Chuck Phelps back on Board at BJU
Forum category
This surprised me. Chuck Phelps’ name is listed as part of the board at BJU in the 2011 Seminary bulletin. It seems like fundamentalism is growing in its awareness of the problem of sexual abuse in its circles. Yet, Phelps has never articulated any repentance or regret for how he personally handled the situation between rapist and underage teenage rape victim in his church. I know that the standard “above reproach” is subjective at best. Yet, whatever that term means, Chuck Phelps could hardly be “above reproach” on this issue. Does this concern anyone else?
- 2 views
Always appreciate your comments Frank Dan
As an aside: What is your obsession with BJU?
As an aside: What is your obsession with BJU?
I happen to be concerned with BJU on the topic of abuse. Not an obsession, just the only thing I feel is worthy of me commenting on here. I think that’s quite reasonable. What is interesting to me is that people seem more interested in attacking my motives than dealing with the topic at hand. Chuck Phelps is back on the board at BJU. That is concerning to me.
As for me: I really don’t care who’s on the board of BJU.
I happen to be concerned with BJU on the topic of abuse. Not an obsession, just the only thing I feel is worthy of me commenting on here.Why take up space on Sharper Iron. I mean really it comes across to me as a BJU rant kind of thing.
Your wife (Louise Dan) already has a blog about abuse.
About Chuck P: I am neither defending him nor excusing him (and I have commented on this elsewhere on this site). But the fact of the matter is that he did not abuse anybody. He was not on trial. I mean … give the guy a break!
[Jim Peet]IAbout Chuck P: I am neither defending him nor excusing him (and I have commented on this elsewhere on this site). But the fact of the matter is that he did not abuse anybody. He was not on trial. I mean … give the guy a break!If you do not think Chuck Phelps “abused” a teen in his church then you are both defending and excusing his actions. It may not be the type of abuse that is criminal but it quite certainly was a moral crime.
[ejohansen][Jim Peet]I really don’t want to discuss C/P further. If you search through other threads on C/P I have commented on him. No energy left to continue on a new thread.IAbout Chuck P: I am neither defending him nor excusing him (and I have commented on this elsewhere on this site). But the fact of the matter is that he did not abuse anybody. He was not on trial. I mean … give the guy a break!If you do not think Chuck Phelps “abused” a teen in his church then you are both defending and excusing his actions. It may not be the type of abuse that is criminal but it quite certainly was a moral crime.
Still don’t care if he is on BJU’s board
[Jim Peet]Is this because you don’t care about BJU in general? If so, then maybe this thread should be reserved for those who do care about BJU. I have family there and know many people affected by its policies. How it chooses to interact with Chuck Phelps is relevant to me. BJU’s response to past abuse shapes its response to future abuse.
Still don’t care if he is on BJU’s board
[Dan Frank]We don’t reserve threads like that![Jim Peet]Is this because you don’t care about BJU in general? If so, then maybe this thread should be reserved for those who do care about BJU. I have family there and know many people affected by its policies. How it chooses to interact with Chuck Phelps is relevant to me. BJU’s response to past abuse shapes its response to future abuse.
Still don’t care if he is on BJU’s board
[Jim Peet] Why take up space on Sharper Iron…..I suppose it’s at least as worthy of SI space as:
http://sharperiron.org/filings/5-18-11/18975 — “Dr. Ergun Caner called as Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs at Arlington Baptist College”
Frankly, I didn’t care about Ergun Caner at LU…didn’t care about his going to Arlington….which is why I never made any comments on it ;)
Who said:
Now more to my own point
BJU to me is as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_Pluto] Pluto . Way out there and has nothing to do with my life. I am not ag’n ‘em. Just outside of my orbit.
Colleges’ choices of officials matterGood point and I agree with you. They do matter. BjU adding C/P to the board says something!
Now more to my own point
BJU to me is as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_Pluto] Pluto . Way out there and has nothing to do with my life. I am not ag’n ‘em. Just outside of my orbit.
