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

[Pastor Joe Roof]

[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.

This is certainly true. But they also did not contact Tina Anderson. And Chuck Phelps has not yet made any attempt publicly or privately to make things right with her. Yesterday’s chapel statement by BJU just further victimizes Tina Anderson. She STILL has no voice with them. Her experience STILL does not matter to them. I’m so grieved that in all their research on the topic, they haven’t attempted to talk to her at all.

[Mike Harding] He brought the perpetrator before the church for public discipline and eventually expelled him from the church.

To clarify:
1) Ernie Willis was brought before the church for adultery, not the rape of a minor. There’s a huge difference.
2) Willis wasn’t removed from the church membership until several years later, for an unrelated adulterous relationship of which he would not repent. I believe the publicly stated transgression was “abandoning his family.”

I’m sure there wasn’t an intentional effort to mislead the reader into thinking that Dr. Phelps publicly handled Mr. Willis in an appropriate way.

[Mike Harding] I am certain that Pastor Phelps has deep regrets about this matter.

Well, you may be certain, but a host of people aren’t so sure, or simply don’t believe it. I don’t know how many times I’ve read something to the effect, “Why can’t he just admit he was wrong?” If Dr. Phelps truly has regrets, I should think it helpful for him to itemize and publicly express both his personal regrets and his wrongdoings. In addition, and especially, he should communicate these things to Tina Anderson and ask her forgiveness. One would think this shouldn’t be too much to ask. By the way, had he done so a long time ago, this thread would be non-existent, and there wouldn’t be a “Do Right BJU” Facebook page.

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

This seems most prudent. The only wiser thing would’ve been for him to decline the board position in the first place.

[Pastor Joe Roof]

[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.

Here’s why you’d be scratching your heads. Logically it doesn’t work to sat that a man committed a crime of rape against Tina Anderson, and then claim that she was in sexual sin. Only one of those two claims can be true. Either it isn’t really rape or it is. In the apologies that I’ve heard about this particular issue, it’s mostly “well, I would not do it that way again” or “there were other non-public details.” That’s not the same thing as repentance or apology. I’m with Joe Roof in that this is the biggest sticking point for me to allow myself to think there still isn’t some further explaining to do.

So at chapel yesterday I heard anger in Marshall Franklin’s voice towards the rapist. That is good. Fantastic. But I still have a nagging feeling that Baptist Fundamentalism has a somewhat warped view of the purpose of church discipline. I too would like to see a longer span of time between the trial and when Chuck Phelps (a family friend of mine) could be one day restored to the board. I think it would take a lot of talking and explaining outside his website.

First, I appreciate folks mostly avoiding rehashing the actual and supposed events. … mostly.

Second, re Shaynus’ post: It’s important to remember that Baptist Fundamentalism is not monolithic. Never has been. So it’s really hard to tell what a generalization like ” Baptist Fundamentalism has a somewhat warped view of the purpose of church discipline” really means in concrete terms. Is there much confusion in this area? Yes. Really hard to tell how large that confusion is.

Third, it may well turn out that this move by BJU (the statement) leads to growing tension and a need to take other steps. I would really like to see SI not be a part of that problem, if it develops. That is, I think it’s important that folks in the discussion steer clear of anything that sounds like a demand that BJU act in a certain way. If there ends up being some sort of tidal wave of protest, let it be somewhere else.
(SI doesn’t exist as a place for people to tell other people what to do… whether individuals, institutions or whatever)
But there are aspects of this that are worth calmly discussing. I hope we can stay in that neighborhood.

[Robert Byers] My expectation is that this statement will inflame rather than calm the situation.

Yeah, I think you’re right.

I also would say that Phelps’ decision to join/rejoin the board of BJU at this time does not speak well of him (in my opinion). I don’t think he should be tarred and feathered, as some apparently do, but there’s no way I would want to be associated with any school or university if I were in his shoes.

[Pastor Joe Roof]

[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?

The answer to these questions is simple if we forget what we know (and/or think we know) now, and ask ourselves what Pastor Phelps believed then.

Disclaimer: I’m sure someone will twist what I’m saying here. It’s always that way. But just so anyone who does can stand justly condemned, I’m not asserting that any particular thing that Chuck Phelps believed is true. I’m just stating what he believed, and that what he believed provides ample explanation for his actions. Nor am I stating he was right (or wise) to put Tina before the church, though I am explaining why he did it, because it is easy to see why. I am stating that it would have been dubious both legally and spiritually to link Tina and Phelps before the church.

First question — why was Tina brought to the platform?

He believed Tina consented. Now, we know the court found Wills guilty of forcible rape, but we can’t possibly know exactly what Tina said to Pastor Phelps back then. He still believes it was consensual —maybe there are reasons for that beyond his public statements. The accuracy of his belief is not relevant to the question as to >why< he acted as he did. You can dispute his belief until the cows come home, but he believed it.

