The Position of Bob Jones University Regarding the Membership of Dr. Chuck Phelps on Its Cooperating Board of Trustees
- 154 views
The statement has been modified and reposted.
[Steve Davis][Aaron Blumer] If he believes God wants him to serve in this way, this is ministry just as much as anything else he might aim to do.
I don’t mean to be picky but this statement caught my attention. I don’t know what a cooperating board member does. But it doesn’t seem to involve much ministry. I hesitated to respond because as a BJ grad I would not be considered “loyal” and would never be considered for a board position (not yet anyway except but now that they don’t want to be called Fundamentalists who knows :D ). “Loyalty” covers a multitude of shortcomings. Being a board member seems more a reward than anything although people are chosen who have had significant ministry influence or influential positions. I’m not demeaning members of the board but it hardly seems like “ministry just as much as anything else…”
Steve
Steve, I get that you want to reduce the ministry significance of being on a board, as does Dan. But I’m pretty sure that in other contexts, you would read Romans 12:1 and preach that all of the believer’s life is to be “spiritual service of worship.”
Personally, I would not serve on a board unless I felt the Lord wanted me to do it and I would be doing it in service to him (Col.3:23). My original point on that was that a person in that situation has to consider “to what degree do I allow critics to determine what I do in service of the Lord?”
This question is important whether it concerns serving on a board or serving as an accountant, carpenter, plumber, or helicopter pilot.
It should be obvious that the question takes on proportionately more importance when the position involves leadership. But even if one is determined to view the BJU board cynically, it still fits solidly under Colossians 3:23’s “whatever you do… as to the Lord and not to men.”
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.
[Dan Frank] Please someone note the NEW and previously NOT DISCUSSED fact from this news release. BJU’s attempt to ascertain the facts of this case still have not involved contacting Tina Anderson herself. If any of you were the victim of rape as a minor, how would you feel about the University promoting a leader that you claim persecuted you after only listening to HIS side of the story and IGNORING you in the whole process? The only reason they would do that is that they still don’t think Tina is credible. Their actions communicate once again that this victim shouldn’t have a voice in any of the discussion. They really must despise her. It makes me sick and sad.
First, “They must really despise her” is attacking motives and is not appropriate in this forum. Consider yourself warned.
Second, where does the statement say they did not contact Tina? In any case, her testimony is available in court transcripts as well as news articles, TV interviews, etc. If we assume that Tina said what she meant in these sources, it’s hard to see what the point of contacting her would be.
Your efforts to spin this are transparently desperate. The statement clearly affirms that the board believes Tina’s claim that she was raped.
We are grieved by the sin committed against this lady who was a young teenager at the time. And we are grieved that she will live with the horrible effects of this sin against her throughout her lifetime. Sin is real and so is its damage that only God’s grace can heal and restore.
And later…
In conclusion, we cannot overlook the human side in all of this.
A teenage girl was raped—this is a tragedy.
A rapist is in jail—this is justice.
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.
[ADThompson] The statement has been modified and reposted.
I tried to re-read and compare the two versions, but I only have access to the Google cached version from 11/23, and it looks the same. Does anyone have a copy of the old statement? I would be curious to see what was changed.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay C.]
I tried to re-read and compare the two versions, but I only have access to the Google cached version from 11/23, and it looks the same. Does anyone have a copy of the old statement? I would be curious to see what was changed.
I didn’t copy either version, but at the time I posted my comment yesterday a modified version was available that, among other things, DID NOT include Dr. Phelps’ website. I see that the version currently posted does include this information. The current version includes the following statement that I do not recall reading on the first version either:
Aaron Wrote:
Steve, I get that you want to reduce the ministry significance of being on a board, as does Dan.
Personally, I would not serve on a board unless I felt the Lord wanted me to do it and I would be doing it in service to him (Col.3:23). My original point on that was that a person in that situation has to consider “to what degree do I allow critics to determine what I do in service of the Lord?”
