Prosposed FBFI Special Resolution on Abuse

[Dan Frank] It’s too late. The time to do something was when Tina Anderson first came out with her allegations. The moment the police and courts determined they had enough evidence to try the case, the Christian leaders involved should have sought out Tina to acknowledge and make right any way they failed her, either deliberate or unintentional. Instead, from the very beginning, the leaders in question chose a defensive posture, and those surrounding them (including a number here) chose the same defensive posture.

I’m not trying to revive the whole Tina Anderson thing, but the time to do something was right after Tina was as soon as Tina confided in someone who believed her. The confidant should have said, “you know what? Let’s call the cops so we can make this right NOW.” If she or someone else had called the cops directly even three years after the event (when she was 19), it never would have snowballed into the fiasco that it is now.

I understand Tina’s anger at being attacked, and I can understand being angry that Phelps botched the reporting. What I can’t understand is why Tina or someone she knew that she confided in didn’t contact the police immediately and instead took to the Internet. All it took was one phone call…it’s not like the Concord PD is an unlisted number. One simple phone call from ~anyone~ who believed Tina. So why did that not happen from all the people that rushed to her aid?

Mandatory Reporters are just that - mandatory. If you hear about an alleged rape, your first legal duty is to call the cops. Not start a Facebook group, not write the head of the FBFI or some other institution, not gather an angry mob to demand justice, but to call the cops.

I’ve counseled abuse victims before. My first piece of advice is always, always, always - “Let’s go to the police station so this doesn’t happen again to you.” Why that didn’t happen in this case, I don’t know.

[Dan Frank] It’s too late.

To clarify, my response to Don was in reference to resolution only.

[Jay C.]
I’m not trying to revive the whole Tina Anderson thing, but the time to do something was right after Tina was as soon as Tina confided in someone who believed her. The confidant should have said, “you know what? Let’s call the cops so we can make this right NOW.” If she or someone else had called the cops directly even three years after the event (when she was 19), it never would have snowballed into the fiasco that it is now.

I understand Tina’s anger at being attacked, and I can understand being angry that Phelps botched the reporting. What I can’t understand is why Tina or someone she knew that she confided in didn’t contact the police immediately and instead took to the Internet. All it took was one phone call…it’s not like the Concord PD is an unlisted number. One simple phone call from ~anyone~ who believed Tina. So why did that not happen from all the people that rushed to her aid?

Tina testified in court and said the same on 20/20 that until the day the police contacted her out of the blue, she had believed (as she was counseled by church leaders) that she bore responsibility. Up until that point, Tina had only gone to IFB churches and schools and worked in an IFB ministry. Your statement that Tina took to the internet before contacting police is completely false.

Don,

I think you are missing one point Mike and I are trying to make. The FBF had no problem making a resolution when it was the Catholic church….The FBF has no problem going after music they find sinful. I have no problem with either of those things. But I do find it disingenuous to not deal with this when it is in their backyard within their churches.

Jay,

You understanding of how this came out is wrong. Someone at Trinity went to the cult survivors page…then someone there reported it. It was then the police called Tina. She was minding her own business when this came out. She was treated badly by fundamentalists when this started. But really, what was she suppossed to do? The police asked her questions, she answered them honestly. Even going after Jocelyn Zichterman is silly. She may be out to get our movement. But she heard what seemed to be a credible story. She and that person went to the police. For all of her faults, that seems more Biblical to me than “trying to keep Ernie’s family in tact.”

[Dan Frank] Tina testified in court and said the same on 20/20 that until the day the police contacted her out of the blue, she had believed (as she was counseled by church leaders) that she bore responsibility. Up until that point, Tina had only gone to IFB churches and schools and worked in an IFB ministry. Your statement that Tina took to the internet before contacting police is completely false.

Hi Dan and Roger-

Thanks for the clarification - it’s appreciated.

My question isn’t aimed at Tina - it’s aimed at the IFB Facebook group. I can certainly understand that Tina was taught it was her responsibility - my question is why didn’t any of Tina’s confidants tell her that it wasn’t her fault? My understanding is that she’d shared that strory with others several times before someone from Trinity finally noticed - so what were all the commiserators in the FB group doing? Why didn’t they report, like they were legally responsible to?

Maybe my understanding of what happened is still skewed, so if you could enlighten me, that would be helpful.

[Jay C.]

[Dan Frank] Tina testified in court and said the same on 20/20 that until the day the police contacted her out of the blue, she had believed (as she was counseled by church leaders) that she bore responsibility. Up until that point, Tina had only gone to IFB churches and schools and worked in an IFB ministry. Your statement that Tina took to the internet before contacting police is completely false.

