Tina Anderson, Chuck Phelps Take Stand in Willis Trial

Can’t we just wait for the trial to end? It seems to me that the wisest course of action would to be to wait until all of the important information has been given under sworn testimony…then once the “facts” are out there we can really comment on those facts instead of reports, hypothetical situations, the dictionary vs. Thesaurus meanings of words, etc., etc., etc.

Proverbs 18:13

[pastorwesh] Can’t we just wait for the trial to end? It seems to me that the wisest course of action would to be to wait until all of the important information has been given under sworn testimony…then once the “facts” are out there we can really comment on those facts instead of reports, hypothetical situations, the dictionary vs. Thesaurus meanings of words, etc., etc., etc.

Proverbs 18:13

…that would be the prudent thing to do. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused002.gif

[Louise Dan] Well, what court date are you waiting on? Because I’ve been watching two days of sworn testimony …

Louise, if you want facts, then why didn’t you note these anywhere on these discussion threads:

* Willis claims that the relationship was consensual in his testimony
* Tina’s mom reports that Tina begged her not to report it in her testimony
* Chuck has stated the name of the officer he reported it to AND the name of the employee at Youth Services in his testimony AND says that he has the a copy of the report in writing.

Or

[Concord Monitor] * One of Willis’s public defenders, Donna Brown, said during her opening statement yesterday that Anderson only reported having sex with Willis on one occasion when she told her mother and Phelps what happened.

And when a nurse midwife at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center examined Anderson after she became pregnant, she didn’t report being raped, according to the medical records, Brown said.

Or

[Concord Monitor] Anderson said she told Willis she was pregnant while they were at a restaurant in August 1997. Brown asked if that was when Willis took her to the Bedford Village Inn for her 16th birthday, and Anderson said that was possible.

Those facts are important, too.

I am a little amazed at the distrust of Tina and her testimony. I have read so much about victims who are terrified, scared to speak out, even of a young girl that did not admit she was raped until she was older and more removed from the situation - and no one believed her.

I have been very slow to pick sides. I have been reading blogs, news articles, personal testimonies, - on both sides of this issue. You have a young 15 year old that everyone has said was very upset, sobbing, emotional, terrified, etc. I imagine a lot of what she had to say was hard to understand. So I give a little leniency to the people saying - she never said …

Monday, her mother, on the stand, said Tina never said it was rape. When questioned she admitted Tina never said it was a consensual relationship. So basically, because she didn’t say either way - everyone is now stating it was consensual?? That doesn’t seem right. I have heard NO testimony that Tina actually said it was consensual. I have heard Tina didn’t want them to go to the police, Tina was upset, … but doesn’t that all fit the response of a terrified 15 year old, trying to do the ‘right’ thing?

Going back to the church discipline thing - it was handled WRONG! Ernie’s was handled wrong. Why on earth, if he was brought before the church, was it not stated he was with a minor?? (And that is a whole other question I have - what grown man commits adultery with a CHILD unless there is a lot more sin in his life??) As far as Tina’s discipline. Hypothetically, if it was consensual (which I don’t believe), Ernie said he was the AGGRESSOR. Very strange word choice for him to use. Even so, say it wasn’t rape - you have an adult man seducing a child, trying to get her to sin. Sounds like a case of a brother CAUSING a sister to sin. I just don’t think church discipline is appropriate. Would we require church discipline for a teen who is coerced by a family member to cooperate in a robbery?? Maybe not a good comparison, but it is a known fact now that Ernie was the seducer (at the VERY least). He should have faced some major church discipline.

[Micheledo M] I am a little amazed at the distrust of Tina and her testimony.

Please do not mistake a reluctance to draw conclusions from hearsay as ‘distrust’ of anyone. Only now, as information and evidence is brought forward, examined, cross-examined, is the truth going to slowly but surely come out.

