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

[Mike Durning]

[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.

That article is so encouraging. How wonderful to see a church making the hard, right choices despite counsel from lawyers and insurers.

[Mike Durning]

[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.

Mike, that is an amazing article—thank you for sharing it. I think among people that believe God’s work cannot go on without them or their churches, these types of reactions are few and far between. Refreshing to see this course of action.

Matthew

I think if some of you ever find yourself being sued, you’ll think differently about lawyers.
It should be obvious that “using lawyer in order to be legally cautious” does not equal “making false or misleading statements.”

The case could be made that, when being legally threatened, it’s folly not to use a lawyer.

On the other hand, of course nobody believes the lawyers are infallible or always have Christian ethics. Solution A: reject all lawyers. Sane solution: get a good lawyer when you need one.

Edit: We’ve unpublished several posts that were straying too far into repeating old accusations of Phelps. Some folks continue to think that they will become more true if they repeat them with more vehemence. But whatever actual reasoning is involved one way or the other has already been heard many times.

[Aaron Blumer] I think if some of you ever find yourself being sued, you’ll think differently about lawyers.
It should be obvious that “using lawyer in order to be legally cautious” does not equal “making false or misleading statements.”

However, to be clear here, there is no lawsuit and never has been one by Tina Anderson against Chuck Phelps or Trinity. There was never a credible threat of legal action against Phelps because the statute of limitations has long since past.

But I really do hope, that even if I am sued, I don’t think so differently about lawyers that I won’t confess sin and ask forgiveness of those I’ve wronged.

[Aaron Blumer] I think if some of you ever find yourself being sued, you’ll think differently about lawyers.
It should be obvious that “using lawyer in order to be legally cautious” does not equal “making false or misleading statements.”

The case could be made that, when being legally threatened, it’s folly not to use a lawyer.

On the other hand, of course nobody believes the lawyers are infallible or always have Christian ethics. Solution A: reject all lawyers. Sane solution: get a good lawyer when you need one.

Edit: We’ve unpublished several posts that were straying too far into repeating old accusations of Phelps. Some folks continue to think that they will become more true if they repeat them with more vehemence. But whatever actual reasoning is involved one way or the other has already been heard many times.

I haven’t seen anyone bashing lawyers here—not sure where your assumption that people will think differently about lawyers is coming from. I suppose that some of those comments were in deleted posts and I just missed them. Point is that there is a difference in “retaining a lawyer for counsel” and “using a lawyer as a sort of shield from Scriptural confession and repentance”. The article link posted by Mike was proof that not everyone views the counsel of attorneys in the same light—that is very refreshing.

Matthew

Those of you who are pastors or are in leadership of ministries:

How much of your perspective of the situation (and BJ’s handling of it) is informed by your own experiences of having had to deal with terrifically complicated situations in a church setting? Is there perhaps an innate sympathy and leniency for Pastor Phelps that others don’t have simply because you can commiserate with him about the prospect of having to deal with tragic things in your own church’s life?

I guess I’m wondering how much a clergy vs. laity divide is at play in the greater debate and if the charges of “circling the wagons” has more to do with how our experiences affect how we interpret information.

I’ve had to deal with a couple of issues with ladies/immorality in our church, and I do see that we don’t tell everyone (members) things unless it is ongoing and nonrepentant.

The one thing that really strikes me as very odd as far as leadership decision making is the way T gave up her baby for adoption. If it wasn’t really her choice, kind of forced upon her, I think that’s really, really overstepping personal bounds of decision making and responsibility. Her mom was probably involved in this, too, but I think, as a person in leadership, I would’ve left it more to the family how the pregnancy played out, just offered some kind of support, options, counseling, etc.

Leaving Willis in his church roles, and with people unaware of his real actions, also gives me the shivers as a mom/church member. We’ve had one person in our church secretly plan murder (bought arms, etc.) and another secretly drink, and when we were told, my husband, as pastor, immediately removed all church activities from those homes, not to mention their leadership involvement. Esp. when minors are involved. Even if parents don’t know the details, we still need to protect their kids.