Furthermore, on his website, he says:

Tina came before the church, with her mother present, to solicit assistance during a time of crisis. She wrote her own statement and asked to share it.

Tina wanted to make her statement public, unless he is lying (possible, but it needs “two or three witnesses” to make that accusation). Pastor Phelps believed she 1) had morally consented to adultery 2) was pregnant and 3) had a statement she wanted to share with the church. That’s why she came before the church. A mistake, one he says he wouldn’t repeat, but not so nefarious as people want it to be. I can easily see thinking, “You can’t hide the pregnancy, so maybe it’s best just to let it be known and read out her statement. People will respect and love her for being straight-forward about it, and this could really help her to go forward and put it behind her spiritually.”

Second question — why was it not made clear that Ernie was the father of the baby?
Multiple reasons. I greatly appreciate Pastor Harding, but I differ with him strongly on this. This should not have been mentioned publicly.
1. Confidentiality. Ernie Wills had confessed to a crime in confidence, and it would be legally murky to disclose it publicly.
2. Victim privacy. Tina was the victim of a sex crime, and you can’t disclose that without the victim’s consent. Since Tina did not want Ernie Wills to be prosecuted, she would never have given consent (whether Pastor Phelps asked her consent or not).
3. No need. He expected Ernie Wills to be prosecuted. The authorities would deal with him. This was about getting him headed in the right direction spiritually before the full force of the law fell and removed him from the church for an extended time. By the time he came back, everyone would know the nature of his crime, whether they guessed the identity of the victim or not.
4. Love. Love covers a multitude of sins. While (in his belief) Tina had sinned, she was now repentant, and there was no need to embarrass her further by identifying the father.
5. Love again. It really didn’t matter who Wills had sinned with. He was coming to make things right before the Lord and the church. The pastor leads in “restoring such a one,” and airing all the details wouldn’t help. In general, the Biblical principles when dealing with the sins of someone who is now repentant lead us to say much less, rather than much more.

Phelps believed (rightly or wrongly) the following:
1. Wills had initiated the immorality (“the aggressor”) and was guilty of adultery.
2. Wills was guilty of statutory rape, but not forcible rape.
3. Wills was honest about what he had done.
4. Wills was repentant and wanted to make it right before the church.

And he believed (rightly or wrongly):
1. Tina was the victim of a sex crime (statutory rape).
2. Though under the legal age of consent, Tina was old enough to consent morally, had done so, and was thus guilty of adultery.
3. Tina’s actions after the first incident indicated willingness/consent.
4. Tina was repentant and wanted to make a public statement to the church.

If you can take yourself back more than ten years and put yourself in his shoes, it is easy to see why he made the decisions he did. In hindsight, it is clear that the public treatment of Tina’s situation was a mistake, but under no circumstances should her situation have been linked with Wills. If you take yourself back, and put yourself in the situation of believing what he believed and actually loving both of the people involved, rather than wanting to crucify one of them, it’s easy to see why he did what he did.

The only reason people can’t understand is because they don’t believe today what he believed at the time, and they aren’t willing to really put themselves in his shoes and walk a mile or two.

Disclaimer (repeated): I’m sure someone will twist what I’m saying here. It’s always that way. But just so anyone who does can stand justly condemned, I’m not asserting that any particular thing that Chuck Phelps believed is true. I’m just stating what he believed, and that what he believed provides ample explanation for his actions. Nor am I stating he was right (or wise) to put Tina before the church, though I am explaining why he did it, because it is easy to see why. I am stating that it would have been dubious both legally and spiritually to link Tina and Phelps before the church.

There is a question that keeps nagging at me as I watch this from way back in the bleachers and with a significant level of disinterest….

Why doesn’t Chuck Phelps step aside for the good of the University so as not to be a destraction to them? Is being a member of the board of BJ (and if I’m not mistaken, it’s not the most influential board the school has and unless I’m further mistaken, if your last name isn’t Jones or one of a handful of other close confidants, your ability to wield significant influence is rather limited) so valuable that he’d be willing to allow his presence to be a disruption that is, no doubt, causing people to reconsider any intention of attending or supporting the institution, to hang to the prestige board membership apparently assigns?

I’ve been privileged to serve on five conservative Christian college boards over the last 20 years and on three other Christian institution boards. If at anytime my presence on those boards would have been a net negative, it was just a matter of assumption for me that I would step off out of respect, deference and a desire to prevent harm to the institution where I was asked to be a net positive. In fact, I did offer to step off of two boards when I made a ministry transition, but it was declined. It would be arrogant for me to project my own view of board service on to others, but it just seems like a common sense issue that anyone who brings unnecessary controversy to an institution because of their voluntary, unpaid, infrequent involvement — such as a board seat — that they should step aside for the good of the institution (not to mention to simply lower their own profile in the midst of controversy). This is regularly demonstrated in politics, civic associations, etc…. I would also think that this is a matter of avoiding offence and even preferring others — even if one thinks that they are innocent or in the right.