Why can’t we just be honest and say “We don’t know what happened”? The possibilities, based on very different accounts of events, are too numerous to list. And the more we posit hypothetical scenarios about this case, the more emotional and confusing it gets.

Let’s allow the trial to take place in a court of law. The only really productive thing we (those not directly involved) can do is pray for the truth to come out, that justice be done, and to consider ourselves and our churches. Are we prepared for such an occurrence in our own church? What precautions do we take to protect our young people? What kind of records are kept of counseling sessions? Do we have a Biblical and consistent church discipline policy?

We’ll have plenty of time to play armchair quarterback when the trial is over, the verdict is reached, and the transcripts are available.

[Susan R]

Why can’t we just be honest and say “We don’t know what happened”?

This is true. We don’t know. Unless we are involved in the situation, we will probably never know exactly what occurred.

It just seems that the victim (even if it was consensual - she was a victim of a predator. He WAS the aggressor) is doubted most and her motives questioned the most. Yet clear evidence is out there to show that many adult women will not speak up when attacked. Why would we expect even more from a child? And now that she is an adult and willing to speak up, why are we so fast to question her and her motives?

It is interesting to see more facts come out that support her testimony.

[Joshua Caucutt] At what point is a person compelled to go in front of the church? Because if they repent prior to that step, they are restored…right? So, if Willis repented before his wife and pastor, why did he have to go before the congregation?

Isn’t that a little simplistic? There was going to be a minor child carrying Willis’s unborn child (Rather conspicuously, at some point) around the church. A public acknowledgement of his sin would likely be an appropriate part of true repentance.

Also, given that the time between any private statements of repentance and the time when the pregnancy would be conspicuous (had she not been sent away) might not have been long enough to guage Willis’s behavior on a 2 Cor. 7:9-11 scale, some degree of “sidelining” action (up to and including being put out) would also be appropriate, no?

Or do you believe any private statement of repentence about any level of sin brings immediate, full restoration?

[DavidO]

[Joshua Caucutt] At what point is a person compelled to go in front of the church? Because if they repent prior to that step, they are restored…right? So, if Willis repented before his wife and pastor, why did he have to go before the congregation?

Isn’t that a little simplistic? There was going to be a minor child carrying Willis’s unborn child (Rather conspicuously, at some point) around the church. A public acknowledgement of his sin would likely be an appropriate part of true repentance.

Also, given that the time between any private statements of repentance and the time when the pregnancy would be conspicuous (had she not been sent away) might not have been long enough to guage Willis’s behavior on a 2 Cor. 7:9-11 scale, some degree of “sidelining” action (up to and including being put out) would also be appropriate, no?

Or do you believe any private statement of repentence about any level of sin brings immediate, full restoration?

David,

If - and I’m just speaking of hypotheticals here - Willis is confronted, breaks down and confesses, marches himself to the police and turns himself in, and says that he sinned against the Lord and this girl, then I don’t see any need to pursue church discipline, since you have ‘won your brother’ and his repentance is honest and clear (Matt 18:15-17); at some point, however, he needed to acknowledge that the baby was his if he’s legitimately repentant. If he says that he did it but that he’s not guilty of breaking the law, or refuses to acknowledge it, or refuses to turn himself in to the police, then I would pursue it further because he hasn’t demonstrated “fruits of repentance” (Matt 3:8) in keeping with what he says he’s sorry for.

Keep in mind that dealing with a sin issue is very different from making sure that legal justice is satisfied. The church isn’t supposed to enforce the law themselves, but rather to make sure that the law notified so that they can properly deal with criminals. Again, this is if my http://sharperiron.org/comment/30083#comment-30083] hypothetical situation from post #17 is right.

[Jay C.] I’m just speaking of hypotheticals here - [if] Willis is confronted, breaks down and confesses, marches himself to the police and turns himself in, and says that he sinned against the Lord and this girl, then I don’t see any need to pursue church discipline, since you have ‘won your brother’ and his repentance is honest and clear (Matt 18:15-17); at some point, however, he needed to acknowledge that the baby was his if he’s legitimately repentant.

