Implications of ABWE's example on Trinity/Phelps/Olson?
Forum category
Aaron said I could bring up this topic in another thread, so here goes.
ABWE’s recent acknowledgment of mistakes, sincere apology to victims, and attempts to correct their practices seems a very different response than Trinity Baptist Church’s, Chuck Phelp’s, and Matt Olson’s to a very similar, though less pervasive, issue with a sexual predator.
There is always a debate between facts and speculation when discussion the Trinity situation. Here are the established facts—married man in church with some church position (not deacon, maybe usher) raped/impregnated a 14 year old church attendee. He and she were brought up for church discipline (established fact). She was sent out of state to Matt Olson’s church and under his counsel during her pregnancy. The rapist remained at Trinity for a number of years past this point (unestablished how long).
Chuck Phelps has acknowledged no wrongdoing, no mismanagement of leadership. Trinity has privately changed their church discipline statutes so that minors can no longer be church disciplined, but publicly has not apologized or acknowledged wrongdoing in either disciplining the victim or keeping the perpetrator in the congregation. Matt Olson has never said anything one way or the other publicly.
I wonder what the result would have been if Phelps or Trinity or Olson (or anyone in leadership anywhere?) had said simply, “This was wrong. We are sorry. We need to correct this.”
ABWE’s recent acknowledgment of mistakes, sincere apology to victims, and attempts to correct their practices seems a very different response than Trinity Baptist Church’s, Chuck Phelp’s, and Matt Olson’s to a very similar, though less pervasive, issue with a sexual predator.
There is always a debate between facts and speculation when discussion the Trinity situation. Here are the established facts—married man in church with some church position (not deacon, maybe usher) raped/impregnated a 14 year old church attendee. He and she were brought up for church discipline (established fact). She was sent out of state to Matt Olson’s church and under his counsel during her pregnancy. The rapist remained at Trinity for a number of years past this point (unestablished how long).
Chuck Phelps has acknowledged no wrongdoing, no mismanagement of leadership. Trinity has privately changed their church discipline statutes so that minors can no longer be church disciplined, but publicly has not apologized or acknowledged wrongdoing in either disciplining the victim or keeping the perpetrator in the congregation. Matt Olson has never said anything one way or the other publicly.
I wonder what the result would have been if Phelps or Trinity or Olson (or anyone in leadership anywhere?) had said simply, “This was wrong. We are sorry. We need to correct this.”
- 2 views
I think ABWE has provided a good example of acknowledgment and repentance. I think it is safe to say that similar situations handled differently would have turned out differently. Other than that, I don’t know what else could be said. Unless one is advocating for public censure of those who did not handle things properly in the past and have yet to make amends for their mistakes or misconduct.
On the public exposure aspect- I think it is acceptable to handle such matters privately between the individuals directly involved (that would include the local church body or the members of the organization and their supporters). There is seldom a need that I can perceive for any church or organization to make an incident public simply as a test of genuine repentance. While criminal cases do become public record, I think to require these cases receive national or international exposure would also require a compelling reason, such as where a perpetrator wielded national or international influence or a leadership position of some kind.
There is also the assumption of innocence to be dealt with- an accusation is not an indictment. We must trust the legal system to investigate criminal acts and prosecute them if there is evidentiary support. The church is not really in a position to do this, and cases should not be tried in the court of public opinion.
On the public exposure aspect- I think it is acceptable to handle such matters privately between the individuals directly involved (that would include the local church body or the members of the organization and their supporters). There is seldom a need that I can perceive for any church or organization to make an incident public simply as a test of genuine repentance. While criminal cases do become public record, I think to require these cases receive national or international exposure would also require a compelling reason, such as where a perpetrator wielded national or international influence or a leadership position of some kind.
There is also the assumption of innocence to be dealt with- an accusation is not an indictment. We must trust the legal system to investigate criminal acts and prosecute them if there is evidentiary support. The church is not really in a position to do this, and cases should not be tried in the court of public opinion.
I think to require these cases receive national or international exposure would also require a compelling reasonI’m confused by this statement. Do you think Louise (or anyone else for that matter) is saying this? I don’t really even understand what you mean by “requiring” these to receive national exposure.
