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

Occurs to me that there is a fair and reasonable way to talk about the idea that Phelps should apologize to Tina.

It’s fair to suggest that it might be good to apologize to her personally for what he has already acknowledged he would do differently if he could have a do-over. It’s a bit off to expect a man to apologize for motives he did not have or for saying things he believes he did not say, etc. If you apologize for what you don’t believe you really did, that’s ultimately worse than not apologizing. And pretty insulting to the one you’re apologizing to as well.

But if he recognizes in hindsight that taking her before the church was not the right thing to do, he could apologize for that. And if he wishes he had been more aggressive in getting the police to act, he could apologize for that.

I think it’s evident that the more passionate critics (which appears to me most of them) would not be satisfied with that. They believe in a particular interpretation of the ambiguities of the case and would not be happy with anything less than seeing him confess to their version of things (if even then).

Still, if I were to presume to give him advice, it would be to offer an apology for what he wishes he’d done differently—not to please the critics but because it would be a truly good thing to do. Hard to see any down side in it.

I was reading a short story to my kids the other day, written from the perspective of a child in the 1950’s. Times were different then, and the kids kept asking questions about the kinds of things that were taken for granted- kids carrying knives and guns, for instance.

We are viewing this situation with 20/20 hindsight, when what the average pastor and churchgoer knew 10 years ago about child sexual molestation probably wouldn’t fill a thimble. I don’t think ignorance is an excuse, but ignorance explains why one could be misguided but not malicious.

Ditto Aaron on the apology idea.

[Susan R] We are viewing this situation with 20/20 hindsight, when what the average pastor and churchgoer knew 10 years ago about child sexual molestation probably wouldn’t fill a thimble. I don’t think ignorance is an excuse, but ignorance explains why one could be misguided but not malicious.

While that may be true for a good number of pastors, especially those of us who serve small churches in small towns (and granted, that may be the average pastor), such “ignorance” cannot be excused for larger suburban or metropolitan churches (or those operating in the state capitol!), especially if they were operating a Christian school. 1997 wasn’t the “dark ages” when it comes to child sexual abuse. In fact, I took a class in my doctoral program in the mid-90s that dealt with this very issue, and one of the texts was When Child Abuse Comes to Church, by BJU graduate Bill Anderson. The copyright date is 1992. Here are some key quotes:

Unfortunately some ministry leaders opt for ‘solutions’ that are at best not helpful and at worst dangerous, unethical, or illegal. There is an integrity crisis of tremendous proportions in the Christian world, and, sad to say, some pastors are worst examples.
Many in the ministry have been subverted into believing that a flawless image must be maintained at all costs (21-22).

…a pastor who knowingly lets a church remain at risk commits a serious breach of pastoral responsibility (23).

Pastors with limited experience or expertise should not rely on their own kind instincts when dealing with sex offenders….Perhaps the most helpful attitude a pastor can adopt is to admit that he doesn’t know it all (24).

Since 1974 each of the fifty states has enacted ‘reporting laws’ concerning suspected child abuse….(31)

You do not need proof of abuse, only the suspicion of it, to be required to report (33).

Professionals should be called upon to investigate the facts. If the case results in a criminal trial, it is extremely important that the prosecution not be jeopardized by a well-intentioned but bungled investigation. Pastors and parents of victims should resist the inclination to conduct an investigation on their own…. Another reason to use professionals has to do with the emotionalism that surrounds child sexual abuse. Since the matter is so repugnant, it is difficult for those with some personal interest in the case to evaluate the evidence objectively(35).

It is also in the best interest of the perpetrator and his family to find pastoral support and spiritual counsel in another church setting. They need help, but a pastor cannot effectively counsel both the offender and the victims simultaneously (115).

When a man is sent to prison all sorts of difficulties arise. He may lose his job and standing in the community. He may be subjected to horrible treatment by other inmates….His wife and children may find themselves in desperate financial need. His wife may divorce him. Anyone with any compassion at all would dread to see those things happen. Shouldn’t a caring pastor try to shield a man from the full effects of the law if possible? The answer is no (133-34).

The whole focus of church discipline ought to be upon restoration of a believer who has fallen into sin…. Therefore, the first responsibility of the church is to confront the offender concerning the sin and call for repentance. Due to the grip of denial and minimization that are so common in offenders, genuine repentance may not be immediately forthcoming. Give ample time for the offender to confess the sin and forsake it, but realize that it may not happen until after a conviction or therapy. Months may pass before there is true repentance….
Genuine repentance will be characterized by several things. First, there will be a full confession of what the sin involved. Second, there will be an admission of full responsibility for the wrongdoing…. Third, there will be a sense of sorrow over the damage done to the victim and a willingness to ask for forgiveness (140-41)

I share all of the above simply to illustrate that excellent advice for pastors regarding this situation was readily available nearly 20 years ago.

