"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
[Louise Dan] But you are right on one point — Phelps probably did assume it was consensual and that she had perhaps seduced the guy. Because that seems to be the first line of reasoning around here. That if a 15 year old sexual abuse victim gets pregnant by a 38 year old married church usher, she likely bears a lot of the responsibility for letting it happen. If fundamental Christians don’t stop thinking this way, the movement is going to be destroyed like the mormons in Texas. We either correct such thinking from within ourselves and set up safeguards to make sure it doesn’t happen again, or fundamentalism is going to get a label like they did with the interracial dating issue. And that label will stick, and it will undermine every other good thing those in the movement attempt to do, until someone in leadership stands up and says, “No more!”
This has got to be my last word. I am disturbed too deeply to say anything more of value.
I think you are having trouble separating the issues here. Whether or not a young girl can legally consent to sex is not the question- we understand that in modern America, this constitutes rape. But spiritually speaking, a young girl can consent- she may not understand the danger or the ramifications of her actions, but she can engage in a sexual relationship with anyone- man, boy, girl, woman… we need to stop treating young girls like they are helpless and stupid and give them the mental and spiritual tools they need to fight their own desires, as well as protect themselves from predators. What Tina did nor did not do is something we cannot know and I am not trying to draw conclusions about her specifically- but something we can do is with the girls in our lives now to equip them properly and decrease their risk, and we can also talk about the policies our churches should have in place to deal with these kinds of problems.
Roger- I agree that on the face of it it looks like the guy did not repent- but I think we can get into trouble when we start trying to quantify ‘sincere repentance’. However, in a case like this, where a young girl has been victimized in more ways than one, I think it is likely that more steps could and should have been taken to hold the guy accountable spiritually (since the church can’t hold him accountable legally).
It is a fact that some offenses carry different weight than others- folks get caught up in trying to be fair and equitable, but if we take into account the natural consequences of certain behaviors, we can understand that shoplifting a pack of gum has much different ramifications than engaging in sexual activity. Spiritually both are sin, but the mental and emotional processes are different, and we have to deal with those differences. I think we also have to create a climate in our churches where authority is held just as accountable as the laity, where kids can refuse to obey an adult when their instincts kick in to warn them of something hinky and they don’t have to worry about getting into trouble, where the proper respect is paid to how parents want to handle incidents involving their kids, and where counseling is available without worrying about confidentiality. We can get so caught up in teaching kids to respect authority without question that we rob them of the ability to protect themselves from predators because they are afraid to disobey an adult or they think it will be assumed that they are lying simply because they are young.
Everybody- get on Amazon or go to the library and check out two books- [URL=http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Fear-Gavin-Becker/dp/0440508835/ref=sr_1_1?i…] The Gift of Fear[/URL] and [URL=http://www.amazon.com/Protecting-Gift-Keeping-Children-Teenagers/dp/044…] Protecting the Gift[/URL] by [URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwGS7Jmd00c&feature=PlayList&p=B2C57855A…] Gavin de Becker[/URL]. I mean it- if you don’t read those books (or something similar) then you do NOT understand the dilemmas your women and children face every day. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angry039.gif
[RachelL] Yes, Louise! And The Church should, too! Where this thread is heading turns my stomach.
Rachel, why not give us a reason to believe the Church should too? I don’t necessarily disagree, but folks are persuaded by reasons.
I don’t mean to pick on you in particular. There’s a segment in the debate that seems to be very uncomfortable about/disturbed by examining our beliefs on the subject. But examining why we believe what we believe (and whether we should believe if) is an extremely important Christian discipline. There is no doubt that a very strong social consensus exists that when a minor is involved with an adult, it’s never truly consensual and is always rape. And we tend to absorb the social consensus on things without even realizing it. That’s not always a bad thing. There’s also a strong social consensus that we shouldn’t rob old ladies or torture puppies.
But as Christians, we really aren’t supposed to get our beliefs from society, but rather from Scripture and biblical wisdom. So there is nothing wrong—and everything right—about asking the question: is the conviction of our society/legal system consistent with Biblical wisdom? I’m inclined to think it mostly is on this particular point, but we will never know unless we examine our thinking on the subject and see.
So the examination is always a good thing.