So … I really don’t think anyone can judge Phelp’s heart those many years ago, probably not even he himself, but some of it seems to be odd from decision-making standpoint.

A man who I shave And whose teeth I brush was in his first church. He found out that Mr. A (a prominent member of this small church) had had a sexual relationship with s teenage girl. This man went to Mr. A and escorted him to the police where he confessed to his crime and later went to trial and jail.

To Hannah’s question, I don’t think that clergy sympathy has that much to do with it my case. False-accusation sympathy definitely does. I’ve experienced a boatload of that, just not in newspapers.
So when I hear alot of “So and so did this because [insert harsh judgment of motives] ” there’s no question that it raises my hackles. That standard applies equally well to Tina as it does to Chuck. I’m in favor of assuming the best possible motives for what everybody did in the situation (excepting Willers—he’s been clear about what was motivating him) and in the versions of events they have recalled.
People make mistakes when remembering details of events from more than a decade ago. (I make mistakes when remembering details of events from three days ago.) And the more emotional we were at the time, the less accurately we remember the particulars. We remember best how we felt.

There’s just no need to be judging anybody’s motives in this beyond how they’ve described them themselves. It’s pointless in any case. We simply cannot know these things.
It’s a mystery to me why—when people describe what they were trying to do and meant to do—we cannot simply accept that as true.

Edit to add: Phelps made some bad choices in handling the case. Everybody knows and agrees on that, including Phelps. That horse is so, so dead. Can we stop beating it?

Edit again to add: just google “Pastor Chuck Phelps” and see what’s out there. After a page or two of that, it’s pretty hard not to feel bad for the guy.

Hey, Aaron, don’t want to beat this dead horse at all, but, ahem, you are consistently misspelling the guys name in this thread. It’s driving me a bit crazy. (Well, ok, a bit crazier.)

[handerson] How much of your perspective of the situation (and BJ’s handling of it) is informed by your own experiences of having had to deal with terrifically complicated situations in a church setting? Is there perhaps an innate sympathy and leniency for Pastor Phelps that others don’t have simply because you can commiserate with him about the prospect of having to deal with tragic things in your own church’s life?

Mrs. Anderson. I can only speak for myself. Dr.Phelps was in the same graduating class as my wife an I were. We have had opportunity to be in the congregation when he was the speaker. Personally, I don’t have any use for the man. BUT…

When I observed the kind of “piling on” we saw months ago when this all started, my immediate response was to stop and wait until we had all the information. It had nothing to do with innate leniency, but with sensing (all those months ago) the growing lynch mob mentality, based on the “reporting” of a self serving, ratings seeking, agenda driven reality series. (I will not dignify it even by describing it as a “news magazine”.)

The lawyers are doing their job … they are protecting their client and his church from making admissions that could damage their interests. No one is making any bad assumptions about lawyers. The point is that asking Dr. Phelps for his side of the story is not the Biblical approach that we would imagine it to be. After all, that is what you and others (including BJU) are implying when you say, we need to hear what Dr. Phelps has to say. What Dr. Phelps has to say at this point is vetted for purposes of civil liability.

[handerson] How much of your perspective of the situation (and BJ’s handling of it) is informed by your own experiences of having had to deal with terrifically complicated situations in a church setting? Is there perhaps an innate sympathy and leniency for Pastor Phelps that others don’t have simply because you can commiserate with him about the prospect of having to deal with tragic things in your own church’s life?

Sort of. At the risk of being accused of “flogging my own blog”, this http://mindrenewers.com/2011/11/11/111111-would-you-like-to-buy-a-poppy/ post explains a lot of my perspective on it. I don’t think the principles I’ve given there are limited at all to pastors. There is almost always a lot more to the story that isn’t known. Any reasonable person would say that something that happened more than a decade ago has a lot to it that isn’t known any longer. Unless you really understand both sides of the story (probably almost no one does in this case), perhaps harsh judgments are out of place.