Phelps has never articulated any repentance or regret for how he personally handled the situation between rapist and underage teenage rape victim in his church.I don’t know what he has or hasn’t said about this case. IMO there are aspects of the church’s handling of the situation, based on various statements and reports, that I do find objectionable and troubling. But I have no knowledge of conversations he has had with those involved or with the leadership at BJU, or whether or not his actions should disqualify him from serving on the board of a college.
Like Jim, I have no connections to BJU, nor do I recommend BJU to those who are thinking about college, so to some extent I don’t care what they do. On the other hand, because some folks actually believe that BJU is the center of the Fundyverse, it is disconcerting when their actions reflect on everyone else.
Thanks, Susan.
Chuck Phelps has said a great deal on his own blog defending himself.
http://www.drchuckphelps.com/index.html
He maintains that Tina Anderson was in a consensual dating relationship at the time. He has not said anything expressing regret over how he in particular handled everything. There is only defense on his blog. No repentance.
Chuck Phelps has said a great deal on his own blog defending himself.
http://www.drchuckphelps.com/index.html
He maintains that Tina Anderson was in a consensual dating relationship at the time. He has not said anything expressing regret over how he in particular handled everything. There is only defense on his blog. No repentance.
It concerned me so much that my family and I recently left Colonial Hills Baptist Church over this very issue. It is obvious that those at BJU and the majority of IFBdom believe that Phelps is above reproach and did not lie or mislead anyone concerning the Tina Anderson issue. Sad.
Matthew
Matthew
I have been tied up with family stuff and trying to catch up, and have been avoiding SI for awhile. So I’m trying to stay out of this one. Though I am passionate on this issue.
It is impossible for us to know what they are thinking in doing this. So I have someone making discrete inquiries with BJU higher-ups about their rationale for this. If I get a report that is meaningful and not confidential, I will post it.
It is impossible for us to know what they are thinking in doing this. So I have someone making discrete inquiries with BJU higher-ups about their rationale for this. If I get a report that is meaningful and not confidential, I will post it.
Thanks, Mike!
I’m also curious if anybody has secured the actual court transcripts from the NH trial. It might help clarify things in the broader discussion.
If I remember correctly, Laurie Moody was trying to secure the transcripts. She has commented here before. She was at Trinity during the situation in the 90’s and also was at the trial. I think she has offered to transcribe them, but I’ll work on confirming that.
[Dan Frank] If I remember correctly, Laurie Moody was trying to secure the transcripts. She has commented here before. She was at Trinity during the situation in the 90’s and also was at the trial. I think she has offered to transcribe them, but I’ll work on confirming that.Thanks.
Mike, I did some checking. Laurie Moody isn’t on Sharper Iron anymore that I can see, so I don’t know when the transcripts will be available.
The pertinent part to me was that according to multiple resources (several news sources and several individuals in court that day), Pastor Phelps testified in court that Ernie told him more than once that Ernie was the “aggressor” in the sexual encounters, yet Pastor Phelps maintains on his website that Tina was in a “consensual dating” relationship with this man who was 38 when she was 15. Also, according to multiple witnesses and Tina’s testimony in court, Tina was made to confess before her church of her part in getting herself pregnant.
Despite all that, I could envision a situation in which a pastor could have made those very bad decisions back then. What I can not support and feel I must stand up against is him STILL today defending himself as above reproach on the issue. He hasn’t repented, and he hasn’t told Tina Anderson that he was sorry or wrong for how he handled things. At least the pastor who came after him, Brian Fuller, has tried to correct some things in the church. He was fairly humble on 20/20. But BJU didn’t put Brian Fuller on its board. They put unrepentant Chuck Phelps. That’s very troubling.
And for the larger SI readership who just doesn’t care about this, I don’t understand that. I imagine at least half the members of SI are from a BJU background. And if you look at the other fundamentalist colleges, the majority of them are heavily influenced by BJU grads. Do most here really think BJU is irrelevant to the larger fundamentalist movement reflected here? If so, that would be an interesting topic for a new thread.