––––-
Aaron, you are misunderstanding me. A board is not always as significant as we think it is — particularly, a cooperating board. I’ve been in conversations with people in leadership where the topic of adding boards and putting people on various boards to appeal to various constituencies or to acknowledge significant people and use their reputations for credibility. It that is “ministry” by your definition, then perhaps you are correct. It’s not mine. If someone thinks that their individual presence on the board is what makes that board significant or is a “ministry” that could not or should not be performed by someone else (even if that person currently servicing diminishes the credibility of that board due to any number of reasons), then that is a level of arrogance that I find fairly disturbing. I’m not sure there is any more Biblical evidence to say that God “calls” us to a board than that fact that He calls us to be living sacrifices. I would also note that Scripture tells us that our good should not be the cause for evil speaking. Chuck may be thinking he is doing “good”, but it is more than apparent that this is giving rise to tons of evil speaking.
If “I felt the Lord wanted me to do it” becomes the baseline standard for what we do in any part of life, then all manner of mischief and bullheadedness will be the consequence. There are some on the internet who believe that “God” has called them on a “mission” of exposing BJU and it’s orb of influence and are trying to make a broad case that fundamentalism is rife with sexual crimes and cover-ups and that they are indeed doing “God’s work”? Are they to be believed as well because they “feel” the Lord wants them to do this? It is easy to ascribe doing what we want to do as being “God’s will” as some sort of trump card against which no one has the right to argue. I had that used on me more than once when my girlfriends would dump me in high school. I think it is about as reliable today. Scripture is a more clear guide and I see nothing there that would indicate that any board member should bring disrepute to an area of ministry (as in the Biblical definition of “blamelessness”) and excuse it by declaring it “God’s Will” for him. It’s both selfish and arrogant.
Steve, I get that you want to reduce the ministry significance of being on a board, as does Dan.
Personally, I would not serve on a board unless I felt the Lord wanted me to do it and I would be doing it in service to him (Col.3:23). My original point on that was that a person in that situation has to consider “to what degree do I allow critics to determine what I do in service of the Lord?”
––––-
Aaron, you are misunderstanding me. A board is not always as significant as we think it is — particularly, a cooperating board. I’ve been in conversations with people in leadership where the topic of adding boards and putting people on various boards to appeal to various constituencies or to acknowledge significant people and use their reputations for credibility. It that is “ministry” by your definition, then perhaps you are correct. It’s not mine. If someone thinks that their individual presence on the board is what makes that board significant or is a “ministry” that could not or should not be performed by someone else (even if that person currently servicing diminishes the credibility of that board due to any number of reasons), then that is a level of arrogance that I find fairly disturbing. I’m not sure there is any more Biblical evidence to say that God “calls” us to a board than that fact that He calls us to be living sacrifices. I would also note that Scripture tells us that our good should not be the cause for evil speaking. Chuck may be thinking he is doing “good”, but it is more than apparent that this is giving rise to tons of evil speaking.
If “I felt the Lord wanted me to do it” becomes the baseline standard for what we do in any part of life, then all manner of mischief and bullheadedness will be the consequence. There are some on the internet who believe that “God” has called them on a “mission” of exposing BJU and it’s orb of influence and are trying to make a broad case that fundamentalism is rife with sexual crimes and cover-ups and that they are indeed doing “God’s work”? Are they to be believed as well because they “feel” the Lord wants them to do this? It is easy to ascribe doing what we want to do as being “God’s will” as some sort of trump card against which no one has the right to argue. I had that used on me more than once when my girlfriends would dump me in high school. I think it is about as reliable today. Scripture is a more clear guide and I see nothing there that would indicate that any board member should bring disrepute to an area of ministry (as in the Biblical definition of “blamelessness”) and excuse it by declaring it “God’s Will” for him. It’s both selfish and arrogant.
Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com
That didn’t do everything perfectly statement was part of the original, which has been reposted in lieu of the modified statement.
The modified version, again, now replaced with the original, omitted at least the following:
The modified version, again, now replaced with the original, omitted at least the following:
While the University maintained regular contact with Dr. Phelps since the matter came to light, we have recently spent time on Dr. Phelps’ website—drchuckphelps.com—and reading what the bloggers are saying. 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.