(1 Thess. 5:21, Phil. 1:9-10)
Just a heads up. This thread will probably close shortly. Folks are still going back forth about what did or didn’t happen in Concord, and there is just nothing we can do here to sort that out. We have a pair of articles coming next week on the subject from a pastoral theology perspective and we’ll open discussion on those, probably with the requirement that discussion of the particulars in Concord be excluded. There is plenty to wrestle with in the area of applying Scripture to these situations without the distraction of disputing a particular case we have no power to influence.
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.
Quote:
EVEN IF the 15 year old dressed provocatively and solicited the 38 year old’s attention, our government still calls it RAPE.
Regardless of what the government may call it, why is this the girls fault (implied in the statement) that the man made the wrong decision? This is nothing more than the ‘prettying up’ of:
Quote:
poor man was a victim of his own lusts and had been tempted beyond control by the teen
Which was someone’s statement that they did not believe but used as an example. But this type of hiding the problem behind softer phrasing is indicative of many thoughts in the church.
If the devil tempts someone (and for many people, Christian or not, the devil does not even have to get involved), the problem is not the temptation. The fault is not the temptation. The fault is the decision of the sinner to act on the temptation. It is the sinner’s fault.
Also, regarding the church discipline involved here. Why were they brought before the congregation to repent? Is every church member who lies required to appear before the church congregation to repent? Is every married church member who lusts after his neighbor’s wife/husband required to appear before the congregation and repent for adultery? I know that some are going to say that it is the seriousness of the offense. But, is not the determination of the ‘seriousness’ made by man and not by God? I have heard people talk about some readings of scripture in which the implication is that some violations of the ten commandments are worse than others. But I would again say that these are man made differences and not those of God. If we take the commandment that is second only to the great commandment, does every church member who does not love his neighbor as himself have to appear before the church congregation and repent on each event?
As an example of how interesting this church discipline approach could become, every member of the church who is divorced and remarried should have to come before the congregation and repent for the sin of adultery, unless the divorce was based on fornication.
Sorry if this is off the main topic, but the general gist of some of the statements became rather interesting to me.
One thing I must say is that church discipline can become very complicated. It must be a VERY prayerful activity seeking guidance from God and removing all personal prejudices and emotions.
EVEN IF the 15 year old dressed provocatively and solicited the 38 year old’s attention, our government still calls it RAPE.
Regardless of what the government may call it, why is this the girls fault (implied in the statement) that the man made the wrong decision? This is nothing more than the ‘prettying up’ of:
Quote:
poor man was a victim of his own lusts and had been tempted beyond control by the teen
Which was someone’s statement that they did not believe but used as an example. But this type of hiding the problem behind softer phrasing is indicative of many thoughts in the church.
If the devil tempts someone (and for many people, Christian or not, the devil does not even have to get involved), the problem is not the temptation. The fault is not the temptation. The fault is the decision of the sinner to act on the temptation. It is the sinner’s fault.
Also, regarding the church discipline involved here. Why were they brought before the congregation to repent? Is every church member who lies required to appear before the church congregation to repent? Is every married church member who lusts after his neighbor’s wife/husband required to appear before the congregation and repent for adultery? I know that some are going to say that it is the seriousness of the offense. But, is not the determination of the ‘seriousness’ made by man and not by God? I have heard people talk about some readings of scripture in which the implication is that some violations of the ten commandments are worse than others. But I would again say that these are man made differences and not those of God. If we take the commandment that is second only to the great commandment, does every church member who does not love his neighbor as himself have to appear before the church congregation and repent on each event?
As an example of how interesting this church discipline approach could become, every member of the church who is divorced and remarried should have to come before the congregation and repent for the sin of adultery, unless the divorce was based on fornication.
Sorry if this is off the main topic, but the general gist of some of the statements became rather interesting to me.
One thing I must say is that church discipline can become very complicated. It must be a VERY prayerful activity seeking guidance from God and removing all personal prejudices and emotions.
There’s a segment in the debate that seems to be very uncomfortable about/disturbed by examining our beliefs on the subject. But examining why we believe what we believe (and whether we should believe if) is an extremely important Christian discipline. There is no doubt that a very strong social consensus exists that when a minor is involved with an adult, it’s never truly consensual and is always rape. And we tend to absorb the social consensus on things without even realizing it. That’s not always a bad thing. There’s also a strong social consensus that we shouldn’t rob old ladies or torture puppies.I appreciate analysis. I do. But it feels as if some are afraid of embracing the social consensus because of fearing it means there isn’t separation… My default assumption is that the social consensus in this instance exists because of the influence of Christians on the world. We know that we are to protect the weak and the fatherless, and this is exactly what statutory rape laws attempt to do!