Making a public statement of apology and/or acknowledging wrong-doing and/or “warning” the public about an offender are done on their own merit and for their own purposes… if doing so brings national/international attention, so be it. I don’t hear anyone thinking that national exposure is the reason for making public statements. The focus should be on the victims — both those abused and those who could be targeted in the future by the abuser. Making public statements is especially important when the abuse was originally minimized or covered up. When a victim’s story has been minimized/denied by authority figures, shedding LIGHT on the TRUTH and acknowledging the minimization/denial is part of the healing, part of the repentance (of the authority figures), and part of the plan to make sure that things will be handled differently in the future.
As a matter of fact, I would suggest that national/international media exposure is a result of the matters being incorrectly handled… for two reasons: there would be fewer victims if cover-ups didn’t happen AND most people in “the world” are appalled at the inept manner in which “the church” handles abuse (so it is news worthy).
I’ve always heard that the scope of repentance needs to include the scope of those affected by the sin. I don’t know that Phelps/Olson/Trinity HAVE to do it publicly. It should START privately. But then the extent of the awareness of the sins and the public nature of their ministries really call for a public statement similar to ABWE’s.
Rachel- just thinking out loud about the kinds of comments I’ve heard over the years on topics such as this. Some folks do believe that public repentance is essential in order to prove sincerity, even if others have no knowledge of an incident. I would agree that acknowledgment and repentance of wrong-doing should involve all those touched by it. The more well known the person, the more public the confession and restitution is going to need to be.
I hope that folks learn from how ABWE has handled the aftermath of this, but I sure do wish that there was more attention given to prevention. For instance, how were these victims groomed by their molesters? What kind of relationship did these kids have with their parents? How were the perpetrators able to isolate their victims? Did people see warning signs of abuse and ignore them?
Furthermore- what policies do OUR churches, schools, and organizations have in place to prevent young people from being isolated by an adult? Do these rules apply to women also? IOW, are women not to be alone with young people of either gender as well as the men? Are teachers trained to spot warnings signs of abuse? Are parents being equipped to counsel their children in this area?
Too many churches have no idea how to handle any of this, and they won’t have a plan in place until they are faced with a sexual predator or victim in their congregation. But by then the horse is out of the corral and halfway to Utah.
I hope that folks learn from how ABWE has handled the aftermath of this, but I sure do wish that there was more attention given to prevention. For instance, how were these victims groomed by their molesters? What kind of relationship did these kids have with their parents? How were the perpetrators able to isolate their victims? Did people see warning signs of abuse and ignore them?
Furthermore- what policies do OUR churches, schools, and organizations have in place to prevent young people from being isolated by an adult? Do these rules apply to women also? IOW, are women not to be alone with young people of either gender as well as the men? Are teachers trained to spot warnings signs of abuse? Are parents being equipped to counsel their children in this area?
Too many churches have no idea how to handle any of this, and they won’t have a plan in place until they are faced with a sexual predator or victim in their congregation. But by then the horse is out of the corral and halfway to Utah.
I think, going one step further than ABWE, was New Tribes’ Mission’s response to their problem a few years back. They submitted themselves to GRACE (www.netgrace.org) and listened to what they had to say. Some of what GRACE had to say was stunningly condemnatory, and had to do with attitudes and “atmospheres” in the offending field office as well as the culture at NTM at the time. And they are correct. There is something about the Fundamentalist mindset that allows child molesters to invade, subvert, and nest. Fundies then fail to detect them, and sometimes even fail to act appropriately upon detection.
Jeri Massi, who is WAY out of balance in her view of Fundamentalism, has written brilliantly on this. She is NOT out of balance on the scope of the problem.
Jeri Massi, who is WAY out of balance in her view of Fundamentalism, has written brilliantly on this. She is NOT out of balance on the scope of the problem.
RE:
They submitted themselves to GRACE (www.netgrace.org) and listened to what they had to say. Some of what GRACE had to say was stunningly condemnatory, and had to do with attitudes and “atmospheres” in the offending field office as well as the culture at NTM at the time.This would be a good way for AWBE to go (netgrace.org)
There is something about the Fundamentalist mindset that allows child molesters to invade, subvert, and nest. Fundies then fail to detect them, and sometimes even fail to act appropriately upon detection.Really, Mike? And what is it about the fundamentalist mindset that allows this?