I’m always nervous about Internet justice, anyway. It’s hard for me to see how the world will be made better by my going on the web and proclaiming that someone is either evil or just. I wrote this here on SI a few months ago about CJ Mahaney:

For many of us, we may never really need to judge the matter. There are enough doctrinal and practical differences that I’m unlikely to ever have any substantive ministry links with them, anyway. So why is it my place to pass judgment, positively or negatively, on this individual’s sin and how it is dealt with? I’m not CJ’s Master. It would be different if I had some link with his ministry, or were considering such a link. Then, this would matter. But that’s not the case, and it’s not my business to judge. They are handling it, and I hope and pray they handle it well.

That would be my main reason for refusing to join the Phelps Phrenzy. It’s not circling the wagons — I certainly am no supporter of either Phelps or Mahaney. It’s simply not my job to set myself up as their judge, unless I were considering some kind of ministry link. BJU has looked into it. I hope and pray they have done so well.

But I do think that pastors are perhaps more likely to put themselves in Chuck Phelps’ position and say, “Wow, that might have been a lot harder than people think.”

None of what I’m about to write is an endorsement of Phelps’ actions. But just suppose….

Suppose he is telling the truth and Tina did write a statement that she wanted read to the church. Suppose he refused. He could have been accused of treating her like a little child, ignoring her spiritual need for restoration, etc. Would it have still been the right decision to refuse to read the statement? I think so, but the point is he could have been criticised either way. It’s a no-win.

Suppose he told the church that Ernie Willis was the father of Tina’s baby. People would be out to destroy him because he violated her privacy and revealed she was the victim of a sex crime. Instead, he’s attacked for not revealing that information. No way to win.

Suppose he (against Tina’s request) pursued matters until there was a prosecution. Tina could have criticised him for dragging her through the legal system, and destroying a man’s life and family when she didn’t want it. “He was more concerned with justice than mercy. Why couldn’t he notify them if he had to, but then just leave it (and me) alone?” Should he have followed up more? Yes — but none of the parties wanted him to at the time. He might have had more criticism if he had done so. Can’t win.

Suppose he refused to let the rapist attend church any more. “He is unforgiving, and won’t obey Galatians 6:1. He won’t even let that man come to church after he confessed!” Instead, he is criticised and people suggest he even let Ernie have “church roles”. Phelps loses either way — someone is going to criticise.

Sometimes, you just can’t win, you are going to be criticised no matter what. Perhaps my limited experience as a pastor does make it easier for me to see that aspect of it. I’ve been in situations where I couldn’t win. I’ve been in situations where I could only “win” by breaking confidentiality, but to do that would not be a “win”, either, even if the person whose confidentiality I broke never knew about it.

I hope, if I faced the same situation, I would do as Ron Bean described. But I still hesitate to criticise another pastor who was trying to deal with the spiritual needs of two families. After the fact evaluations are always easier than making the best decisions when you are in the crucible.

edit: This is not intended to persuade anyone of anything. It is an answer to Mrs. Anderson explaining my perspective, in answer to her question. I’m unlikely to respond to follow up posts about it, especially the “supposes”. They are just illustrative of the dilemmas pastors may face in difficult situations.

In case some might be inclined to miss it: JG’s sequence of “supposes” is not a claim that this is what happened. He is illustrating that things can be more complicated than they seem in the eyes of third parties more than 10 years removed… many of whom have never faced the challenges of leadership.
I think the point is well taken about CJ Mahaney, too.
That is, SI should be able to develop ways of handling what I’ll loosely call “leadership scandals” that are fair toward those outside fundamentalism as well as those inside (it’s increasingly hard to tell where the boundaries are, anyway). We still wrestle quite a bit with how to go about that.
“Consistency” is much in the eye of the beholder anyway, but elusive even to those who want very much to achieve it.

I find it interesting how many times posters have to go back and clarify what they meant because they were misunderstood. Either because they didn’t say something the “right” way or their true feelings were mistinterpreted. Once clarified, all seems to be forgiven or at least accepted.

However, Chuck Phelps has not been afforded that same courtesy. What he said and did in 1997 is all that matters…not that he was perhaps misunderstood 15 years later when memories fade and when people are influenced by media exposure. I think Chuck has worked to explain his position, to clarify if you will, and that much of what he said and did was taken in a way he did not envision.