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

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.”
Well said, Susan. Very well said indeed!

"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

[JG]
[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.

I still have never understood why a pregnancy necessitates a public confession before the whole church.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

[Greg Long] I still have never understood why a pregnancy necessitates a public confession before the whole church.

I was asking (generally, not specific to this case) whether public confession is precluded for a 16 year old, not whether it is required. Perhaps my wording wasn’t clear enough.

In general, if a sin is going to be known by everyone, it is good if everyone knows about the repentance, too, when it is present. Some benefits I see:
1. It helps prevent on-going gossip. If everyone knows, there is no speculation. “Is she pregnant? Did you hear?” etc, etc. That kind of stuff is horrible.
2. It gets the awkwardness and embarrassment all over at once. There isn’t the repeated, “Oh, you’re PREGNANT?!” from people as they discover it. It’s done and dusted. She doesn’t have to keep telling people.
3. It earns love and respect by being honest.
4. It lets people feel confident about how they can appropriately reach out to the person. If the sin is known but the repentance isn’t, there’s always the question of, “How accepting am I supposed to be? Should I be comforting this person or trying to confront her?” etc. One big advantage of public confession is it sweeps all that away and lets people get on with “restoring in the spirit of meekness.”

But cases vary. Sometimes it isn’t a good idea. Sometimes it might be better to read out a statement when the person isn’t present. I don’t know of any Scriptures that specifically mandate which sins or which circumstances require public confession. The principle of public confession is Biblical (James 5:16, Acts 19:18, implied in Galatians 6:1), but the extent is unspecified. It is perhaps a question of what is the wisest course, and that would suggest the answers are not the same every time, and makes it hard to judge from the outside.

To those who are saying Phelps should step down for the good of the University. I want to encourage you to look at the other side of it.
Historically, BJU has been very resistant to anything it sees as being bullied. I can’t really fault them for that. I’m pretty determined myself not to let what I see as false/unfair accusers stop me if I can help it.

So the question that would certainly be on my mind if I had been on the board and involved in that conversation is this: at what point do we want to establish a precedent of allowing unfair (and some false) accusations to control what we do as a school?
An organization like that has to stand on its own convictions and if it believes Phelps has done nothing deserving exclusion from the board, the principled thing to do is stand on that conviction and tell the critics to move along. The statement makes it clear that this is how they see the situation.

As for Chuck himself, he has to ask himself a similar question: at what point should I begin allowing my critics to determine what I may or may not do to serve the Lord? 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.
If it were me, I would not let my critics shut me down if I could help it.

We all have times in our lives where we are fully persuaded that a course of action is the right thing to do and we have to do it if even it means standing alone.

So, in short, yes, “Should I stay on the board if it hurts the school?” is a good question. So is “Should I leave the board if it means abandoning a ministry God called me to?”

The thread will probably not stay open a lot longer. Things are tending to move back in the direction of what did Phelps do and when did he do it and what did he know and when and so on. These are not evil questions but they’ve been thoroughly talked about already and as far as I can tell, nobody is budging on how they see the answers. The matter has been so polarizing that there is almost nobody in the middle… and those at each pole are not going to win over anybody at the opposite pole.
So we all have better things to do, probably, don’t we?

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.

is that Ms. Anderson spoke publicly to her fellow believers but didn’t stay in that same fellowship of believers to receive their help and support after acknowledging her pregnancy. It would have felt less like a “confession” and more like an appeal for help if the congregation itself had had the opportunity to extend love and grace through the next several months. Church discipline (or whatever you want to call it in this case) works precisely because of this: proximity and established relationship. And when that is removed, it’s hard to understand why she was standing in front of them in the first place.

I think ultimately that’s what Susan’s getting at—this is a huge fumble of handling/understanding church discipline and THAT reflects poorly on Pastor Phelps because it falls directly under the scope of his responsibility. To my mind, it’s not whether he acted legally or ethically, but whether or not he acted pastorally, and that is a significant question that BJ needs to answer in order to be able to evaluate how it affects their relationship to him as a board member and speaker.