And how do you explain the fact that thousands of fundamentalist ministries have no hint of this going on? And thousands of non-fundamentalists (from Catholics to Evangelicals to Boy Scouts to Public Schools to sleepover parties to Congress) do have it going on?
I think the answer has nothing to do with the fundamentalist mindset, but has a lot to do with sin. And sin in the human heart is why it shows up all over the place—both inside and outside of fundamentalism.
As for the scope of the problem, I doubt anyone really knows. There’s no question that most places where this happens are very quick to coverup, minimize, and defend themselves. But it seems a stretch to say that this is part of the fundamentalist mindset, doesn’t it?
I interpreted Bro. Durning’s comments along these lines- Fundamentalism’s claim to fame, so to speak, is the practice of militant adherence to sound doctrine and separation from apostasy and worldliness. However, ‘worldliness’ became a sort of Flavor of the Month Club that focuses more on appearances than the whole person. So how tragically ironic is it that something as heinous as child molestation would be ignored and excused in order to maintain the reputations of those in leadership, as if Fundamentalism’s entire house of cards would collapse if a ‘leader’ was guilty of such, and all the time they are pounding the pulpit about haircuts and hemlines?
I agree with Larry that minimizing sin is not indigenous to Fundamentalism… it’s just that of all the folks on the planet who should be outing criminals in their midst and bringing these predators to justice, it should be Fundies leading the way, and it is to our shame that it was/is not so.
I agree with Larry that minimizing sin is not indigenous to Fundamentalism… it’s just that of all the folks on the planet who should be outing criminals in their midst and bringing these predators to justice, it should be Fundies leading the way, and it is to our shame that it was/is not so.
[Susan R] I interpreted Bro. Durning’s comments along these lines- Fundamentalism’s claim to fame, so to speak, is the practice of militant adherence to sound doctrine and separation from apostasy and worldliness. However, ‘worldliness’ became a sort of Flavor of the Month Club that focuses more on appearances than the whole person. So how tragically ironic is it that something as heinous as child molestation would be ignored and excused in order to maintain the reputations of those in leadership, as if Fundamentalism’s entire house of cards would collapse if a ‘leader’ was guilty of such, and all the time they are pounding the pulpit about haircuts and hemlines?I’ll accept Susan’s interpretation of my statement within limits, but I just finished posting something stronger on another thread. My words there were “Spend a little time researching, and you’ll begin to suspect, along with me, that it’s happening in churches that self-define as Fundamental at perhaps twice the rate as in some other churches (Catholicism excluded, where they have their own set of problems).” So I guess I am claiming exactly what Larry is challenging me about, too. Though I agree with you, Susan.
I agree with Larry that minimizing sin is not indigenous to Fundamentalism… it’s just that of all the folks on the planet who should be outing criminals in their midst and bringing these predators to justice, it should be Fundies leading the way, and it is to our shame that it was/is not so.
Larry, I’m unable to prove my above-mentioned suspicion. I get what you’re saying about the problem being sin. I have often thought that those who revile Fundamentalism for _____ (whatever the objection of the day is) will find similar flaws in the movement to which they flee. But this one does seem to be one where we are particularly vulnerable. I encourage you to read Jeri Massi’s book “Schizophrenic Christianity”, for one example, that is targeted directly at a large chunk of those who self-identify as Fundamentalists, and their dealing with this issue. While my subsequent correspondence with Jeri has convinced me that she would rather snipe at us from the bushes than help us fix things, I think she has figured something out about us that we need to recognize.
I’ve also moved through almost every flavor of Fundamentalism during my life. I think the problem is more related to the Hyles mindset and those like them than to some others in the movement, but I do believe the oft-mentioned good ol’ boys network has, in the past, taught us to deal with this wrongly. Quite frankly, too many Fundamentalists seem to be too “political” (by which I mean in the politics of the movement) to make good decisions about embarrasing situations. Though I admit, we are getting better.