The pertinent part to me was that according to multiple resources (several news sources and several individuals in court that day), Pastor Phelps testified in court that Ernie told him more than once that Ernie was the “aggressor” in the sexual encounters, yet Pastor Phelps maintains on his website that Tina was in a “consensual dating” relationship with this man who was 38 when she was 15. Also, according to multiple witnesses and Tina’s testimony in court, Tina was made to confess before her church of her part in getting herself pregnant.
Despite all that, I could envision a situation in which a pastor could have made those very bad decisions back then. What I can not support and feel I must stand up against is him STILL today defending himself as above reproach on the issue. He hasn’t repented, and he hasn’t told Tina Anderson that he was sorry or wrong for how he handled things. At least the pastor who came after him, Brian Fuller, has tried to correct some things in the church. He was fairly humble on 20/20. But BJU didn’t put Brian Fuller on its board. They put unrepentant Chuck Phelps. That’s very troubling.
And for the larger SI readership who just doesn’t care about this, I don’t understand that. I imagine at least half the members of SI are from a BJU background. And if you look at the other fundamentalist colleges, the majority of them are heavily influenced by BJU grads. Do most here really think BJU is irrelevant to the larger fundamentalist movement reflected here? If so, that would be an interesting topic for a new thread.
Mike and Dan,
You should be able to reach Laurie through the SI message system. I believe she is still a member of the group.
Matthew
You should be able to reach Laurie through the SI message system. I believe she is still a member of the group.
Matthew
I should have the transcripts soon. I’m not sure how long it takes for them to be sent once they are ordered and paid for. They were not available until a few weeks after Ernie Willis was sentenced. I had to pay for each DVD and ended up needing to wait until the end of October to pay for them. Once I have them I will upload them but have also promised to send the DVDs to Pastor Roger Carlson. He will be able to verify that I haven’t deleted or changed any of the contents.
Please excuse any typos. I can’t see the whole form on my phone.
Laurie Moody
Please excuse any typos. I can’t see the whole form on my phone.
Laurie Moody
Thanks Laurie for making those available. I think they will be very instructive. When you say DVD, is this a video of the trial or just text images on the DVD?
I’m not sure, Leah. I just know that the clerk told me I had to pay for each DVD and there was more than one would hold.
For those who do care about this issue, here’s a petition to sign that may be helpful.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/chuckphelps/
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/chuckphelps/
I have been very busy, so I have not been around much. But as a grad, I am very sad about this. I will read the transcript carefully when they come in. But there are many other issues here that make me angry, but I will have to make more comments later.
Roger Carlson, PastorBerean Baptist Church
[LJ Moody] I should have the transcripts soon. I’m not sure how long it takes for them to be sent once they are ordered and paid for…Doesn’t sound like they’re coming very soon. See the last paragraph of http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/290992/church-rape-appeal-goes-to…] this story .
A friend of ours who used to transcribe this stuff characterized the time-frames to us as “months”.
Mike, I’m curious if your sources indicate that Pastor Phelps thinks the portrayal of his testimony in the media is incorrect? Is there something that you would like to confirm from the transcripts? Here’s the link to the live wire during the trial from WMUR, channel 9.
http://livewire.wmur.com/Event/Trial_Of_Ernest_Willis_Continues?Page=0#…
http://livewire.wmur.com/Event/Trial_Of_Ernest_Willis_Continues?Page=0#…
[Dan Frank] Mike, I’m curious if your sources indicate that Pastor Phelps thinks the portrayal of his testimony in the media is incorrect? Is there something that you would like to confirm from the transcripts? Here’s the link to the live wire during the trial from WMUR, channel 9.Well, Dan. I didn’t get an answer yet. I hope to have one after the weekend. But remember, I am only trying to find out what BJU Admin was thinking. That may open a window into what Pastor Phelps has told them, but that will not necessarily open up a window into what he thinks about the matter entirely. I suppose his website is the best source for his own thinking — though I wish it answered a few more questions. I wish somebody would do an interview with him about it, but I’m sure he’s rejecting those opportunities. And that may be wise until the legal matter is entirely settled.
http://livewire.wmur.com/Event/Trial_Of_Ernest_Willis_Continues?Page=0#…
For me, this has been a “cautionary tale”. The primary challenge of the story is that all of we pastors should get our ducks in a row on how we deal with this stuff, and try to keep them there.