But as Christians, we really aren’t supposed to get our beliefs from society, but rather from Scripture and biblical wisdom.
All of this feels academic to me regarding this case, though, because I believe Ms. Anderson: that these were violent rapes by a predator.
[Rachel L.] All of this feels academic to me regarding this case, though, because I believe Ms. Anderson: that these were violent rapes by a predator.
It is academic if the only case you are looking at is Anderson’s- she isn’t the only girl to ever be victimized, and there are things that we can teach our girls today to help them understand how not to be victimized. This means educating oneself and taking responsibility for one’s actions. Being responsible for oneself does not equate ‘laying blame’, just like acknowledging that a woman shouldn’t walk down a dark alley alone at night doesn’t mean that if she does she ‘deserves’ to be attacked. Also, understanding that young people have a sinful heart that results in them making poor decisions does not mean that kids ‘deserve’ to be taken advantage of. But if we ignore that our young people are sometimes engaging in risky behavior because they are immature, naive, and don’t understand the ramifications of their actions, we are in essence crippling them, and they will be picked by predators like a gazelle with a broken leg.
[James Bliss] Quote:emphasis mine
EVEN IF the 15 year old dressed provocatively and solicited the 38 year old’s attention, our government still calls it RAPE.
Regardless of what the government may call it, why is this the girls fault (implied in the statement) that the man made the wrong decision? This is nothing more than the ‘prettying up’ of:
Quote:
poor man was a victim of his own lusts and had been tempted beyond control by the teen
Which was someone’s statement that they did not believe but used as an example. But this type of hiding the problem behind softer phrasing is indicative of many thoughts in the church.
No one has said that what happened to Tina was her fault. It has already been said ad nauseum that some hypotheticals are being presented for discussion. A hypothesis is “an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument”. So feel free to discuss for the sake of argument, but please do not accuse people of actually saying that what happened to Tina Anderson was her fault.
Don,
To your analagy, if I was convinced that the man had gone to the police and made a statement and still nothing happened, then i would believe that repentance had taken place.
This whole situation gives me another reason why I firmly believe that I am justified for being heavily involved in our community for the gospel sake. Because of that, the Lord has allowed me to meet enough people that it gives me opportunity to learn more facts in this situation than if I were simply a pastor who was not involved. Praise the Lord for his opportunities! Food for thought.
To your analagy, if I was convinced that the man had gone to the police and made a statement and still nothing happened, then i would believe that repentance had taken place.
This whole situation gives me another reason why I firmly believe that I am justified for being heavily involved in our community for the gospel sake. Because of that, the Lord has allowed me to meet enough people that it gives me opportunity to learn more facts in this situation than if I were simply a pastor who was not involved. Praise the Lord for his opportunities! Food for thought.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
What you emphasized was my statement, also, if you will note, I also capitalized ‘EVEN IF’ in the first quote.
Regardless of the ‘hypothesis’ which may be involved, the point was the gist of the first statement and the nearness of it to the ‘hypothetical’ second statement (although the poster stated they did not believe it). Provocative is a very subjective concept in the first quote, and implies some degree of blame/fault/guilt on the youth/girl. My point is that the temptation, regardless of how ‘provocative’ the person may be dressed, is not the problem. The problem (fault) is the decision of the sinner and goes no further. It appears to me that you stopped reading my post at the point you quoted.
Regardless of the ‘hypothesis’ which may be involved, the point was the gist of the first statement and the nearness of it to the ‘hypothetical’ second statement (although the poster stated they did not believe it). Provocative is a very subjective concept in the first quote, and implies some degree of blame/fault/guilt on the youth/girl. My point is that the temptation, regardless of how ‘provocative’ the person may be dressed, is not the problem. The problem (fault) is the decision of the sinner and goes no further. It appears to me that you stopped reading my post at the point you quoted.
[James Bliss] What you emphasized was my statement, also, if you will note, I also capitalized ‘EVEN IF’ in the first quote.
Regardless of the ‘hypothesis’ which may be involved, the point was the gist of the first statement and the nearness of it to the ‘hypothetical’ second statement (although the poster stated they did not believe it). Provocative is a very subjective concept in the first quote, and implies some degree of blame/fault/guilt on the youth/girl. My point is that the temptation, regardless of how ‘provocative’ the person may be dressed, is not the problem. The problem (fault) is the decision of the sinner and goes no further. It appears to me that you stopped reading my post at the point you quoted.