And truthfully I don’t think it’s a zero sum game. If Pastor Phelps publicly acknowledges his specific mistakes and seeks reconciliation with the parties involved, I don’t see why he couldn’t return to a position of honor and leadership in BJ circles. There’s this beautiful thing called grace and sometimes it’s a better testimony than never having messed up in the first place.

This situation brings some unavoidable principles to light. The choices we make reveal our character. Per Scripture, our character is fair game any time we desire a position of spiritual authority. 1 Timothy 5:19 was not meant to be used as bubble wrap.

Edited to add: I just saw your post, Hannah. Very well said.

My last comment was written before I read Aaron’s—didn’t mean to prolong a discussion of details. But I do think what is significant is that BJ is essentially taking a side by publicly saying that they’ve evaluated the criticisms and find them generally unfounded. That is what has sparked the return to discussing details — we are all now trying to evaluate not Pastor Phelps per se, but BJU’s discernment.

But like Aaron said, I’ve got things to do—casserole, turkey, et al. Happy Thanksgiving to you all!

[Aaron Blumer] To those who are saying Phelps should step down for the good of the University. I want to encourage you to look at the other side of it.
Historically, BJU has been very resistant to anything it sees as being bullied. I can’t really fault them for that. I’m pretty determined myself not to let what I see as false/unfair accusers stop me if I can help it.
Aaron….Form the hinterlands, I think it would be more accurately stated, “Historically, BJU has been very resistant to anything it sees as being ‘challenged’.” Hating to beat dead horses, but my goodness, the issues on which they have taken “stands” that are extra-Biblical or on occasion, not part of the mission of a typical educational institution (and which, I might add, frequently interfere with the autonomy of a local church) are myriad. We can start with their insitutional racism and go from there. Were all these an issue of people trying to “bully” them — or “were they attempts on the part of BJU to ‘bully’ others” as some have suggested and which might be a legitimate question. I guess, “bullying” is in the eye of the beholder, to some extent.

I don’t believe that everyone who is questionning the propriety of returning a board member with this much baggage attached to him at this particular time in his ministry is trying to “bully” BJ. I do believe, that it has been a knee-jerk reaction on the part of the administration there, that once they are challenged, they circle the wagons, protect their “own” and then eventually try to use Scripture, philosophy, etc… to justify their recalcitrance to actually consider that maybe somebody, who doesn’t hold a BJ diploma or live in the Promised Land might actually have a point. Why is it that there appears to be a constant circle of controversy swirling about Wade Hampton Blvd. based on a public statement for/against a certain individual or group, an attack on someone’s position that has not been fully vetted (not to open the whole MacArthur/Blood controversy yet again), that involves politics (McCain, Bush, Romney, et. al.), the endorsement of a book written by an imprisoned child abuser by the Chancellor, etc.., etc…

Truly, the response to Stephen’s public letter of contrition regarding their racial stances was received with gasps of “Thank You!” when it finally came. Would anyone anywhere claim that such a letter actually hurt them? It’s OK to say, “You know, on second thought, we were wrong, or this wasn’t wise, or we shouldn’t have said that.” In fact, imo, that strengthens their credibility, not weakens it. I’m not suggesting that they apologize for wrongs never committed or not to take stands on issues that are doctrinal. But seriously, one phone conversation — initiated by either party and ending in a “not at this time should I/you serve” on the part of the University or Phelps would put this to bed, quell the latest storm and would allow them to refocus on their mission. Who really needs this controversy? Is it good for Colonial Hills? The University? The Phelps Family? Trinity Baptist? The BJU brand? The whole of fundamentalism?

“Should [Phelps] leave a board if it means abandoning a ministry God called me to?” C’mon — everyone who has served on a board anywhere knows that leaving the board is the equivalent of withdrawing one’s finger from a glass of water. Board members aren’t really significant players unless they are writing big checks or have a huge constitutency. They don’t live with the decisions and their impacts — they just visit them.

The rules have changed in this age of social media, the internet and people who aren’t afraid to speak their minds to authority. I’m not saying that the “rule changes” are all good. But the same ol’ same ol’, in terms of responses, isn’t going to work.