”I am absolutely devastated by the developments in this case. I grieve for the children and their families, and I pray for their comfort and relief.” Joe Paterno
”With great sorrow, I regret this, because the press and the newspapers have called me anything but an honorable man! That is the case here! The case is that they have blamed me. They have spun me as a rapist just because I asked a lying girl some questions! I regret that.” - Charles Phelps (from the livewire transcripts cited above)
There is remarkable similarity in these two cases, yet a very different response between these two respected leaders. This highlights the concern I’ve had all along. Not that good men can’t make bad calls on these things, but that Dr. Phelps has never repented and instead remains defensive, continuing to paint the victim as a primary cause in his problems.
”With great sorrow, I regret this, because the press and the newspapers have called me anything but an honorable man! That is the case here! The case is that they have blamed me. They have spun me as a rapist just because I asked a lying girl some questions! I regret that.” - Charles Phelps (from the livewire transcripts cited above)
There is remarkable similarity in these two cases, yet a very different response between these two respected leaders. This highlights the concern I’ve had all along. Not that good men can’t make bad calls on these things, but that Dr. Phelps has never repented and instead remains defensive, continuing to paint the victim as a primary cause in his problems.
Dan,
Although your posts above have indicated that you’d obviously like to consider yourself an authority on the details of this case (all of your details gathered via 3rd-party sources notwithstanding), your comparison indicates a devastating level of ignorance. I’ll not comment any further, but your analogy is apples to chainsaws and should be noted as such.
Although your posts above have indicated that you’d obviously like to consider yourself an authority on the details of this case (all of your details gathered via 3rd-party sources notwithstanding), your comparison indicates a devastating level of ignorance. I’ll not comment any further, but your analogy is apples to chainsaws and should be noted as such.
Chad,
That’s a mighty strong hammer you dropped there. For the benefit of those of us not privy to your internal thought processes, could you expand on why you feel the comparison is invalid?
That’s a mighty strong hammer you dropped there. For the benefit of those of us not privy to your internal thought processes, could you expand on why you feel the comparison is invalid?
[Chad] Dan,Chad, I respect your love for Dr. Phelps. Is the quote I made above from the trial incorrect? Did the reporter transcribing for WMUR quote it wrong?
Although your posts above have indicated that you’d obviously like to consider yourself an authority on the details of this case (all of your details gathered via 3rd-party sources notwithstanding), your comparison indicates a devastating level of ignorance. I’ll not comment any further, but your analogy is apples to chainsaws and should be noted as such.
Here are the apple to apple similarities — Joe Paterno and Dr. Phelps (if we give each the benefit of the doubt and assume both are telling the truth) met the minimum legal requirements for reporting. Even if the statute of limitations hadn’t passed, it is doubtful either would be prosecuted for not reporting. But under both of their watch, a rapist who COULD be prosecuted remained under a position of their influence/authority without warning to the larger public.
Here’s the apple to chainsaw possibilities. There is question to whether Joe Paterno knew the extent of what had happened in that locker room. There isn’t question to whether Dr. Phelps knew of the rape, since his testimony was the primary reason that the accused was convicted of rape. The other apple to chainsaw issue is that Joe Paterno seems sincerely remorseful for allowing Sanduskey to stick around and has expressed his sorrow to victims. Dr. Phelps does not and has not expressed remorse to the victim.
I’m guessing the name should be a hint.
I agree with Chad in that these two cases are definitely like comparing apples to chainsaws. JoePa didn’t blame the victims for contributing to their being raped. Also, JoePa was removed from his office by the board and Pastor Phelps continues on as if nothing ever happened. I was thinking these situations were more similar but I was mistaken now that I look at it with the apples vs chainsaws angle.