Many of you know that I have been deeply concerned about how this matter was dealt with by Pastor Phelps. I have also elsewhere stated that the best thing we all can do from this is be fore-warned. Pastors and church leaders should be prepared with procedures that are well-thought out and detailed. These procedures must also obey Scriptural commands, honor the spirit of Scripture with regard to our protection of the weak and persecuted, as well as obey the relevant legal structures. Not having a well-thought-out policy with regard to these things predictably resulted in a tragedy for Tina and others.
The possibilities in this matter range from the inadvertent (“he carelessly sent the wrong message”) to the deliberate (“he worried more about the church’s well-being than Tina’s”). But we have no access to Pastor Phelps’ heart; we cannot know. In either case, we must be careful about castigating Pastor Phelps for errors of judgment in how this situation was handled. All of us in any Spiritual leadership role make errors in judgment. At times, we also fail to apologize for them in a timely fashion (as some say Pastor Phelps has failed). All of us in Spiritual leadership roles make errors that may cause people to turn away from the truth – errors that have eternal ramifications. In this way, we cannot say that Tina’s mis-treatment was any more serious a deviation than our own failures. All we can do is learn from this. No other purpose is served.
Some feel it is beating a dead horse to pursue issues of Pastor Phelps’ future. Others feel the horse can never sufficiently be beaten, until Pastor Phelps is drummed out of the ministry. But this is also not our business. Each church has to evaluate its own spiritual leadership according to their own perceptions of their qualification and I Timothy 3. And each para-church ministry, composed of believers, has to do the same. Members/supporters of either church or para-church ministries may show their approval or disapproval in a variety of ways.
Bob Jones University has stated their own opinion – that Pastor Phelps made mistakes, but has attempted to deal with the matter appropriately after the fact. Those who feel that BJU has misinterpreted Pastor Phelp’s actions or attitudes can show their disproval in material ways (not enrolling, not sending gifts, etc.). Those who agree can continue to support them.
As for me, I treasure the time I had at BJU. I learned much. I did not always approve of their management. But I don’t even always approve of the management of my own church. Management is hard. Mistakes are made.
I know that BJU’s administration has always made their decisions with little regard for the message it will send. It’s part of the old “Do right till the stars fall” thing. They have done what they believe to be right in this matter.
I wish they had calculated that there would be a firestorm over this; that re-accepting Pastor Phelps to the board would be counted callous disregard for the entire area of molestation, no matter what disclaimers they made to the contrary. But that is not their nature.
I wish Pastor Phelps had calculated it also, and had said to them something like “Are you crazy? I’m poison. Don’t touch me for at least a decade.”
I wish Pastor Phelps would make a clear statement that he recognizes he handled the situation wrongly, and explain his thinking at the time clearly. Such a statement would do much to warn us of pitfalls we must avoid. It might also remove the fangs from the most virulent attackers of Fundamentalism, who hold the movement as identical to some kind of labor union for child molesters (though perhaps I’m being over-optimistic in thinking that).
Lastly, I’m glad that our church doesn’t have “Fundamental” over the door. Too much baggage, friends. When someone calls and says “Are you a Fundamental church?”, I have to spend about 10 minutes answering that question. The best move we ever made was emphasizing the “Independent” and de-emphasizing everything else.
The possibilities in this matter range from the inadvertent (“he carelessly sent the wrong message”) to the deliberate (“he worried more about the church’s well-being than Tina’s”). But we have no access to Pastor Phelps’ heart; we cannot know. In either case, we must be careful about castigating Pastor Phelps for errors of judgment in how this situation was handled. All of us in any Spiritual leadership role make errors in judgment. At times, we also fail to apologize for them in a timely fashion (as some say Pastor Phelps has failed). All of us in Spiritual leadership roles make errors that may cause people to turn away from the truth – errors that have eternal ramifications. In this way, we cannot say that Tina’s mis-treatment was any more serious a deviation than our own failures. All we can do is learn from this. No other purpose is served.
