"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
I think you have a good question- what does a church do when sexual activity is consensual? We know the legal ramifications of this, but as has been mentioned before, there are spiritual aspects of this that a church has to consider. What responsibility does a young girl bear in this scenario?
I also think we should take into consideration the definition of a pedophile in context with history. It hasn’t been that long ago that older men would marry young girls in order to create heirs or to have someone young take care of them. They were not considered to be perverts, and neither was David when he used Abishag as a very young and pretty… blanket.
I also think we should take into consideration the definition of a pedophile in context with history. It hasn’t been that long ago that older men would marry young girls in order to create heirs or to have someone young take care of them. They were not considered to be perverts, and neither was David when he used Abishag as a very young and pretty… blanket.
Completely off topic, but maybe someone would like to start a thread (I am not very good at phrasing thread OP statements). Some real situations with me, as a pastor, I have asked mature women to talk to other women about some things that needed to be addressed, but was accused of gossip, was it? A staff member communicated with me about a Christian school family and some problems they were having with them, the parent accused me and that staff of gossiping, although the issue needed to be brought to the attention of me so that I could give Biblical counsel. At the same time, I have sought to not communicate about a problem because I thought it might be gossip and have been accused of not being open. The whole gossip thing is difficult and deserves some thought and possible discussion based on the Bible, so I would be glad to hear some wisdom from others regarding this topic.
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.
I’ve been chewing on that one alot as well. There are actually not many references to “gossip” in Scripture, per se. In ESV you have Ezek. 36.3, Rom. 1:29, 2Cor12.20, 1Tim5.13. Doesn’t seem to appear at all in KJV (but at the moment I’m using a little Linux based tool I just downloaded yesterday so maybe I did it wrong).
Of course “talebearer” is helpful. Lev. 19:16; Prov.11.13, 18.8, 20.19, 26.20, 26.22.
As a beginning it seems to me that there are several factors in weighing the difference between gossip and other…
- truth factor: is it true? (maybe a subset is the certainty factor?)
- motive factor: is it motivated by malice, pride or other evil motives?
- damage factor: does it harm rather than help… and whom and how much? (There is often a part vs. whole tension here.)
- meddling vs. burden-bearing factor (Prov.26.17 and 2Thess.3.11 vs. Php.2:4 and 1Thess.5:14)
I’m sure there are some others. One thing that has long been a problem, IMO is that “gossip” is ill defined so everyone sees it as something other people do. That’s almost part of the popular definition: “when other people spread rumors/tales they know are false or don’t know are true, often w/the motive of pride of knowledge or spite.” :)
Edit: as an aside, it’s OK to please people too, other things being equal (Rom.15.2)
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.
[dcbii]I agree it’s easy to slip from a proper discussion of an issue into gossip. On the other hand, the membership needs sufficient information to make an informed decision. For lack of better wording, they are sitting as a jury. Though there are matters that fall within Eph 5:12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. There are times when a church must properly clean out a shameful stench.[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.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
I’ve made this point before, but it bears repeating I guess. The law & crime are one thing, God’s law & sin are another. These are distinct but usually overlapping categories. As believers we must honor both. So the church has obligations to law, and obligations to Scripture, so to speak. It must handle sex involving minors as rape because the law specifies that category and draws a line at a certain age (I’m pretty sure most would admit the line is a bit arbitrary but you have to draw it somewhere so, it is where it is.) So the church has to deal w/the crime of rape according to law. How does it deal w/the sin? This may not be so cut and dried since the Scriptural categories do not line up precisely w/the legal ones. We don’t have verses that say age 16 = rape of a minor (consensual or not), vs. age 18 = a couple involved in fornication. See what I mean? But there should be no debate at all that churches and pastors have to honor the law fully and deal w/the legal category of “crime” but also honor the spiritual category of “sin.” We don’t have the luxury of looking at a crime and saying “we’re just going to handle it as sin.”
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.
[Louise Dan] Aaron, I understand your points and don’t necessarily disagree. But Becky and Susan, I strongly disagree with your assessment. EVEN IF the 15 year old dressed provocatively and solicited the 38 year old’s attention, our government still calls it RAPE. And that’s not because the feminists have taken over government. It is reflective of how Christians are supposed to think of children. It is good and right that our government does not allow for child brides and sets an age of consent. But even that discussion is in opposition to the victim’s testimony and probable cause according to the rule of law. He’s been charged with more than just statutory rape. He’s been charged with forcible rape. That means there is probable cause according to police, district attorney, and judge. So in terms of uninformed conjecture, “speculation” that she seduced him is far more out of line than concern that Phelps needs to repent.
