The Position of Bob Jones University Regarding the Membership of Dr. Chuck Phelps on Its Cooperating Board of Trustees

… this thread would be a really weird place to post all the old accusations again.
Every possible accusation has already been made many, many times. All the reasons for and reasons against have been aired innumerable times.
So whatever there might be to discuss (if anything) repeating accusations again would certainly be pointless.

This is pretty close to what was read to the students by Marshall Franklin. The tension was palpable.

Without rehashing details (thanks Aaron), my general feeling is that the situation is so messed up and confused for so many people that it probably wasn’t a smart move to bring him back to the board at this time. Regardless of facts, to many people the chain of events just didn’t smell right, and the University’s bringing him on connected them to the chain. I think the University is right to meet the issue head on instead of being either indirect or off the cuff.

He is still on the Board?

I agree that the details are so mired it’s hard to get a sense of clarity about the issue—and that’s a major reason why I’ve not really expressed a formal opinion. But I do have one serious concern with the statement itself. It may simply be an oversight but am I reading it correctly that in investigating the situation they relied only on Pastor Phelps’ website and his testimony to evaluate the internet rumors and claims?

To verify facts and get our questions answered we called him and he answered our questions. After speaking with him and weighing the criticisms against the facts, we have concluded that some of what is posted on the internet about this incident is true, but the majority is a little bit of truth mixed with a lot of opinion and speculation.

It seems that wisdom would have required that they engage with the other major participants - Ms. Anderson herself perhaps - in order to get a more complete picture of what happened. Trust me, I’m not on a witchhunt—I’m three generations BJU—but it does come across at least as appearing as cronyism and supporting the very accusations against them.

Does this make Chuck Phelps an asset or a liability to my alma mater?

It appears that the university administration has come to a similar conclusion that I have.

From a previous, but now closed, discussion: “…My question: since the matter of Phelp’s blamelessness is in question, affecting his qualifications as a pastor, board member, etc., and that blamelessness must be directly related to his disregard of clear Scripture truth, what are the specific,clear Scripture truth’s, commands, applications, etc., that Phelps deliberately disregarded, ignored, or flat out rejected that have disqualified him as pastor/board member, or whatever?

I think most of us have been in the position of looking backward at how we have handled situations, and second guessing. That is not my purpose in this question. This is a situation that most pastors/Christian leaders will never face, and those who face it will likely see it only once in the life of their ministry, so there is not likely to be a lot of experience to fall back on. However, before I am willing to cast one of Phelp’s reputation and accomplishments into outer darkness as unworthy of filling the position, I want to know where he recognized the biblically right thing to do and disregarded it, or where he has exhibited such complete incompetence about a clear truth/application of Scripture that evidences his lack of qualifications for that position. “

I think from the previous discussion it appears the major argument for tossing Phelps under the bus is that he made the right moves, just not as intensely as we think they should have been made now that we see how it all played out 12 years or so down the road. Until someone shows conclusively otherwise (i.e., that he deliberately disregarded doing the right thing) he has the benefit of my doubt, a luxury I would want for myself if I found myself in a similar situation, and what is also the general tenor of Scripture.

I agree, Hannah. At this point the facts are so intertwined with speculation, the average unconnected person is not in a position to properly separate the issues. But I’d think that the staff of BJU would be very invested in exploring all sources fully. The statement as written doesn’t sound like this was done.

I do not want to see the innocent suffer, or the momentarily misguided, or even the one-time monumental screw up. But I’ve really had my personal fill of church leadership (generally speaking) thumbing their nose at principles in places like 1 Timothy 3, Titus 2, 1 Peter 2 & 3, as if those criteria don’t apply to them.

I’m not sure what exactly folks think BJ should have done (other than Hannah’s suggestion that they contact Tina). In addition to reading Dr. Phelps’ website the statement said that BJ spent time reading the blog info that was available. I don’t know how many or which ones they read but the blogs are the only places where information regarding this situation is in dispute. The public records agree with the facts of this whole morass. They also show how poorly the situation was handled (IMHO) by Dr. Phelps. The BJ statement seems to read that 1) they talked to Dr. Phelps (“maintained regular contact with Dr. Phelps since the matter came to light”), 2) they read the blog stuff about the situation, 3) they called him and asked about the information they’d found on the blogs, etc., 4) they concluded that there was truth to much of what was written and that a lot of opinions and suppositions are being made about the situation (I can’t imagine anyone disagreeing with that), 5) After that process the school doesn’t think the whole thing was handled as well as it could have been but didn’t see a reason to remove him from the board.

They weren’t trying to determine the legality of anything. They were trying to answer the question, Should Dr. Phelps still be on the BJ board? They didn’t see anything illegal or immoral in how he handled the situation and decided to keep him. They do seem to admit he acted unwisely, even if they couched it in very nice terms. If there is any debate this would be the point where I would make it—Is it WISE to keep him on the board? But, that’s not the topic and I really don’t want to get all involved in that. (Not that anyone cares but I would have quietly asked him to step away.)