Some feel it is beating a dead horse to pursue issues of Pastor Phelps’ future. Others feel the horse can never sufficiently be beaten, until Pastor Phelps is drummed out of the ministry. But this is also not our business. Each church has to evaluate its own spiritual leadership according to their own perceptions of their qualification and I Timothy 3. And each para-church ministry, composed of believers, has to do the same. Members/supporters of either church or para-church ministries may show their approval or disapproval in a variety of ways.
Bob Jones University has stated their own opinion – that Pastor Phelps made mistakes, but has attempted to deal with the matter appropriately after the fact. Those who feel that BJU has misinterpreted Pastor Phelp’s actions or attitudes can show their disproval in material ways (not enrolling, not sending gifts, etc.). Those who agree can continue to support them.
As for me, I treasure the time I had at BJU. I learned much. I did not always approve of their management. But I don’t even always approve of the management of my own church. Management is hard. Mistakes are made.
I know that BJU’s administration has always made their decisions with little regard for the message it will send. It’s part of the old “Do right till the stars fall” thing. They have done what they believe to be right in this matter.
I wish they had calculated that there would be a firestorm over this; that re-accepting Pastor Phelps to the board would be counted callous disregard for the entire area of molestation, no matter what disclaimers they made to the contrary. But that is not their nature.
I wish Pastor Phelps had calculated it also, and had said to them something like “Are you crazy? I’m poison. Don’t touch me for at least a decade.”
I wish Pastor Phelps would make a clear statement that he recognizes he handled the situation wrongly, and explain his thinking at the time clearly. Such a statement would do much to warn us of pitfalls we must avoid. It might also remove the fangs from the most virulent attackers of Fundamentalism, who hold the movement as identical to some kind of labor union for child molesters (though perhaps I’m being over-optimistic in thinking that).
Lastly, I’m glad that our church doesn’t have “Fundamental” over the door. Too much baggage, friends. When someone calls and says “Are you a Fundamental church?”, I have to spend about 10 minutes answering that question. The best move we ever made was emphasizing the “Independent” and de-emphasizing everything else.
I do not recall reading on the first version either:
Did Dr. Phelps do everything perfectly? No—nor would anyone make perfect judgments in similar circumstances.
I do recall reading that line when I read the statement for the first time… which, if I remember right, was pretty quickly after it first posted.
[Dan Burrell] A board is not always as significant as we think it is — particularly, a cooperating board. I’ve been in conversations with people in leadership where the topic of adding boards and putting people on various boards to appeal to various constituencies or to acknowledge significant people and use their reputations for credibility. It that is “ministry” by your definition, then perhaps you are correct. It’s not mine.
We do not know that’s the case with this particular board.
[Dan Burrell] If someone thinks that their individual presence on the board is what makes that board significant or is a “ministry” that could not or should not be performed by someone else (even if that person currently servicing diminishes the credibility of that board due to any number of reasons), then that is a level of arrogance that I find fairly disturbing.
Again, this is not the point I’m making… nor is it a fair criticism of Phelps, since we are not privy to his thought process.
My argument, again, is this:
- A believer should choose all activities in the conviction that they are worth doing for the glory of God and in service to Him. (1Cor.10:31, Col.3:23)
- Serving on a board is an activity.
- In many cases, serving on a board is a leadership role… which intensifies the previous points.
- If someone accepted a board role with the belief that God wanted him to do so, and then his involvement in that role gets complicated, he is right to ask “Is my continued involvement an impediment to this ministry?” He is also right to ask “Is my continued involvement to be determined by my critics?”
[Dan Burrell] Chuck may be thinking he is doing “good”, but it is more than apparent that this is giving rise to tons of evil speaking.
I don’t think that Scripture teaches that the evil speaking others do in response to us is our responsibility.
[Dan Burrell] If “I felt the Lord wanted me to do it” becomes the baseline standard for what we do in any part of life, then all manner of mischief and bullheadedness will be the consequence.
There is no escaping this in life. We do not have holy writ clearly prescribing every decision. One must weigh the factors and arrive at sense of what is best. Of course a “feeling” doesn’t stand alone. Nobody here is saying that.