I presented a hypothetical scenario based on the Concord incident but not about it. I’m also not asking about the legal issues either, but the spiritual ones. A young girl can be involved in consensual sex with an adult- what does that mean spiritually for the girl? Is she excused because she’s a minor? We wouldn’t excuse it if it was fornication with someone her age, so why would she be excused because the other person was an adult? How does church discipline work when one of the people involved is a minor, or does the church get involved at all and leave it for the parents handle?
These are legitimate questions that come to my mind when considering what has happened at Concord and elsewhere. It isn’t as if Tina Anderson is the first girl to ever have such an experience, and she won’t be the last. Pastor Phelps isn’t the first pastor to ever come under fire for mishandling a church discipline issue, and Willis or whatever his name is isn’t the first man to take advantage of a young girl whether she was willing or not. Understanding how to deal with these situations is really the only productive thing we can discuss here- the Concord case is beyond our ability to truly judge or impact how it was and is being handled.
why would she be excused because the other person was an adult?
I can partly answer this one. The very strong social consensus is that the relationship between a child and an adult is such the adult is inherently controlling in the situation and therefore all sex is rape in that kind of relationship. Whether this is biblically supportable or not is certainly something to think about. In the eyes of the law, that’s how it is. So churches/pastors have to deal w/these things that way w/respect to the crime. But when we’re examining the case to deal with it spiritually, do we simply accept the categories and lines society hands us? I think not! (The same society is trying pretty hard to hand us completely different lines as to what constitutes a marriage, for example). But whether the social science consensus is right on that point or not, we have to be very sensitive to it even in dealing with the situation spiritually as sin.
I think that particular point is quite difficult to sort out, though what to do about the law is plain as day… just follow it. Fully.
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]why would she be excused because the other person was an adult?
I can partly answer this one. The very strong social consensus is that the relationship between a child and an adult is such the adult is inherently controlling in the situation and therefore all sex is rape in that kind of relationship. Whether this is biblically supportable or not is certainly something to think about. In the eyes of the law, that’s how it is. So churches/pastors have to deal w/these things that way w/respect to the crime. But when we’re examining the case to deal with it spiritually, do we simply accept the categories and lines society hands us? I think not! (The same society is trying pretty hard to hand us completely different lines as to what constitutes a marriage, for example). But whether the social science consensus is right on that point or not, we have to be very sensitive to it even in dealing with the situation spiritually as sin.
I think that particular point is quite difficult to sort out, though what to do about the law is plain as day… just follow it. Fully.
I think we have to consider if a girl is excused from any culpability in a consensual relationship because the other person was an adult, that sends a clear message that she isn’t responsible for her own actions if she is complying with an authority figure- NOT a message that is healthy for young girls or boys, and IMO why some abuses take place and predators are so successful in victimizing young people in religious settings.
[Aaron Blumer] I’ve made this point before, but it bears repeating I guess. The law & crime are one thing, God’s law & sin are another. These are distinct but usually overlapping categories. As believers we must honor both. So the church has obligations to law, and obligations to Scripture, so to speak. It must handle sex involving minors as rape because the law specifies that category and draws a line at a certain age (I’m pretty sure most would admit the line is a bit arbitrary but you have to draw it somewhere so, it is where it is.) So the church has to deal w/the crime of rape according to law. How does it deal w/the sin? This may not be so cut and dried since the Scriptural categories do not line up precisely w/the legal ones. We don’t have verses that say age 16 = rape of a minor (consensual or not), vs. age 18 = a couple involved in fornication. See what I mean? But there should be no debate at all that churches and pastors have to honor the law fully and deal w/the legal category of “crime” but also honor the spiritual category of “sin.” We don’t have the luxury of looking at a crime and saying “we’re just going to handle it as sin.”An off the top of my head response to this is that civil law dictates how we’ll handle such a situation in the church when the biblical guidelines are ambiguous. So in the 38 & 15 yr old immorality situation, the church needs to treat the entire matter as a crime against a child, which demands 1) far more severe handling of the perpetrator, and 2) nothing but care and protection of the victim (no public displays…no dismissal from the Christian school…etc….so as to avoid further victimization).