My theory, if you will, as to why such crimes might be perceived as more prevalent in Fundamentalism (because I can’t say definitively that they are or aren’t) is our view, generally speaking, of the authority of church leadership. (thinking of the use of the word “rule” in Hebrews 13…)
Sexual predators, like any other criminal, look for an environment in which they can safely perpetrate their crimes. In an atmosphere where authority figures are viewed as ‘anointed’ and ‘called’ by God, where they are looked at as counselors and are privy to secrets in their congregation, where trust does not necessarily have to earned but is granted by the office itself. Women and children are to be submissive, which is often interpreted as subservient. Folks who ask questions are sometimes labeled as gossips and rebels. Stir in the fact that accusations of abuse are usually based solely on the word of a woman or child against The Man of Gawd and well… - you might as well pour Miracle-Gro all over it.
Sexual predators, like any other criminal, look for an environment in which they can safely perpetrate their crimes. In an atmosphere where authority figures are viewed as ‘anointed’ and ‘called’ by God, where they are looked at as counselors and are privy to secrets in their congregation, where trust does not necessarily have to earned but is granted by the office itself. Women and children are to be submissive, which is often interpreted as subservient. Folks who ask questions are sometimes labeled as gossips and rebels. Stir in the fact that accusations of abuse are usually based solely on the word of a woman or child against The Man of Gawd and well… - you might as well pour Miracle-Gro all over it.
Thanks, Mike for the clarification.
With Susan (and perhaps Mike), I agree that fundamentalism should be leading the way in exposing and dealing with this type of stuff. And perhaps the “authority” issue is a key factor as Susan says. Again, though, that doesn’t explain the problem in other circles. I think the “authority” issue is tied up in character. It’s why the Bible demands character out of authorities. If you don’t have character, you will abuse your authority.
However, to Mike directly, I am cautious because I think the broadbrush tendency that people hate about fundamentalism (that everyone not like us is one of them and needs to repent and become one of us) is true in those (and perhaps especially in those) who have left fundamentalism. Try disagreeing with one of them on something, and you will see very quickly that they really haven’t left the attitude that they hate in fundamentalism. They have just changed its direction against fundamentalism instead of against non-fundamentalists. There is, for some, simply no room for honest disagreement with charity. You either agree with them or are wicked.
What is the scope of this particular problem? i don’t think anyone really knows. It is easy to see very visible and public cases and then extrapolate that everyone must be doing it and the only reason we don’t know it is happening in every single fundamentalist church is because all the ones we don’t know about are covering it up. (Of course, that’s a bit of hyperbole, but only a bit.)
But we need to recognize that the churches who do not have visible abuse problems may simply not have abuse problems. It may have nothing to do with coverup at all.
I think there is way too much politics in fundamentalism. I think there is in ex-fundamentalism as well. Consider the politics of browbeating any who might suggest that we should withhold judgment until more is known, or the politics of disagreeing about how to address a particular problem (even though you agree on the problem). Fundamentalism has no corner on politics.
I don’t question that perhaps this general issue is more prevalent in Hyles type fundamentalism. But I think (without any scientific evidence to back it up), that Hyles type fundamentalism is a minority, probably a pretty small minority. And I think even the Hyles types that would cover up abuse is probably a small minority of the small minority.
So I would just take the position of caution.
Again, I have no connection to anyone in these situations and have no desire to cover up anything or cover for anything.
With Susan (and perhaps Mike), I agree that fundamentalism should be leading the way in exposing and dealing with this type of stuff. And perhaps the “authority” issue is a key factor as Susan says. Again, though, that doesn’t explain the problem in other circles. I think the “authority” issue is tied up in character. It’s why the Bible demands character out of authorities. If you don’t have character, you will abuse your authority.
However, to Mike directly, I am cautious because I think the broadbrush tendency that people hate about fundamentalism (that everyone not like us is one of them and needs to repent and become one of us) is true in those (and perhaps especially in those) who have left fundamentalism. Try disagreeing with one of them on something, and you will see very quickly that they really haven’t left the attitude that they hate in fundamentalism. They have just changed its direction against fundamentalism instead of against non-fundamentalists. There is, for some, simply no room for honest disagreement with charity. You either agree with them or are wicked.
What is the scope of this particular problem? i don’t think anyone really knows. It is easy to see very visible and public cases and then extrapolate that everyone must be doing it and the only reason we don’t know it is happening in every single fundamentalist church is because all the ones we don’t know about are covering it up. (Of course, that’s a bit of hyperbole, but only a bit.)