Edit: I typed this earlier this morning and didn’t get the time to hit “submit” and did so later in the afternoon without reloading the page and looking at new responses. I did not realize that others had posted similar questions in the interim. I apologize for making it look perhaps like I was piling on.

I think that’s kind of what Aaron wanted us to avoid.

Still I do understand your point that Pastor Phelps acted consistently based on his knowledge and perspectives at the time. What’s in question isn’t whether he did his best, but whether or not he made wise choices, and that’s NOT something any of us here have enough time or knowledge to evaluate. But, I do think it is legitimate to question whether BJU should or should have gone through that process before his return to the board.

In some sense, as an alumna of BJU, this all hits a nerve that it hadn’t previously. Before, I was a spectator from a distance, saddened by the obvious pain and controversy of the situation; but I really didn’t have anything I could (or should) contribute. Now, with BJU taking such a public and vocal stand on the issues and basically lending their credibility to Pastor Phelps, I feel forced to come to some conclusion just for my own mind’s sake.

[handerson] I think that’s kind of what Aaron wanted us to avoid.

Really? I wasn’t accusing or defending, I was just answering the questions “why” that were asked. Sorry if I went astray.

As to whether he did his best, lots of people have said he didn’t — and I don’t know whether he did or not. I was just answering the questions Pastor Roof had asked, and to which Pastor Harding had referred.

Does anyone know when Dr. Phelps was placed back on the Cooperating Board? From what I understand, he had been on the board, but stepped down when he became president of Maranatha, only to be reinstated some time after he left the college and became pastor of Colonial Hills. Perhaps fellow board member Mike Harding could shed some light?

Jay,

I don’t think you and I disagree at all. He should not have brought the young lady before the church and should have maintained her privacy if at all possible (pregnancy inevitably becomes public by its very nature to state the obvious). Pastor Phelps greatly regrets having brought a minor before the church. Unfortunately for all, however, he did. Once he made that decision he was obligated to tell the congregation that the adultery of the perpetrator (standing before them) involved the violation of a minor who is now pregnant and already standing before the congregation. The church discipline side of this was seriously mishandled for a variety of reasons, some of which you have listed as possibilities.

Bryan,

All board appointments are conducted privately by means of the executive council/committee and then announced at the subsequent board meeting to the Board of Trustees and the Cooperative board (of which I am a member). Board appointments and/or reversals have always been to my knowledge the sole perogative of the executive committee. No votes are taken either in the appointment or removal. Frankly, I do not remember when Pastor Phelps was reappointed to the Cooperative board. On account of my son’s graduation, I missed the most recent meeting in May, 2011. The last board meeting I attended was December 2010, and I have no recollection whether Chuck was there or not. My educated guess is that once Chuck had resigned MBBC and subsequently became the senior Pastor at Colonial, he was reappointed to the Cooperative board at that time. As I said before Chuck has always been a very loyal graduate of BJU and a strong supporter of BJU. When Chuck became the President of MBBC he had to resign the board at BJU as a matter of policy. Once Chuck ceased to be the president of another college, I am reasonably sure that BJU would want to restore their relationship which formerly existed. Exactly when that happened I cannot say for certain.

I didn’t mean to correct you — I think I’m just gun-shy of all the details swirling around the internet. No offense intended.

[handerson] No offense intended.

None taken. :) I’m gun-shy, too — as per my repeated disclaimer.

Pastor Harding, leaving the particulars of this case aside, what age is too young for a public statement of confession and repentance? If the father had been another 15-year-old, the pregnancy would still mean the sin can’t be private. If the fact of the sin having happened is going to be public, why should the repentance not also be public? I’m not sure why 15 (16 at the time of the church meeting) is too young to address things publicly. I don’t think age is the main issue here.

There needs to be more Scriptural support for making only ‘visible’ sins a matter of public repentance. IOW, if an action results in an obvious consequence, like pregnancy, then public repentance is often deemed a requirement. But what about those engaging in sexual conduct that does not result in a visible consequence? Where in Scripture is this particular differentiation made? IMO, it is just as important for church leadership to get church discipline right as it is for them to abide by sound doctrine in other areas.

As for giving church leadership the benefit of the doubt for not having experience in dealing with sexual sins and criminal behavior- Why should Pastor Phelps, a grown man with a seminary education and years in the ministry, get to call in his “I’m just a man and I make mistakes” chips when Tina, a young girl who had already been victimized, was not given the benefit of the doubt? And there were doubts aplenty, and they remain to this day. That says something to me…. like “If IFB leadership wants leniency for their lapses in judgement and poor choices because of the unique challenges of ministry, then they are going to have to become known for granting leniency to others who are inexperienced, misguided, wounded, immature, or confused.”

I agree with those that believe that at the very least this is poor timing.