As far as the “sin” question is concerned, I believe the consequences for the sin of a minor are best left to the parents. I’m really not so sure the church should be in a position of “punishing” children still under parental authority. Some of us lead churches where baptism automatically means church membership, and when it comes to children, the only stipulation on their membership is they have to be 18 to vote. This, of course, makes children susceptible to church discipline, and we’ve got huge problems trying to practice that wisely, consistently, and appropriately. Do we bring a 17 year old pregnant girl before the congregation for discipline? how about 15? 13? Where’s the line? Do we bring a 13 year old boy before the congregation if he was fondling an 11 year old neighbor girl? How about the 14 year old who’s been experimenting with pot? or smoking? or drinking? or sneaking out of the house at night? or any number of things adolescents do that are wrong? I’ve witnessed firsthand the disparity this setup creates. For example, a 16 year old girl who had sex with her boyfriend was publicly brought before the congregation to repent & ask forgiveness. But a 15 year old boy who vandalized church property was dealt with privately. Strange, of course, because the girl’s sin was the result of…well, I think we know. But there was certainly no malicious intent, animosity toward the church, her parents, the Lord, or anyone. The vandal, on the other hand, acted in anger and malice toward the entire congregation! Oh, and what about bus kids who make professions of faith and are baptized even in late elementary years, but then get into sinful behaviors in Jr. High and early high school, while still riding the bus to church on Sunday morning? I’ve never heard tell of a bus kid disciplined in the church for premarital sex (or any other offense, for that matter).
Perhaps we should reconsider our church constitutions’ membership requirements, creating a “provisional membership” category for baptized children under age 18. Then, when they reach 18, they decide whether or not to become full members. Provisional members will have made a profession of faith & been baptized, but their accountability is to their parents. If a 17 year old provisional member gets pregnant (or gets a girl pregnant), in terms of discipline, it’s a family matter, not a church discipline matter. And should the offending 17 year old be rebellious toward the parents, full membership (if it were even applied for at age 18) would be denied. In contrast, an 18 year old full member in the same “sin boat” would be subject to church discipline.
No doubt this proposal creates its own questions, so have at it.
EVEN IF the 15 year old dressed provocatively and solicited the 38 year old’s attention, our government still calls it RAPE.Yes, Louise! And The Church should, too! Where this thread is heading turns my stomach.
Also, I’m not sure I was clear in my earlier posts. I think Phelps thought it was consensual and that he felt like this made the issue less serious. This is — in my mind — an atrocious conclusion for a shepherd to make. For him to conclude that Anderson sinned because it happened twice shows an incredible lack of understanding of the dynamics of predators and their victims.
I [URL=http://sharperiron.org/filings/5-27-10/15093#comment-14326] said the same thing[/URL] in the other thread:
Louise, if my hypothesis is correct - and it’s the only thing that seems to make sense based off of the bits and pieces of hard fact that we have - then she was a young adult. I’m not giving Willis any wiggle room, but if she DID lead him astray or OR refused to stay away from him after the first sexual encounter, then she has to bear some kind of culpability. Whether we like it or not, 15 year olds aren’t exactly fighting to retain the dignity of marriage (these days).
There is no doubt that something happened, and that Phelps felt strongly enough about it to go to the cops and DYFS. Why they didn’t (or couldn’t) act on his information is where the mystery lies. After all, the young lady’s mom requested that she be sent to CO, as Becky pointed out. That wasn’t a TBC move. Should they have made her stay? Well, if the cops wouldn’t investigate it because the truth came out that she consented…well, there’s not a whole lot they can do, esp. if she won’t press charges. As I said before, this wouldn’t be the first case where a woman slept with a guy, then cried rape afterward. According to one statistic I saw, 4.7% of rape victims get pregnant. Maybe she was raped and fell into that category….I don’t know.
Finally, has anyone else remembered that most young adults married in their teens in Biblical times? I think we do ourselves and teens a disservice when we write off teenagers as something more than kids but less than responsible adults. They’re responsible enough to drive cars and obey laws, but immune to criticism when they make horrific, life-destroying choices? I don’t think so.
I don’t like this issue, but I certainly am not ready to throw Phelps in the electric chair and then dance a jig over his body. All we have now are rumors and opinions, and not enough facts.
Something else that I noticed in Phelps’ statement is:Thirteen years ago while in Concord, New Hampshire, a young lady and her mother contacted me and revealed that the young lady, then a minor, was with child because of an encounter with a married man. Because the man an adult, I sought legal counsel and carefully reported the situation both to the Concord, New Hampshire Police and to the New Hampshire Department of Children and Youth Services. I followed up with the police a second time and gave them more details of the allegations. I had a second contact with the DCYS as well. (I remain in possession of my contemporaneous notes regarding these calls.) Though the man and his family attended the church where I served, he was not a deacon or an officer in the assembly. The family of the accused had established a baby-sitting relationship with the minor.
The fact that he calls it an “encounter with a married man” makes me wonder if perhaps she originally told him she was raped (which is why he contacted the police and DYFS), but then later it came out that the sex was consensual when the police got involved (this would explain why they didn’t pursue the ‘rape charge’ as vigorously as all have assumed they should have).
Look, I’m not saying that she wasn’t raped. I AM saying that it’s fairly common for parishioners to say one thing and have the truth come out later. Any minister should be able to acknowledge that…it’s what makes counseling so difficult for us.