Matthew Richards
Matthew Richards
I’m just really curious as to you who keep repeating these the same accusations over and over and over believe you are accomplishing?
The thread will not likely remain open much longer. I can see some value in letting folks know where and how to get ahold of the transcripts. I see less value in the petition thing, but if you interpret events a certain way it makes a kind of sense…. I guess.
But what purpose can possibly be served by continually taking cheap shots at Chuck Phelps (or even really thoughtful shots of essentially the same nature as you’ve already made dozens of times)?
I really mean this as a rhetorical question I guess. There is no value in it.
The thread will not likely remain open much longer. I can see some value in letting folks know where and how to get ahold of the transcripts. I see less value in the petition thing, but if you interpret events a certain way it makes a kind of sense…. I guess.
But what purpose can possibly be served by continually taking cheap shots at Chuck Phelps (or even really thoughtful shots of essentially the same nature as you’ve already made dozens of times)?
I really mean this as a rhetorical question I guess. There is no value in it.
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.
- Chuck Phelps reported it to the police. I believe the facts are clear about this
- Joe Paterno did not report it to the police
[Jim Peet]Apparently, the law at the time in Pennsylvania was you had to report it to your supervisor, which Paterno did. The law in New Hampshire at the time was that pastors were mandatory reporters to the police. In terms of letter of the law in each state, it looks like both fulfilled the minimum standard.
- Chuck Phelps reported it to the police. I believe the facts are clear about this
- Joe Paterno did not report it to the police
Not trying to defend Paterno here; I think he was terribly wrong in the way he handled the situation. However, he was not considered a mandatory reporter because he had no personal contact with the victim or first hand knowledge of the event. If he had been the one who walked into the scene in the locker room, then he would have been required to report the incident to the authorities himself.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Someone not named Phelps sent this to me.
Phelps — investigated to find out what was going on in his area of responsibility.
Paterno — no, just kicked it upstairs.
Phelps — confronted the perpetrator immediately.
Paterno — no. Apparently never.
Phelps — at least contacted the police once.
Paterno — no.
Phelps — at least made a contact with children’s services, if I remember correctly.
Paterno — no.
Phelps — claims he made sure the perpetrator was supervised, something that has never been refuted.
Paterno — no.
Phelps — took action to try to turn the life course of the perpetrator by bringing his situation (imperfectly or not) before the church. Apparently successfully, as far as I know there have been no allegations of Wills repeating his wrong.
Paterno — nothing, sadly.
Phelps — took action that ensured the victim was out of reach of the perpetrator.
Paterno — no.
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.
Ultimately this really is apples to chainsaws because of the standard that the Scriptures hold for pastors vs Division 1A football coaches. There are certainly some similarities in regards to certain aspects, but in the end the pastor of a NT church is held to a much higher standard than an unbelieving coach.
Matthew
Matthew
Ultimately this really is apples to chainsaws because of the standard that the Scriptures hold for pastors vs Division 1A football coaches. There are certainly some similarities in regards to certain aspects, but in the end the pastor of a NT church is held to a much higher standard than an unbelieving coach.Right. Which is another reason that a theologically-driven mindset would think that it may be prudent to conduct thorough research, including basing arguments on first-party information and considering the fact that there are many facets to any story like this, before leveling the cheap potshots that are being taken by people whose knowledge of the situation is limited to what they’ve read online.
Kind of new to this discussion, but am curious since people are obviously stirred to the very depths of their souls on this matter concerning both Phelps (who I do not know beyond recognizing him by face) and BJU (which I know fairly well).
My question: since the matter of Phelp’s blamelessness is in question, affecting his qualifications as a pastor, board member, etc., and that blamelessness must be directly related to his disregard of clear Scripture truth, what are the specific,clear Scripture truth’s, commands, applications, etc., that Phelps deliberately disregarded, ignored, or flat out rejected that have disqualified him as pastor/board member, or whatever?