Hi Dan and Roger-

Thanks for the clarification - it’s appreciated.

My question isn’t aimed at Tina - it’s aimed at the IFB Facebook group. I can certainly understand that Tina was taught it was her responsibility - my question is why didn’t any of Tina’s confidants tell her that it wasn’t her fault? My understanding is that she’d shared that strory with others several times before someone from Trinity finally noticed - so what were all the commiserators in the FB group doing? Why didn’t they report, like they were legally responsible to?

Maybe my understanding of what happened is still skewed, so if you could enlighten me, that would be helpful.

Um, they did report it. Matt Barnhart was the first to report it. His testimony on 20/20 was that he took the pastor’s explanation of what happened to Tina at face value at the beginning. He stayed at Trinity for a number of years after that. It was only after getting out of Trinity that he realized what had really happened. He reported it with no names attached on the facebook survivors page. Jocelyn Zichterman then contacted him privately and had him go to the police in Concord. Tina’s name was never mentioned publicly on the facebook page to my knowledge until after charges had been filed.

[Don Johnson] This is what I am objecting to. Why say it. Why bring it up? You can’t prove it.

So in effect, what I am saying is, “Put up or shut up.” You are no help by slyly insinuating your opinion. It is simply disingenuous and, in my opinion, dishonest, to preface your opinion with “Whether you grant my belief…”

I think that’s called poisoning the well, if I am not mistaken. It isn’t right. If you can prove your assertion, prove it. Otherwise, simply forget it. It doesn’t advance your cause to throw around opinions in this way. Ypu can make arguments about the need to take action against child abuse without resorting to propaganda.

Don, You’re treating Mike quite unfairly in my opinion. What Mike did was to give an opinion. That’s not wrong. It’s not a fallacy. It’s just an opinion. He was upfront in stating that he feels that “the problem is probably more serious in the IFB than in the general population.” But he didn’t even base his argument on that. He granted middle ground for the sake of his argument. His argument was that even if it’s no more common in IFB circles than elsewhere, it is still an outrage because it should never, ever be happening within the church. And it is a good argument. Not just a good one, a biblical one. And it’s so obvious that even the lost can see it. The only people who can’t seem to see it are those to whom reputation is more important than right.

[Mike Durning] Again, you are just throwing insults around. If you really want to be effective and convince the men who have input into these resolutions, stop the sniping and using terms like ‘hypocrit’.

Don, the fact is you just leveled a personal attack at Mike for giving an opinion. You said it wasn’t right. You said it was “disingenuous” and “dishonest.” The fact is, you are denying the problem. You have come on a public forum and told the world you don’t think there’s a significant problem in this area in Fundamentalism. At least that’s how I’m reading it. Can you please verify that I’m accurately understanding your view?

The problem is serious regardless of who/what/when/where it happens. A child is not more damaged because the perpetrator was a church member as opposed to a teacher, coach, uncle, or neighbor. We simply must do something about the fact that it happens at all within our ‘ranks’. There is no way to determine how often it happens within IFB churches as opposed to other denominations or the general public. It is an argument that distracts rather than offering any hope of a solution.

Parents grant churches and schools a unique position of trust when it comes to their kids. We can’t allow that trust to be misplaced. Period. If an organization like the FBFI is in a position of influence to help effect change and equip churches to properly deal with this issue, then they need to take whatever action they can asap, in whatever form best lends itself to problem. A resolution is fine and dandy, but I can’t see how it gives churches the kind of specific information they need.

BUT- it isn’t as if the information is not out there for church leadership to read, study, bring before the church, and begin crafting and enforcing policies to keep kids safe NOW. Sitting around waiting for the FBFI or any other association to spoon feed church leadership information and recommendations is a bit silly IMO.

[Susan R] Parents grant churches and schools a unique position of trust when it comes to their kids. We can’t allow that trust to be misplaced.

Far more damaging (potentially) is the unfailing trust children place in their parents and spiritual leaders. It would be better for one of the latter two if a millstone were hung around his neck …

As I said to a party here in another venue, we owe our daughters (mine is nine) something better than, “Oh yeah? Prove it!”

[DavidO]

[Susan R] Parents grant churches and schools a unique position of trust when it comes to their kids. We can’t allow that trust to be misplaced.

Far more damaging (potentially) is the unfailing trust children place in their parents and spiritual leaders.

And since most victims are abused/molested by someone they know (stranger danger is statistically unlikely), any venue where a child sees the same people on a regular basis is a place where they are vulnerable.