But we need to recognize that the churches who do not have visible abuse problems may simply not have abuse problems. It may have nothing to do with coverup at all.
I think there is way too much politics in fundamentalism. I think there is in ex-fundamentalism as well. Consider the politics of browbeating any who might suggest that we should withhold judgment until more is known, or the politics of disagreeing about how to address a particular problem (even though you agree on the problem). Fundamentalism has no corner on politics.
I don’t question that perhaps this general issue is more prevalent in Hyles type fundamentalism. But I think (without any scientific evidence to back it up), that Hyles type fundamentalism is a minority, probably a pretty small minority. And I think even the Hyles types that would cover up abuse is probably a small minority of the small minority.
So I would just take the position of caution.
Again, I have no connection to anyone in these situations and have no desire to cover up anything or cover for anything.
[Susan R] My theory, if you will, as to why such crimes might be perceived as more prevalent in Fundamentalism (because I can’t say definitively that they are or aren’t) is our view, generally speaking, of the authority of church leadership. (thinking of the use of the word “rule” in Hebrews 13…)This is yet another argument for a church led plurality of elders, IMHO. We tolerate the pastor/dictator model far too often in IFB circles, and that needs to change. Good post, Susan.
Sexual predators, like any other criminal, look for an environment in which they can safely perpetrate their crimes. In an atmosphere where authority figures are viewed as ‘anointed’ and ‘called’ by God, where they are looked at as counselors and are privy to secrets in their congregation, where trust does not necessarily have to earned but is granted by the office itself. Women and children are to be submissive, which is often interpreted as subservient. Folks who ask questions are sometimes labeled as gossips and rebels. Stir in the fact that accusations of abuse are usually based solely on the word of a woman or child against The Man of Gawd and well… - you might as well pour Miracle-Gro all over it.
"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
[Larry] I don’t question that perhaps this general issue is more prevalent in Hyles type fundamentalism. But I think (without any scientific evidence to back it up), that Hyles type fundamentalism is a minority, probably a pretty small minority. And I think even the Hyles types that would cover up abuse is probably a small minority of the small minority.Larry, I am mostly in agreement with you, though I suspect that if you define “Hyles-type Fundamentalism” as authority driven, external standards-based sanctification, and a lack of expository preaching, that they actually outnumber the rest of us — and dramatically so in my part of the nation. And it’s important to remember that these factors exist not as binary on and off features, but rather like dimmer switches. So the authority issues and external standards-based sanctification that make it easier for the molester to hide in the weeds before pouncing in our churches actually exist in most Fundamentalist and even Conservative Evangelical churches. They just exist to a greater or lesser degree, and provide camoflauge for these evil hunters to a greater or lesser degree.
I suspect that if you define “Hyles-type Fundamentalism” as authority driven, external standards-based sanctification, and a lack of expository preaching, that they actually outnumber the rest of us — and dramatically so in my part of the nation.Could be. I don’t really know. It’s not my experience from either what I experienced from growing up or what I know now in “my part of the nation” (which is pretty close to you, right?). So perhaps our circles are just that much different. I don’t really go out of my way to find stuff out so I may just be in the dark.
A similar situation exists in public schools- it’s called http://abcnews.go.com/US/sex-predators-hired-schools/story?id=12404472] “passing the trash” .
A General Accountability Office (GAO) investigation obtained exclusively by ABC News has found that people with histories of sexual misconduct are still getting hired by school systems across the country, despite state laws designed to prevent it from happening. The report, requested by Rep. George Miller, D-CA, highlights 15 cases in which teachers or coaches were hired, or kept on school staffs, despite evidence they were sexual predators. In 6 of those cases, these offenders used their school positions to sexually abuse more children.
[Larry]I don’t actually run in any circles, except for SI and a few friends from the Standpoint Conference team. But I do know that north of I-69 in Eastern Michigan, your chances of finding a church that is rabidly IFBX, Hylesish, KJVO, and Michigan Militia minded go up exponentially. I know whole towns with no gospel witness except churches like this.I suspect that if you define “Hyles-type Fundamentalism” as authority driven, external standards-based sanctification, and a lack of expository preaching, that they actually outnumber the rest of us — and dramatically so in my part of the nation.Could be. I don’t really know. It’s not my experience from either what I experienced from growing up or what I know now in “my part of the nation” (which is pretty close to you, right?). So perhaps our circles are just that much different. I don’t really go out of my way to find stuff out so I may just be in the dark.