I think most of us have been in the position of looking backward at how we have handled situations, and second guessing. That is not my purpose in this question. This is a situation that most pastors/Christian leaders will never face, and those who face it will likely see it only once in the life of their ministry, so there is not likely to be a lot of experience to fall back on. However, before I am willing to cast one of Phelp’s reputation and accomplishments into outer darkness as unworthy of filling the position, I want to know where he recognized the biblically right thing to do and disregarded it, or where he has exhibited such complete incompetence about a clear truth/application of Scripture that evidences his lack of qualifications for that position.
My question: since the matter of Phelp’s blamelessness is in question, affecting his qualifications as a pastor, board member, etc., and that blamelessness must be directly related to his disregard of clear Scripture truth, what are the specific,clear Scripture truth’s, commands, applications, etc., that Phelps deliberately disregarded, ignored, or flat out rejected that have disqualified him as pastor/board member, or whatever?
I think most of us have been in the position of looking backward at how we have handled situations, and second guessing. That is not my purpose in this question. This is a situation that most pastors/Christian leaders will never face, and those who face it will likely see it only once in the life of their ministry, so there is not likely to be a lot of experience to fall back on. However, before I am willing to cast one of Phelp’s reputation and accomplishments into outer darkness as unworthy of filling the position, I want to know where he recognized the biblically right thing to do and disregarded it, or where he has exhibited such complete incompetence about a clear truth/application of Scripture that evidences his lack of qualifications for that position.
Lee
[Chad]Chad, this is a convenient straw man. In your world, only the people who have spoken directly to Dr. Phelps can have an opinion on this. Actually, I have conducted thorough research. And I take 1st party accounts very seriously. I’ve read your dad’s first party accounts from his website. If he doesn’t expect people to draw from that as 1st party information, he needs to take it down. I’ve read Tina Anderson’s police affidavit. Again, that qualifies as 1st party information. I’ve also read 1st party accounts from those who were physically present during the church discipline session and those physically present during the trial. These accounts are all remarkably consistent with the FACTS. I don’t know exactly what you mean by “facets” to this story. But the facts are clear.Ultimately this really is apples to chainsaws because of the standard that the Scriptures hold for pastors vs Division 1A football coaches. There are certainly some similarities in regards to certain aspects, but in the end the pastor of a NT church is held to a much higher standard than an unbelieving coach.Right. Which is another reason that a theologically-driven mindset would think that it may be prudent to conduct thorough research, including basing arguments on first-party information and considering the fact that there are many facets to any story like this, before leveling the cheap potshots that are being taken by people whose knowledge of the situation is limited to what they’ve read online.
[Lee]Lee, here’s one.
My question: since the matter of Phelp’s blamelessness is in question, affecting his qualifications as a pastor, board member, etc., and that blamelessness must be directly related to his disregard of clear Scripture truth, what are the specific,clear Scripture truth’s, commands, applications, etc., that Phelps deliberately disregarded, ignored, or flat out rejected that have disqualified him as pastor/board member, or whatever?
Isaiah 1:17 learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.I won’t cite all the places that command seeking justice for the oppressed or pleading the cause of the fatherless, but it’s widespread in Scripture.
As for the qualifications of a pastor/elder, I Tim. 3 says this.
2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
It’s an interesting and important question. ( http://sharperiron.org/comment/37736#comment-37736] Post 42 ) I think there is little value in people in internet discussions trying to judge the case of Pastor Phelps in particular. Deciding that matter is really up to the local church… and I would hope that internet discussion are not part of their evaluation process.
But in general, how does accusation relate to blamelessness in cases like these (or unlike these, for that matter)?
In the first century—and probably more so in the couple of centuries after—Christians were accused of terrible things routinely. We were responsible for bringing plague and death to the city of Rome. Christians leaders were accused of all sorts of things.
With the Jewish hostility toward the church evident in Acts, it seems likely that even prior to Roman persecution, Christians and their leaders were routinely accused of pretty nasty things.