It begs the question- where in Scripture are we encouraged to place unfailing trust in any person or institution? Why do we teach kids that they MUST obey every adult they meet, and offer no qualifications or clarification of principles like submission, respect, and obedience?

For example- many moons ago, when we still sent our kids to camp, there was a ‘trolley’ that stretched across a small pond (that from the looks of it should have been named The Black Lagoon). Our 2ndborn son could not swim and did not want to cross it. This became a huge power struggle between The Counselor Who Must Be Obeyed and The Insubordinate Child (who was being called both a rebel and a wimp). My dh and I were called, and we told the counselor that riding a trolley across water was not a true test of character, and that if our son was not comfortable doing it, then he didn’t have to. This caused such a ruckus- we were labeled as too lenient, over-protective, blahblahblah. And we ‘ruined’ camp for everyone. Really? Is making 10 year old kids do things they believe are unwise and even dangerous ‘building character’?

[Don Johnson] So in effect, what I am saying is, “Put up or shut up.” You are no help by slyly insinuating your opinion. It is simply disingenuous and, in my opinion, dishonest, to preface your opinion with “Whether you grant my belief…”

I think that’s called poisoning the well, if I am not mistaken. It isn’t right. If you can prove your assertion, prove it. Otherwise, simply forget it. It doesn’t advance your cause to throw around opinions in this way. Ypu can make arguments about the need to take action against child abuse without resorting to propaganda.

…

Again, you are just throwing insults around. If you really want to be effective and convince the men who have input into these resolutions, stop the sniping and using terms like ‘hypocrit’.

Don,

Someone must be building a tower of Babel, because it’s clear that some words don’t mean the same thing to me that they do to you. Or if they do, we have a real problem here.

So now I am “slyly” doing things. I am being “dishonest”. I am “sniping.” And all of this said with verbs rather than nouns, so you are not making a personal attack on me. How very clever and sly of you! :) See, I can do it too!

Durningdorf Evil Incorporated is in business, trying to destroy Fundamentalism, you think. And I cry “No!” People who circle the wagons and do cover-ups are destroying it (I am not implying that this is you). People who are trying to point the finger at inconsistencies for the good of the movement out of a sincere love for God’s glory and His people within that movement are the ones trying to save it. It’s one of those “the way up is the way down” things. You know. You’ve read the verses in the Bible.

You again have chosen to completely ignore the primary point of my arguments, which are two-fold:
1). It is hypocritical to criticize another group for something and then not self-critique when it arises within your own group.
2). It is appropriate to repent of wrong-doing – even at a “group” level.

Instead of responding in any meaningful way, you have read into my post a tone that was not there, and you have not given any meaningful response to it. This is an example of SI at its rare lowest: when the issues are ignored and the personal attacks begin, when the argument is dissected for one small point of error, imprecision, or inability to prove a minor point – and that is used to tarnish the entire logic of the arguer. When that happens, we fail to sharpen iron, and engage in debate instead of truth-seeking.

I don’t think I called anyone a hypocrite YET (at least not for that reason). But if I was taken that way, let me clarify: It would be [subjunctive mode] hypocritical for the movement to fail to respond. At some point, they may do so. Or they may not. Nobody is a hypocrite yet. It may take several years for the FBFI, for instance, to craft a well-thought out resolution satisfactory enough to pass.

Just a few more points. I humbly stand rebuked for giving my opinion about something. I know that I alone stand unique in the history of SI by doing that. I ought to be ashamed. ;)

Thanks for asking me to put up or shut up in an area where no proof is possible. We both know it. There will be no study. A survey won’t work, as it will bog down endlessly in the definitions of who was and was not a Fundamentalist at the time of their moral failure or covering up of it. It’s a gut feeling, and always will be. If you have moved in a part of Fundamentalism where such things are inconceivable, then I envy you. I, clearly, have had a different experience.

Quite frankly, I am surprised that you complain about this post and not my post # 62, which was somewhat harsh and satirical and over which I hesitated 24 hours before posting. I only posted it because satire is supposed to sting a little. The one you are complaining about seemed entirely obvious to me. I just don’t get it, Don. I don’t get that everyone doesn’t get what I’m trying to say. I don’t get your frame of mind on this. Drop your attacks, if you can, long enough to help me understand your perspective.

Lastly, I want to question your logic at one point: I am being dishonest for prefacing my opinion with words that make it clear that it is my opinion? C’mon, now. That doesn’t work.