But I have also talked to evangelists who agree with me about this one key point: SI members have blinders on. When it comes to the use of the term “Fundamentalist” as a self-identifier, the looney contingent has us outnumbered 2 to 1.
I’m not excited to mention names—mostly I don’t want to get redacted again. But the names of those with allegations of sexual abuse hanging over them are very close to the circles who frequent this forum. It’s not a Hyles thing. It’s a big deal in places many of us non-Hyles people hold near and dear.
I could talk specifics, but I’m not sure yet how I think about that.
I could talk specifics, but I’m not sure yet how I think about that.
I used to think that it was just Hyles type churches. ABWE is an example that it is not just them. Louise is right.
Roger Carlson, PastorBerean Baptist Church
I used to think that it was just Hyles type churches. ABWE is an example that it is not just them. Louise is right.
Roger Carlson, PastorBerean Baptist Church
It’s too bad that Phelps didn’t own his problems and self correct when he had the chance. I think this is going to go very badly for him.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/pressroom/2011/04/a-religious-sub-culture-many…
http://blogs.abcnews.com/pressroom/2011/04/a-religious-sub-culture-many…
Because there are two threads related to the ABWE issue, some of what I’m saying will refer to the comments in both…
A couple of people (at least one, but I think there were two) mentioned potentially separating from ABWE over this issue. Honestly, separating after-the-fact when repentance and reparations are being discussed doesn’t make much logical sense to me, but it does tell me that a person takes the doctrine of separation very seriously. If it is taken this seriously, then why do I not hear separation being called for in the Trinity/Phelps/Olson issue that this thread is about?
As best as I can tell, Phelps response is still that he handled the situation appropriately. Phelps has denied that he instituted church discipline for Anderson, even though Tina and others who were present for the process say that it did happen. I’ve seen no acknowledgment from Phelps that he should have handled things differently, and Anderson has not received an apology from him. I think these two things would be the minimum that one would want to see in order to assume that he has repented and would handle things differently today. Without these two things (at an absolute, baseline, rock-bottom minimum!), I do not understand why separation is not being discussed in this case as well as in the ABWE case.
At least with the ABWE case they are:
*repenting and apologizing
*working toward reparations
*seeking third-party review
*attempting to change policies about how things are handled
Not to mention that separation from ABWE would affect missionaries that have had nothing to do with the Ketcham case.
If you feel that separation could be warranted there, then I do not understand how you would not also immediately separate from Phelps. I know that he has connections and friendships all over the place, but if separation is taken seriously and applied with the hope of correction and restoration, then why are his best friends not leading the charge?
I acknowledge that many people are ignoring this issue because they “don’t know who to believe.” The undisputed facts are that a 15 year-old girl was impregnated by a 38 year-old man. This was not disclosed to the church body (Anderson and Phelps both say that the connection between the man’s “infidelity” and her pregnancy were not disclosed), and the man was allowed continued membership in the church which arguably placed other teens at risk. The man was never arrested, despite this being a crime of either statutory rape or forcible rape. AT BEST, Phelps facilitated the cover-up of statutory rape. That is the BEST CASE scenario, which is still grounds for separating from him, IMO.
A couple of people (at least one, but I think there were two) mentioned potentially separating from ABWE over this issue. Honestly, separating after-the-fact when repentance and reparations are being discussed doesn’t make much logical sense to me, but it does tell me that a person takes the doctrine of separation very seriously. If it is taken this seriously, then why do I not hear separation being called for in the Trinity/Phelps/Olson issue that this thread is about?
As best as I can tell, Phelps response is still that he handled the situation appropriately. Phelps has denied that he instituted church discipline for Anderson, even though Tina and others who were present for the process say that it did happen. I’ve seen no acknowledgment from Phelps that he should have handled things differently, and Anderson has not received an apology from him. I think these two things would be the minimum that one would want to see in order to assume that he has repented and would handle things differently today. Without these two things (at an absolute, baseline, rock-bottom minimum!), I do not understand why separation is not being discussed in this case as well as in the ABWE case.