We all misread each other at times, and I apologize if I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say.
I agree that the problem or fault lies with the sinner, but when we are dealing with the spiritual aspects of this topic, (and not the legal ones) we have to acknowledge that the victim and the perpetrator are both sinners. Just as it is wicked for a man to attack a woman because she is walking down a dark alley at night, the woman must realize that it is unwise to walk alone down a dark alley at night.
I did a Google of “at risk victims categories” and came back with a good quote [URL=http://www.justicejournalism.org/crimeguide/chapter05/chapter05.html from this article[/URL]:
It’s best to think of victims in three categories: high-risk, medium-risk and low-risk. High-risk victims could be prostitutes, substance abusers and women who travel alone at night. A medium-risk victim is someone who leads a relatively normal life, but does something that could be dangerous, like choosing to use an ATM at night while alone. A low-risk victim is just that, someone who should normally have no interaction with the criminal element. Still, journalists must never fall prey to the temptation to demonize victims. The fact that the woman who was murdered was a prostitute may help explain the dynamics of why she got into a car with a man that she did not know. But that does not in any way justify what happened to her.The same kind of distinction is found in de Becker’s books, and he teaches women how to lower their risk of being victimized, and in Protecting the Gift he teaches parents how to teach their children. It’s good stuff that in no way violates Scriptural principles of gender roles or proper submission to authority.
[Rachel L.]I believe Ms. Anderson: that these were violent rapes by a predator.Where does the word ‘violent’ come from? No reports I have read on the issue have stipulated any violence.
Perhaps the appellation you give to Mrs. Anderson is also significant. She is a married woman now, you know.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I appreciate analysis. I do. But it feels as if some are afraid of embracing the social consensus because of fearing it means there isn’t separation… My default assumption is that the social consensus in this instance exists because of the influence of Christians on the world. We know that we are to protect the weak and the fatherless, and this is exactly what statutory rape laws attempt to do!
This is a solid point. It is certainly likely that Christian influence has contributed a great deal to our laws.
Don… I don’t think we should quibble about “violence.” If there is not consent, that’s “violent” either way… though I see your likely point that “violent” means different things to diff. people, especially in a situation (I’m not talking about any particular situation, least of all the Concord one), where the “non consent” is inference from the nature of adult-minor relationships even though the child may have formally consented. I would still say that is a serious form of violence even if there was no physical injury of any kind.
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.
Closing the thread for now.
It’s likely that we’re not going to have further discussion of the Concord case in particular. I realize that some are going to call this “cover up” and being complicit in abuse, etc. But this is contrary to fact.
Here’s why:
It’s likely that we’re not going to have further discussion of the Concord case in particular. I realize that some are going to call this “cover up” and being complicit in abuse, etc. But this is contrary to fact.
Here’s why:
- We will continue to post news that seems to provide new information. You are not “covering up” something when you are posting what has at least undergone whatever minimal fact-filtering the media involved have conducted.(In fact, you’re not “covering up” anything if you just be silent, either, but we can do better than that.)
- Going back and forth with our interpretations of what happened or didn’t may help one or two make up their minds about events there, but what really does that accomplish?
- Nobody here has the power to do anything about Concord. So whom we believe and to what extent is moot.
- Any helpful discussion about the sexual abuse problem (or the alleged “IFB problem” in particular) will be the kind that is focused on thoughtfully applying Scripture to various typical scenarios. Trying to establishing the facts of any particular case is unnecessary and probably futile.
- Understandably, it’s a highly emotionally-charged subject, especially if you’ve been abused or are close to someone who has. But emotionally-charged thinking tends not to be clear or wise thinking. It’s hard enough to examine these issues calmly without the drama of a particular recent case in the mix. Of course, we shouldn’t think about these issues without feeling, but we do have to step back, tack a deep breath and calmly reflect.
- It’s not good for your soul to think about these behaviors too much. They have to be thought about, but not endlessly. Phil. 4:8 does not mean “think only on these things” but it does tell us what kind of thinking leads to peace. Peace is not always the right thing to seek, but Phil.4 is clear that sometimes it is.So, with that, let’s all turn our hearts and minds toward our Beautiful Savior and the peace He gives and prepare for a joyful Lord’s Day. The problem ain’t goin’ away. It’ll still be there to tackle another day.
We’ll open discussion on the topic again when our articles post late next week… with the intention of leaving any particular case out of it, including the Concord one.
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.
Discussion