[RPittman] IFBdom is a broad and diverse identification encompassing a broad range of socio-economic classes, teachings, practices, characteristics, geographic boundaries, associations, etc. Although all are self-identified as IFB, one cannot stereotype the movement without being guilty of inaccuracy and mis-characterization. There is no one pattern common to all.

Just read this statement on another thread. It occurred to me that this is why you find my statements outrageous and I find your outrage bewildering.

[Susan R] There is no way to determine how often it happens within IFB churches as opposed to other denominations or the general public. It is an argument that distracts rather than offering any hope of a solution.

That’s in post #77.

I don’t think anything more needs to be added.

With respect to your comment:

[Mike Durning] So now I am “slyly” doing things. I am being “dishonest”. I am “sniping.” And all of this said with verbs rather than nouns, so you are not making a personal attack on me.

Jason made a similar comment in #76

[Jason] Don, the fact is you just leveled a personal attack at Mike for giving an opinion. You said it wasn’t right. You said it was “disingenuous” and “dishonest.” The fact is, you are denying the problem.

I don’t deny that I am making a personal attack. I am leveling a personal attack on your arguments. You are not being honest in your attack of other Christians on this issue.

That does not mean that I deny there are problems with child abuse occurring in some connection or other with Fundamentalist churches. But I do deny that either the philosophy or the culture of fundamentalism produces these particular problems.

[Don Johnson] But I do deny that either the philosophy or the culture of fundamentalism produces these particular problems.

Don, thanks for encapsulating your problem with what I said so clearly. Now I can respond. I’ve posted about this in one of the dozens of molestation threads here at SI, but I’m not sure where, so let me try to clearly state what I believe.

You are correct. Nothing in the philosophy or culture of Fundamentalism produces these particular problems.

However, I believe there are things in the philosophy or culture of Fundamentalism that makes it more easy for the offenders to lurk there. These things are factors that Fundamentalism shares in common with other groups and agencies that have also struggled with this problem. For example, Fundies share some things in common with the Catholic Church (authoritarian attitudes with a strong emphasis on trusting leadership, external expectations that are easy to visibly comply with) that make it possible for a sociopathic child molester to conform and lurk there. Also in common with them Fundies have a tendency to fight for the visible testimony of the group — a tendency that makes it easier to justify a bit of cover-up. These are not necessarily evil things in Fundamentalism. They are sincerely held beliefs based on understandings of Scripture. I might argue that the external expectations are taken to an extreme, but I get where they come from. I might argue that the authoritarian attitudes are taken to an extreme, but I see that they are Scripture-based at the core.

So, please understand that my belief that the problem is worse in Fundamentalism than in the general population need not be a criticism of the movement as such. Only at the most ridiculous extremes of the movement (a la FBC Hammond’s personality cult), where people surrender the independent function of their minds to the leader, is it something worthy of criticism. It should not surprise us, then, that places built on that model have an even greater incidence of such horror stories.

What can be done about it? Despite my personal views, that run a little more toward authorities being accountable than authoritarian, and toward less external conformity required in the church family, I do not claim that Fundamentalism must fix the problem by morphing into a soft evangelicalism. But the price of staying what they are must be unending vigilance. They must be aware, have policies, teach their childrens’ workers and teen workers, and preach this as a serious issue from the pulpit.

[Mike Durning] You are correct. Nothing in the philosophy or culture of Fundamentalism produces these particular problems.

However, I believe there are things in the philosophy or culture of Fundamentalism that makes it more easy for the offenders to lurk there.

And in youth sports….

Basically, it’s the Willie Sutton problem. He asked why he robbed banks. He said, “Because that’s where the money is.” Abuse happens in churches, schools, sports programs “because that’s where the children are.”

Any place where children might congregate/be involved apart from the direct supervision of their parents is a place where abuse can occur. It is the risk of the marketplace. You probably don’t find much child abuse in Senior Citizen’s homes, for example. (Although Elder Abuse is a different story.)

So first of all, since fundamentalism itself isn’t the problem, resolutions will do nothing to solve the problem.

I am not against accountability, I am not against churches putting into practice good practices with respect to children, or anything of the sort. The same is true of every pastor in the FBF, I believe.

So why the pressure on the FBF? It is an attempt at manipulation and control. Make enough noise, bully, make outrageous statements, insinuate a culture of abuse (as matters of opinion only!!!) and maybe you can shame them into “doing something.” How is that profitable? How is that spiritual?

I continue to be astonished at the willingness to endorse the pressure tactics of anonymous cowards. There is a war going on, it is Satan’s, and he wants to destroy the church with it. I think this is just one of his tactics.