At least with the ABWE case they are:
*repenting and apologizing
*working toward reparations
*seeking third-party review
*attempting to change policies about how things are handled
Not to mention that separation from ABWE would affect missionaries that have had nothing to do with the Ketcham case.
If you feel that separation could be warranted there, then I do not understand how you would not also immediately separate from Phelps. I know that he has connections and friendships all over the place, but if separation is taken seriously and applied with the hope of correction and restoration, then why are his best friends not leading the charge?
I acknowledge that many people are ignoring this issue because they “don’t know who to believe.” The undisputed facts are that a 15 year-old girl was impregnated by a 38 year-old man. This was not disclosed to the church body (Anderson and Phelps both say that the connection between the man’s “infidelity” and her pregnancy were not disclosed), and the man was allowed continued membership in the church which arguably placed other teens at risk. The man was never arrested, despite this being a crime of either statutory rape or forcible rape. AT BEST, Phelps facilitated the cover-up of statutory rape. That is the BEST CASE scenario, which is still grounds for separating from him, IMO.
[Louise Dan] It’s too bad that Phelps didn’t own his problems and self correct when he had the chance. I think this is going to go very badly for him.It will also be very bad for Fundamentalism when it becomes obvious that separation is applied over worship styles but conveniently ignored when a well-known name in the movement further victimizes a rape victim.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/pressroom/2011/04/a-religious-sub-culture-many…
I agree with Mike Durning.
Fundamentalism seems to drop its militancy when it comes to sexual abuse issues. Fundamentalists did not even spend half the energy dealing with the abuse in Jacksonville, FL that it has spent on other issues over the years.
Fundamentalism seems to drop its militancy when it comes to sexual abuse issues. Fundamentalists did not even spend half the energy dealing with the abuse in Jacksonville, FL that it has spent on other issues over the years.
Rachel I agee. I have been saying this privately and publically for over a year. Someone’s views on music and dress seem pretty silly when speaking of just the known facts in this case.
Roger Carlson, PastorBerean Baptist Church
Thanks for publicly voicing that here, Roger.
It is important to me that I publicly state that I believe Tina Anderson. I believe her story.
However, even people who choose to believe “something in the middle” of the two versions of these events should still see that separation is warranted.
It is important to me that I publicly state that I believe Tina Anderson. I believe her story.
However, even people who choose to believe “something in the middle” of the two versions of these events should still see that separation is warranted.
The Wilds just had Phelps in as a main speaker at some kind of training conference. And BJU just hired Phelp’s assistant from his current church as principal of Bob Jones Academy. If separation has any meaning at all, this is violating it.
On an additional note, some asked (me included) BJU personally if they had any kind of sexual abuse policy since they were hiring for the Academy principal someone so closely associated with and supporting of Chuck Phelps. They could not articulate any kind of policy at all. I think they don’t understand the seriousness of this issue.
On an additional note, some asked (me included) BJU personally if they had any kind of sexual abuse policy since they were hiring for the Academy principal someone so closely associated with and supporting of Chuck Phelps. They could not articulate any kind of policy at all. I think they don’t understand the seriousness of this issue.
Louise,
I’d like to make a very carefully qualified objection to your comments about Dan Nelson and BJA. I don’t believe that you are being equitable with Dan. He was not hired by the current pastor at Colonial. Within a year of all of this coming to light, he is leaving there for a new ministry. To my knowledge, no one has argued that he had any connections to what happened with regarding to Tina Anderson. It seems like a serious smear to impugn him, and then BJA, simply because he was employed at Colonial when the new pastor came. This seems like a most extreme version of guilt by association. For the record, I don’t know why Dan is leaving Colonial, but I wonder if you do either. Unless you know something more than you’ve written, it would seem that his departure could just as easily be interpreted positively by you.
Whatever wrongs have been done will not be corrected by attributing guilt to people who were not even involved.
I’d like to make a very carefully qualified objection to your comments about Dan Nelson and BJA. I don’t believe that you are being equitable with Dan. He was not hired by the current pastor at Colonial. Within a year of all of this coming to light, he is leaving there for a new ministry. To my knowledge, no one has argued that he had any connections to what happened with regarding to Tina Anderson. It seems like a serious smear to impugn him, and then BJA, simply because he was employed at Colonial when the new pastor came. This seems like a most extreme version of guilt by association. For the record, I don’t know why Dan is leaving Colonial, but I wonder if you do either. Unless you know something more than you’ve written, it would seem that his departure could just as easily be interpreted positively by you.