This wouldn’t be the first time an upset church attendee leveled a rape charge in order to gain publicity when that wasn’t what happened at all. Heaven knows there are enough people out there who look for Fundy issues like this and then blow them way out of proportion in order to get their own 15 minutes of fame.
Louise, if my hypothesis is correct - and it’s the only thing that seems to make sense based off of the bits and pieces of hard fact that we have - then she was a young adult. I’m not giving Willis any wiggle room, but if she DID lead him astray or OR refused to stay away from him after the first sexual encounter, then she has to bear some kind of culpability. Whether we like it or not, 15 year olds aren’t exactly fighting to retain the dignity of marriage (these days).
There is no doubt that something happened, and that Phelps felt strongly enough about it to go to the cops and DYFS. Why they didn’t (or couldn’t) act on his information is where the mystery lies. After all, the young lady’s mom requested that she be sent to CO, as Becky pointed out. That wasn’t a TBC move. Should they have made her stay? Well, if the cops wouldn’t investigate it because the truth came out that she consented…well, there’s not a whole lot they can do, esp. if she won’t press charges. As I said before, this wouldn’t be the first case where a woman slept with a guy, then cried rape afterward. According to one statistic I saw, 4.7% of rape victims get pregnant. Maybe she was raped and fell into that category….I don’t know.
Finally, has anyone else remembered that most young adults married in their teens in Biblical times? I think we do ourselves and teens a disservice when we write off teenagers as something more than kids but less than responsible adults. They’re responsible enough to drive cars and obey laws, but immune to criticism when they make horrific, life-destroying choices? I don’t think so.
I don’t like this issue, but I certainly am not ready to throw Phelps in the electric chair and then dance a jig over his body. All we have now are rumors and opinions, and not enough facts.
"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
Becky,
Consensual or not, my biggest issue is that the man remained a member. He was not repentant b/c he did not turn himself in. That is one of the many things that I can’t get around. In the hypothetical, am I this off base? If I were presented with a similar problem, the adult would not be restored until he put himself under the law. Can anyone tell me where I am off on this?
Consensual or not, my biggest issue is that the man remained a member. He was not repentant b/c he did not turn himself in. That is one of the many things that I can’t get around. In the hypothetical, am I this off base? If I were presented with a similar problem, the adult would not be restored until he put himself under the law. Can anyone tell me where I am off on this?
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
[rogercarlson] Consensual or not, my biggest issue is that the man remained a member. He was not repentant b/c he did not turn himself in. That is one of the many things that I can’t get around. In the hypothetical, am I this off base? If I were presented with a similar problem, the adult would not be restored until he put himself under the law. Can anyone tell me where I am off on this?Roger, to leave aside the specifics of this case, let me put it this way:
Suppose a scandal comes to light in your church where you discover that some member is guilty of doing something that you are pretty sure is against the law. (Could be anything, rape/statutory rape, drugs, stealing, etc.). Since you believe a crime has been committed you report it to the police and confront the individual. (Not necessarily in that order.) In the process of these actions, the police apparently do nothing and the individual confesses to ‘something’ to you and asks if he could be forgiven by you and the church. Now what? I suppose we could say that we urge the man to turn himself in to the police. Let’s say he is willing to do that. The police take the statement but make no arrest at that time (for whatever reason). The man insists he is repentant, seems remorseful. Now what?
And what if the police simply don’t proceed on any charges? Not enough evidence or whatever. They don’t usually tell people what they are thinking or why they choose not to proceed against an individual. What then should the church do?
I don’t know how many of these factors actually happened in the Concord case. The whole thing does seem bizarre, from start to finish. But I am not sure what the pastor/church are supposed to do after initial reporting to the authorities.
All I can say is I hope I don’t have to find out as a result of anything remotely similar happening in our ministry.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson][rogercarlson] The police take the statement but make no arrest at that time (for whatever reason). The man insists he is repentant, seems remorseful. Now what?Good question, Don. Let’s make it even closer to the original (as we have been told) and use the example of stolen money. Thief repents (or doesn’t…but somehow gets caught), confesses to police, they take a statement, don’t arrest, AND THE MAN WHO WAS STOLEN FROM won’t press charges. Then what? Does a bystander take him to the police and insist that the police arrest? Wouldn’t that be interfering in a police case?
And what if the police simply don’t proceed on any charges? Not enough evidence or whatever. They don’t usually tell people what they are thinking or why they choose not to proceed against an individual. What then should the church do?
[Louise Dan] But Becky and Susan, I strongly disagree with your assessment. EVEN IF the 15 year old dressed provocatively and solicited the 38 year old’s attention, our government still calls it RAPE. …I agree with you, Louise. It is legally rape. I can’t understand it. I’m a woman and fail to comprehend why the man would do it.
Discussion