I’d say we’re more or less on the same page.

[Micheledo M]
It just seems that the victim (even if it was consensual - she was a victim of a predator. He WAS the aggressor) is doubted most and her motives questioned the most. Yet clear evidence is out there to show that many adult women will not speak up when attacked. Why would we expect even more from a child? And now that she is an adult and willing to speak up, why are we so fast to question her and her motives?

I agree that there appears to be a tendency to ‘blame the victim’, regardless of the particulars of a case. Any time we hear that someone was attacked, or a child was killed, we automatically think “What could have been done different? Could this have been prevented?” It sounds like the victim is being blamed, but I don’t believe that in most cases that is the intent. If you heard that a tall bookcase fell over and killed a child, what’s the first thing you’d do? Check the bookcases in your home to make sure they are sturdy, perhaps? If a woman is attacked on 44th St., are you going to avoid or be more alert in that area? Does that mean the parents deserved to lose their child because the bookcase wasn’t secured? Is it the woman’s fault she was walking down 44th St when a criminal decided she was his prey? But that doesn’t stop us from taking note and trying to prevent similar things from happening to us and our family.

In this case, because some aren’t assuming that a young girl is incapable of giving consent to a sexual relationship (in the moral but not legal sense) there are accusations of ‘blaming the victim’. If the perpetrator was a 15 yob, we’d still have the same questions- was it consensual or forced? Because in either case, there are spiritual implications, albeit different ones, that have to be dealt with. As far as I’m concerned with this case, legally, it should be open & shut. He’s an adult, she’s a child, it’s illegal. Period.

As for Pastor Phelps, the problems are not legal ones, but spiritual and ethical. That’s an entirely different issue, and one that is not relevant to the legal case. There are no laws as to how churches handle discipline and counseling. If Pastor Phelps reported the incident, then he did his part, in the legal sense. The ethical case- how Tina and Willis and the families were dealt with in the church- isn’t going to be determined in court, Pastor Phelps is not the one being prosecuted, and that whole situation is best left up to pastors and churches affiliated or involved with him and his church.

A couple of posts have been unpublished for review by the moderator team.

Thanks to those who are using the flagging system to help us spot problem posts.

+End Moderator Note+

There’s a good chance we’ll not keep these Willers case threads open. As we’ve sometimes done in the past, we’ll post news as we become aware, but I seriously doubt there is anything important we can say now that couldn’t be said just as well after the whole business is over—and from that standpoint it will be much easier to judge what sort of discussion has any potential value.

(I don’t think I have to point out to most people that reporting news but not allowing discussion is not “covering up” something… but for those who are foggy on that concept, there you go.)

[Micheledo M] It just seems that the victim (even if it was consensual - she was a victim of a predator. He WAS the aggressor) is doubted most and her motives questioned the most.

Perhaps some of the appearance arises from the fact that no one is unclear about Willis. Everyone agrees he broke the law and violated scripture. It is clear he was completely wrong. The discussion has revolved around Tina because her role is not entirely clear yet.

[Aaron Blumer] There’s a good chance we’ll not keep these Willers case threads open. As we’ve sometimes done in the past, we’ll post news as we become aware, but I seriously doubt there is anything important we can say now that couldn’t be said just as well after the whole business is over—and from that standpoint it will be much easier to judge what sort of discussion has any potential value.

(I don’t think I have to point out to most people that reporting news but not allowing discussion is not “covering up” something… but for those who are foggy on that concept, there you go.)

I hope you will make that the policy. There is really no need for our commentary. The news is of interest, but what any of us thinks about it is largely irrelevant.

Don you could say that about everything on Sharper Iron. That’s the whole point of a discussion board—to discuss news and matters of interest.

But I understand what Aaron is saying, that if something has already been hashed and rehashed, there’s no need for re-re-rehashing.