So it’s unlikely that 1Tim.3.2 and Titus 1.7 mean to say “free of any kind of accusation of wrongdoing” where ἀνεπίλημπτος (anepilemptos- 1 Tim.) or ἀνέγκλητος (anegkletos- Titus) appear. (Interestingly, in the case of anegkletos, deacons are held to the same standard in 1 Tim.3.10).
So one of the questions involved in evaluating pastors by this standard is whether the accusations are actually true and to what extent, if any.
I don’t have time to research the question fully at the moment, but this bit from Thomas Oden seems relevant. He doesn’t seem to have an evil agenda to cover up the gross misconduct of “IFB” pastors, etc., etc.
I don’t know much about Oden, but I think he’s right that the question of “measuring up” is complex. This is why it’s best judged by those closest to the people involved: by local churches.
I hasten to add, that this is also true of university boards: they are in a position to “test” (1Tim.3.10) in person and make their decision. Those of us not in their position should not assume we know better than they do (though that’s not impossible, it’s a bit arrogant).
But in general, how does accusation relate to blamelessness in cases like these (or unlike these, for that matter)?
In the first century—and probably more so in the couple of centuries after—Christians were accused of terrible things routinely. We were responsible for bringing plague and death to the city of Rome. Christians leaders were accused of all sorts of things.
With the Jewish hostility toward the church evident in Acts, it seems likely that even prior to Roman persecution, Christians and their leaders were routinely accused of pretty nasty things.
So it’s unlikely that 1Tim.3.2 and Titus 1.7 mean to say “free of any kind of accusation of wrongdoing” where ἀνεπίλημπτος (anepilemptos- 1 Tim.) or ἀνέγκλητος (anegkletos- Titus) appear. (Interestingly, in the case of anegkletos, deacons are held to the same standard in 1 Tim.3.10).
So one of the questions involved in evaluating pastors by this standard is whether the accusations are actually true and to what extent, if any.
I don’t have time to research the question fully at the moment, but this bit from Thomas Oden seems relevant. He doesn’t seem to have an evil agenda to cover up the gross misconduct of “IFB” pastors, etc., etc.
Oden, T. C. (1987). Becoming a Minister (185–186). New York: CrossroadBe not satisfied, when you have done a good work, unless you have also done it well: and when you have, then be careful that vainglory, partiality, self-conceit, or any other folly or indiscretion, snatch it not out of your hand, and cheat you of the reward. (Jeremy Taylor, RAC, Ch. II, sec. 23; CS, p. 10)
Taylor’s point is subtle. Even when the pastor does a good deed, it may be subject to being distorted by a meanly inclined will, which then takes away whatever good the deed itself might have accomplished. Yet this need not imply that the pastor is morally spotless:No one is free from sin, excepting Him that became flesh for us. For it is written “No man is pure from filthiness; no, not though he be but one day old” (Job 16:4 LXX). It is for this purpose that the lives and conduct of the ancient holy men and patriarchs were described; not that we may reproach them from our reading, but that we ourselves may repent, and have hope that we also shall obtain forgiveness. For their blemishes are to us both security and admonition, because thenceforth we learn that when we have offended if we repent we shall have pardon. For it is written: “Who can boast that he has a clean heart? and who dare affirm that he is pure from sin?” (Prov. 20:9). No one therefore is without sin. But you must therefore labor to the utmost of your power to be blameless. (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Bk. II, sec. III.xviii, ANF VII, p. 403)*
When ideal visions of the pastoral role-model are presented, they may seem impossible to actualize. But these ideal pictures are treated realistically and humanely by the greatest of the pastoral writers. It is not as if these ideal paradigms were subject to complete, simple, immediate, or absolute fulfillment, but that they remain significant ideals even if not often or absolutely realized.
I don’t know much about Oden, but I think he’s right that the question of “measuring up” is complex. This is why it’s best judged by those closest to the people involved: by local churches.
I hasten to add, that this is also true of university boards: they are in a position to “test” (1Tim.3.10) in person and make their decision. Those of us not in their position should not assume we know better than they do (though that’s not impossible, it’s a bit arrogant).