Availability of information does not mean that all pastors are well informed. There is still the problem of church leadership looking at problems through a telescope, not really believing that they will ever have to deal with these issues, or, like a child who thinks there’s a monster in the closet, they close their eyes as if the problem will disappear if they pretend it doesn’t exist.

Which lends the question of how these men end up in church leadership positions…

Anyway, I’ve experienced again and again, working with my dh as SS Admin, the refusal of church leadership to quickly and effectively enact even basic child protection policies because they think it breeds an air of paranoia and suspicion in their church.

Which lends the question of how these men end up in church leadership positions…

Anyway, my point is that while ignorance is not excusable, it is not the same as malice.

Aaron…

I know threads like these that hash-and-rehash and are a bit touchy and rife with emotion and strong feelings and are probably the bain of your leadership of SI, but I for one appreciate them. The push back — on both sides — has been very educational for me. It has lead to internal discussions of how we might respond to such issues in our ministry setting. It has impacted my thinking, my tone and my natural inclination to take a firm position on such matters. I’ve literally pondered both sides of this debate multiple times as I ask myself what I might have done or would I do in the future should I find myself in this positoin. I’ve been on both sides of “gossip” and public speculation both as an individual and as part of a board/organization and it isn’t fun having one’s laundry laid out for the world’s pontification pleasure. But, what Satan means for evil, God can use for good and even as I’ve read the give and take and sparring this morning as I got caught up on this thread, I’ve been challenged. Thanks for letting people do their noisy thinking on threads like this. It really does provide more than some sort of intellectual mud-wrestling match and it really isn’t merely cruel debate. It changes perspectives and stimulates thinking and that can be a good thing.

Dan

I want to publicly thank Mike, Jay, and Aaron for providing some healthy perspective and balance. Also, I think the warnings given by Bryan are sobering. No pastor can read them without a sense of immense responsibility when these matters occur. Unfortunately, I am absolutely certain that a much broader agenda is going on behind the scenes where very godly individuals who have sacrificed their entire lives to serve God with a perfect heart will be publicly villified in the future. As Jay pointed out with his “no win” scenarios, dealing with these matters is analagous to wrestling with skunks, no matter what happens one is going come out of it smelling quite badly. Sin, particularly of this kind, is awful, ugly, repulsive, damaging, and eternally destructive. We are all sinners capable of horrendous behavior. By God’s grace some are regenerated sinners. As regenerated sinners I pray that we all will think, write, and evaluate with humility (Gal 6:1) and discernment (Matt 7:1-6).

[Aaron Blumer] Occurs to me that there is a fair and reasonable way to talk about the idea that Phelps should apologize to Tina.

It’s fair to suggest that it might be good to apologize to her personally for what he has already acknowledged he would do differently if he could have a do-over. It’s a bit off to expect a man to apologize for motives he did not have or for saying things he believes he did not say, etc. If you apologize for what you don’t believe you really did, that’s ultimately worse than not apologizing. And pretty insulting to the one you’re apologizing to as well.

But if he recognizes in hindsight that taking her before the church was not the right thing to do, he could apologize for that. And if he wishes he had been more aggressive in getting the police to act, he could apologize for that.

I think it’s evident that the more passionate critics (which appears to me most of them) would not be satisfied with that. They believe in a particular interpretation of the ambiguities of the case and would not be happy with anything less than seeing him confess to their version of things (if even then).

Still, if I were to presume to give him advice, it would be to offer an apology for what he wishes he’d done differently—not to please the critics but because it would be a truly good thing to do. Hard to see any down side in it.

I think I would be satisfied with such an apology. I was involved in the alumni push for the racial apology at BJU. Phelps should do something similar in my opinion. No it would not satisfy some of the ardent critics, but it would help. His website has interspersed regrets among a general defense of his actions. It just doesn’t sit well to simultaneously defend and apologize.

http://www.drchuckphelps.com/specific-answers-to-some-difficult-questio…

Dan, Mike and others…. thanks for the encouraging words. It is often hard to tell if anything good is coming from the back and forth. … and of course we never can tell what the folks are thinking who read but don’t post.

As for the apology idea, I put it out as a suggestion for a couple of reasons. For one, the whole “angry group making demands” dynamic in our culture has become so excessive and tiresome. Second, people just tend to think more about what we suggest than what we demand. Three, it’s often doubtful that we’ve got any right to demand what we feel like demanding.

I’m not saying it’s never right for folks to get together and, via petition or whatever, make themselves heard—and maybe demand that some wrong be righted. It just runs against my conservative temperament I guess.

has been removed…interesting…

[SamH] has been removed…interesting…

Maybe someone should start a petition protesting this outrageous removal! ;)

That was a joke. If somebody starts one now, I will feel really bad about it.

It seems appropriate to me to remove the page, now that Pastor Phelps has removed himself. It is, at best, irrelevant to keep it up. At worst, it would provoke further complaint.

Maybe someone should start a petition protesting this outrageous removal

I’m wearing red