My point, again, is that a Christian who has embarked on a task believing it was good and right to do so, should not automatically conclude that it’s time to quit because there are many critics (this is doubly clear when those you are involved with are supportive of your continuing!) If there are some valid points in the criticism, should he evaluate those? Absolutely. But it doesn’t work to say “This activity is controversial so I should stop.” It just isn’t that simple.
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.
[Aaron Blumer]Aaron, this is an incredible double standard. We don’t need to contact Tina personally but we do need to contact Chuck Phelps personally? And BJU did NOT contact Tina privately. Tina has stated this clearly.
Second, where does the statement say they did not contact Tina? In any case, her testimony is available in court transcripts as well as news articles, TV interviews, etc. If we assume that Tina said what she meant in these sources, it’s hard to see what the point of contacting her would be.
[Dan Frank][Aaron Blumer]
Second, where does the statement say they did not contact Tina? In any case, her testimony is available in court transcripts as well as news articles, TV interviews, etc. If we assume that Tina said what she meant in these sources, it’s hard to see what the point of contacting her would be.
Aaron, this is an incredible double standard. We don’t need to contact Tina personally but we do need to contact Chuck Phelps personally? And BJU did NOT contact Tina privately. Tina has stated this clearly.
I wouldn’t know what Tina has or hasn’t said about that. Taking it for granted that they have not contacted her, it’s hard to see what would be gained.
1) The statement clearly accepts the most important parts of Tina’s testimony: that she was raped.
2) The statement accepts that Phelps didn’t handle everything as well he should have.
As for the double standard part, Tina was not a candidate for the board, but he was. Of course they would have to talk to him.
You speak as though the issue were a “Chuck vs. Tina” issue. It is not. It’s a “Tina vs. Willers” issue. If we’ve got to pour endless vitriol on someone, let’s pour it on the rapist.
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.
[Aaron Blumer]The reason Penn State is not simply a victim vs. Sandusky issue is the exact same reason this one is not.
You speak as though the issue were a “Chuck vs. Tina” issue. It is not. It’s a “Tina vs. Willers” issue. If we’ve got to pour endless vitriol on someone, let’s pour it on the rapist.
[Dan Frank]No it is not - Sandusky was the “perp” .. in the employ of the university at the time of the alleged crimes .. TOTALLY different situation.[Aaron Blumer]The reason Penn State is not simply a victim vs. Sandusky issue is the exact same reason this one is not.
You speak as though the issue were a “Chuck vs. Tina” issue. It is not. It’s a “Tina vs. Willers” issue. If we’ve got to pour endless vitriol on someone, let’s pour it on the rapist.
I’m not going to defend Chuck Phelps - but it’s statements like yours that seem to want to enflame the emotions against Phelps - and it’s manipulation of this sort that make me question the motives of those who would hang Phelps from the highest tree. Simple statement of facts should allow for that IF he should be “hung” .. to somehow connect the Penn State fiasco to Bob Jones is ludicrous.
The reason Penn State is not simply a victim vs. Sandusky issue is the exact same reason this one is not.
Similarities and differences are worth noting.
Similarities:
Abuse occurred
Differences:
Where the offense happened (Sandusky case: Penn State…. Willers case: not BJU)
Chain of command involved (Sandusky case: Penn State personnel… Willers case: not BJU personnel)
What leadership did (Sandusky case: failure to notify police…. Willers case: police notified… also not by BJU since they were not involved)
It really is a stretch.
PLewis… I don’t think he’s trying to inflame emotions (though that tends to be the result). It’s just that to him a particular version of what happened and a particular view of what ought to be done about it are both obvious, and I imagine it’s pretty frustrating to find that others don’t see it the same way. (I know the feeling… just not in this particular case)
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.
[htassis] At the very least, acknowledge that anything Phelps has to say on this subject is carefully vetted by his attorneys to avoid civil liability.A telling point, especially when compared with some of the highlighted churches in http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-05-09-vienna-virginia-church… this article.
Discussion