I understand that being a board member is a very visible position at times and those folks should be vetted pretty carefully before you commit to them. Dr. Phelps had been a long-time member of the board so he had an already-established track record. This situation (though it happened many years ago) only recently came up and it looks like they tried to get as much information as necessary to make a choice about keeping him on the board (without hiring investigators, etc.). They found mistakes but not enough that makes him unpalatable for his function on the board. I might disagree but they do say that they did more than just call Dr. Phelps and let him “spin” the information about this tragic incident.

But why doesn’t he decide to take a season and focus on his local church, step away from the national spotlight and distractions?

I think Susan’s point is valid. In Scripture, leadership is held to a “higher” standard of exercising wisdom and discretion. Given this, it is entirely legitimate to expect a leader’s qualifications for a public position to be directly linked to his ability to make wise choices. Certainly none of us are perfect; none of us make wise decisions all the time—thank heavens for grace—but it is unsettling to hear essentially, “sure, soandso made mistakes but we don’t think that hinders him from being in a position of honor and leadership.” If he made the same mistakes that the average person would have, what makes him qualified to be a leader?

Really, I’m not trying to agitate—it’s all just so messy and I have to admit to feeling somewhat of a hypocrite for judging PSU so quickly if I don’t evaluate my own allegiances by the same standard.

Pastor Phelps has been a loyal graduate of BJU for many years. He has encouraged many students to attend BJU including his own children. Outside this event, Chuck has been one of the most respected pastors in America with an impeccable family and personal life. Chuck contacted the local police twice in a timely fashion regarding the perpetrator. He brought the perpetrator before the church for public discipline and eventually expelled him from the church. However, he also made serious mistakes by bringing the victim before the church and not clearly connecting the perpetrator with the victim who was a minor. Though I think his motive was good in helping the victim’s mother place her daughter in a more stable family situation, the fact that she was sent out of state gave the wrong impression. I am certain that Pastor Phelps has deep regrets about this matter. Again, this entire episode is an example of how the horrendous sin of one man, Earny Willis, did so much damage to so many people including first and foremost the young lady, secondly Earny’s wife and children who have been the totally forgotten victims of Earny’s sin, the good people of that local church who have been tarnished and shamed by the actions of this very selfish human being, and ultimately against God by inciting the enemies of God to blaspheme his Holy Name.

I write this with all due respect and admiration for Chuck Phelps, he has served in many ways as a distant mentor to me. I believe with the pressure that has been placed on Bob Jones thru this circumstance, that Chuck should voluntarily resign his position on the University board. I believe this would speak volumes to his own personal integrity, and not unnecessarily allow Bob Jones to receive this criticism. Bob Jones should have acted more prudently in their selection process. In my local setting, we would not consider a man for eldership who was not blameless. Understanding that Bob Jones is not a church, you would think that similar Biblical standards would come into play in this situation.

[Mike Harding] However, he also made serious mistakes by bringing the victim before the church and not clearly connecting the perpetrator with the victim who was a minor

It is this issue here that leaves many friends of Pastor Phelps and BJU scratching their heads. From what has been posted out there, I am not sure clarity has ever been brought to this issue. Why were these two brought to the church platform and why was it not make clear that Ernie was the father of the Tina’s baby?

Until that is cleared up and cleaned up, there is going to be great tension on this matter.

Not that they (or anyone else) does or should care about the opinion of one person on the Internet, and limiting my remarks only to the statement itself rather than the situation, this statement was a horrible idea. I make a living in public relations, marketing and fund raising, and have for nearly twenty years. This statement is worse than saying nothing would have been. There are (at least) three critical errors in this approach.

1) By responding publicly to the mounting critique of their decision to place Dr. Phelps on the Board, they are establishing a precedent for the future. If those who oppose an action of the school can generate enough heat (and possibly light, although some will debate that) to force a response once, that is a virtual guarantee that this will happen again and again. If you give a moose a muffin…

2) By citing Dr. Phelps’ website as a major source of their information without noting the discrepancies between what is and was posted there and what Dr. Phelps testified to under oath (according to news reports as the trial transcripts still aren’t available), they undermine the credibility of their response. They would have been far better served to have only said they talked to him and are satisfied with his answers rather than bringing up a major point of contention that is heavily disputed as evidence for their argument. You never want to hand someone a bigger stick to beat you with.

3) By condemning others for following the same practice they have followed for years, they invite charges of hypocrisy, not only in the statement but of the institution as well. For those of us with a sense of history, to see Bob Jones University to issue a statement decrying those who do not obey the Bible and “go to the person directly and get facts before reaching a judgment” is quite humorous—but not very compelling.

My expectation is that this statement will inflame rather than calm the situation.

If you give a moose a muffin…

You do have to be so careful with moose and muffins… :-)