We all need to be careful to learn the difference between “taking a stand” and simply being bull-headed. Some things we should die for, some thing things we should fight about, some things we should debate and some things we should just shrug out shoulders over and walk away. Knowing when to do what is very important.

Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com

I didn’t say everyone who challenges is bullying.
My point was that there has been a tidal wave of ranting against Phelps and of demands that one thing or another be “done about him.”
I can’t blame either him or BJU for seeing that as an angry mob that ought to be resisted.

But my point was that, agree or disagree with their answers, there are two questions here:
1. Is it in the best interest of the school to have him on the board?
2. Is it in the best interest of the school to let a mob of critics tell them how to do things?

It’s sad that a valid point or two gets lost in all the raving, but that’s the nature of things. And the statement shows that they have noted some of those criticisms. (Everybody, including Phelps himself, agreed a long time ago that it wasn’t the best course of action to bring Tina before the church. People seem to keep forgetting that. I’m pretty sure I recall reading statements from him as well to the effect that he wished he’d been more aggressive in getting the police fully involved.)

It makes no difference whether or not I agree with BJU’s position on the matter. But they are right to factor in the merits of resisting critics as well as the merits of listening to them.

One more thing: I would suggest that people who see their involvement on a board as being as trivial as having a finger dipped in a glass of water should certainly withdraw and look for leadership opportunities they actually care about. My assumption here is that both Phelps and BJU see the board role as an important ministry.

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] 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.
Aaron:

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

As I said, “Bullying” is probably in the eye of the beholder. Anyone who aspires to being a “bully” is simply mean, but few would admit to such an aspiration. But when we are on the receiving end of criticism, threats, challenges, etc…, it does feel like bullying and that’s when it is wise to step back and ask whether or not there is any legitimacy in the complaints and to consider if it’s just ridiculous to stand there and keep getting pummeled for something that isn’t all that consequential. But I’m willing to consider that “consequential” might also be in the eye of the beholder.

I did not mean to imply that being on a board is “trivial” — what I did mean to communicate was that, for all of our belief at times that we might somehow be indispensable to an institution, boards do not collapse and institutions do not fail because of the presence of any one single member. I certainly don’t view my part on the boards where I’ve served as “trivial” — at the same time, I don’t see them as essential. I didn’t word this very articulately, I realize.

Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com

If he would have chosen to focus on the church he is called to pastor none of this conversation would be happening. Schools, associations and mission boards may be honorable organizations to lead and support but the church is the only one he is “Called” to lead. It is beyond me why he chooses to put himself out there?

[Aaron Blumer] As for Chuck himself, he has to ask himself [SNIP] at what point should I begin allowing my critics to determine what I may or may not do to serve the Lord? 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 can only answer this from my own personal experience and practice: When it becomes all about *ME*, and it draws attention away from the ministry in which I am participating, I get out of the way. Of course I have never had this situation come up when I was serving as a Sr. Pastor. This has always been when I was serving in a support role to the senior pastor. But if my presence, my actions, my testimony is drawing attention away from the ministry, then I am interfering with that ministry, and I step out. I am not saying that this is what Dr. Phelps should do. This what the Lord has led me to do.
[Aaron Blumer] So the question that would certainly be on my mind if I had been on the board and involved in that conversation is this: at what point do we want to establish a precedent of allowing unfair (and some false) accusations to control what we do as a school?
An organization like that has to stand on its own convictions and if it believes Phelps has done nothing deserving exclusion from the board, the principled thing to do is stand on that conviction and tell the critics to move along.
Keep in mind, the mainstream media has an agenda here. They are not going to be satisfied until Dr. Phelps is defrocked, removed from any position of influence, and lives in a cardboard box on the corner of State and Madison. They are not going to be satisfied until BJU either descends into religious/social liberalism, or closes its doors altogether. Until then they will continue to take shots at both, valid or not, to try to beat them down. We will continue to hear inaccurate or half-true stories meant to cast them in the most negative light, and designed to inflame.

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Ephesians 6:12) We need to remember that this is, at its core, an attempt by one spiritual force to destroy another - Godly - spiritual force. So, I temper my first comment with the second comment.

In the end, no matter what they do, about half of the people will be upset, and half will be supportive.

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.