effectively in hypothetical scenarios than in ref. to the real one.
Of course, the critics will still say this is IFB covering up as usual. To some, you are not doing the right thing unless you are emoting all over the place. But hey, you can’t please everybody.
- We keep reporting news as it comes out. This is part of the “culture of openness” I referred to.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] Of course, the critics will still say this is IFB covering up as usual. To some, you are not doing the right thing unless you are emoting all over the place. But hey, you can’t please everybody.Aaron, perhaps we would be better served and also please the only One whom we ought to please if we discussed what gossip is and what the Bible means when it calls believers to abstain from it.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]Emphasis mine.
Aaron, perhaps we would be better served and also please the only One whom we ought to please if we discussed what gossip is and what the Bible means when it calls believers to abstain from it.
Don, I think this is a great idea. The pendulum seems to go back and forth on this one. We don’t want anything approaching the scriptural definition of gossip to be present, but I have also seen (and been a part of) churches where because any discussion in any context is so severely squelched as “gossip,” there’s no information on which church members can correctly act as described in Acts and decide together on decisions that must be made. In essence, everything is hidden and any church vote is a rubber stamp. Even after the decision, no one in membership knows what happened, and any discussion on it is strictly forbidden as being “gossip.”
I certainly don’t have all the answers on how to make the distinction effectively, but it is something that can and should be discussed.
Dave Barnhart
Discussion