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.
Also want to point out to Dan Frank that facts must be interpreted… and people are famous for having difficulty seeing where the facts end and their interpretations begin.
On “he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil” in 1 Tim.3.10, the same observations I mentioned in post 45 would apply.
The passage cannot mean “nobody at all accuses him of anything at all.” So we’re talking about a scale. At one end you have men who are clearly disqualified because they have been convicted beyond reasonable doubt of crimes. At the other end you have men who have never been accused of any failure of any kind (I think this group consists of zero: even Jesus was accused of being a glutton and a winebibber). In between, there are all kinds of scenarios.
Best to leave these judgments to those who have been called to make them—who have both power and responsibility to make them and effect consequences.
None of us here have that responsibility or authority.
On “he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil” in 1 Tim.3.10, the same observations I mentioned in post 45 would apply.
The passage cannot mean “nobody at all accuses him of anything at all.” So we’re talking about a scale. At one end you have men who are clearly disqualified because they have been convicted beyond reasonable doubt of crimes. At the other end you have men who have never been accused of any failure of any kind (I think this group consists of zero: even Jesus was accused of being a glutton and a winebibber). In between, there are all kinds of scenarios.
Best to leave these judgments to those who have been called to make them—who have both power and responsibility to make them and effect consequences.
None of us here have that responsibility or authority.
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]…Thanks. Further clarification if it is not asking too much…Isaiah 1:17 learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.I won’t cite all the places that command seeking justice for the oppressed or pleading the cause of the fatherless, but it’s widespread in Scripture.
…
What Biblically specific action did Phelps disregard that would absolutely indicate he is one that does not “do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause…?”
From what little I know he didn’t handle some of the details of the situation the way I think I would have handled it, but not handling specific details my way doesn’t necessarily show disregard for a Biblical absolute.
Lee
[Lee]He didn’t pursue justice for a minor who was literally fatherless after she was raped by a church goer. It’s pretty straightforward, unless this Scripture has no meaning.
What Biblically specific action did Phelps disregard that would absolutely indicate he is one that does not “do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause…?”
From what little I know he didn’t handle some of the details of the situation the way I think I would have handled it, but not handling specific details my way doesn’t necessarily show disregard for a Biblical absolute.
“He didn’t pursue justice…”
There are several statements on his website that would indicate other—several contacts with police and child services over several days; legal counsel with assurances that right steps had been taken, etc. You know these to be false?
If they are not false, what precisely would pursuing justice have to look like to fulfill the Biblical mandate?
There are several statements on his website that would indicate other—several contacts with police and child services over several days; legal counsel with assurances that right steps had been taken, etc. You know these to be false?
If they are not false, what precisely would pursuing justice have to look like to fulfill the Biblical mandate?
Lee
Pursuing justice means you pursue (seek to attain or accomplish) justice (the administering of deserved punishment or reward). Chuck Phelps by his own testimony met the bare minimum of the obligations of the law, which came nowhere close to accomplishing justice for Tina Anderson, which was jail for Ernie Willis. You could at best, giving much benefit of the doubt, say he pursued justice for a few days. But there is no indication from anything on his website that he attempted to get Willis apprehended by law enforcement. Whatever he did, he gave up on it incredibly fast. Justice was finally accomplished for Tina Anderson 15 years later solely because a 3rd party contacted police after rumors were posted on a facebook survivors group. Chuck Phelps had nothing to do with justice being accomplished for this particular fatherless girl. 3 people KNEW Ernie Willis had raped Tina. Tina, who was an underaged victim groomed for abuse. Ernie, the perpetrator. And Chuck Phelps. I guess we don’t really expect the perpetrator to pursue justice. And I understand that underage victims rarely have the courage/knowledge to do so. But a seasoned adult pastor knew better and had a Scriptural obligation to much more than he did. Really, there is no way to say that Pastor Phelps obeyed the command to pursue justice for the fatherless.
Discussion