Whatever wrongs have been done will not be corrected by attributing guilt to people who were not even involved.
DMD
Dave, I am glad to give Dan the benefit of the doubt. But BJU hasn’t distanced themselves from Phelps, and Dan Nelson hasn’t done it either that I know of (unless moving away from a ministry is now considered separation?!). In that case, did Sam Horn just separate from Northland? Just leaving a ministry doesn’t indicate ANYTHING, and this is a case that calls for some kind of distancing/repudiation/call to repentance. It is most reasonable to question. A quick resolution to this would be for BJU/BJA to publish a sexual abuse policy or some kind of statement that is clear on this issue. Maybe Dan Nelson right now is working on such a statement and is ready to implement safe policies. But until either BJA or Dan Nelson articulate their policies, they will by default be under the spotlight, tainted by their associations.
Louise,
I agree with Dr. Doran on this. I think you may be overreaching on this one. I know no facts one way or ther other on this issue. Maybe we better wait on this one?
I agree with Dr. Doran on this. I think you may be overreaching on this one. I know no facts one way or ther other on this issue. Maybe we better wait on this one?
Roger Carlson, PastorBerean Baptist Church
Do appearances matter? I was taught at BJU that they most certainly do. That is my point here. IF appearances matter, something appears in this association. It is simple for them to fix. It appears that instead of distancing themselves from Phelps that they are reinforcing their association with those with a poor record on the issue of sexual abuse. The quick and easy fix is to DISTANCE themselves by publicly stating a policy on sexual abuse.
[Louise Dan] Do appearances matter? I was taught at BJU that they most certainly do. That is my point here. IF appearances matter, something appears in this association. It is simple for them to fix. It appears that instead of distancing themselves from Phelps that they are reinforcing their association with those with a poor record on the issue of sexual abuse. The quick and easy fix is to DISTANCE themselves by ….Louise, I don’t think you realize how ironic all this is. For years, what was supposed to be so dreadfully wrong with fundamentalists was that they separated from people and ministries based on second hand accusation, unsubstantiated rumor or simply opinion… and that we separated from people/ministries simply because they failed to separate from other ministries.
So now, we’re bad because we don’t do those things?
I sincerely pray there will never be a day that I’m “separating” from leaders who, for all I really know, simply made some poor choices (along with a bunch of pretty good ones) in handling a difficult matter—and openly admit to making several poor choices.
Golden rule: do unto others what you want them to do to you. Louise, if you’re ever accused of a crime or cover up and you have a plausible explanation that indicates you were trying to do the right thing and/or actually did the right thing, I’m going to at least suspend judgment until I know you’re guilty. Most likely, I’m going to believe you as long as I possibly can.
I sincerely mean that. I’d do it for anyone.
[Louise]…by publicly stating a policy on sexual abuseThis part is rock solid though. Public policy on this matter is a fabulous idea.
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]That’s a nice straw man you’ve created.[Louise Dan] Do appearances matter? I was taught at BJU that they most certainly do. That is my point here. IF appearances matter, something appears in this association. It is simple for them to fix. It appears that instead of distancing themselves from Phelps that they are reinforcing their association with those with a poor record on the issue of sexual abuse. The quick and easy fix is to DISTANCE themselves by ….Louise, I don’t think you realize how ironic all this is. For years, what was supposed to be so dreadfully wrong with fundamentalists was that they separated from people and ministries based on second hand accusation, unsubstantiated rumor or simply opinion… and that we separated from people/ministries simply because they failed to separate from other ministries.
So now, we’re bad because we don’t do those things?
I sincerely pray there will never be a day that I’m “separating” from leaders who, for all I really know, simply made some poor choices (along with a bunch of pretty good ones) in handling a difficult matter—and openly admit to making several poor choices.
Golden rule: do unto others what you want them to do to you. Louise, if you’re ever accused of a crime or cover up and you have a plausible explanation that indicates you were trying to do the right thing and/or actually did the right thing, I’m going to at least suspend judgment until I know you’re guilty. Most likely, I’m going to believe you as long as I possibly can.
I sincerely mean that. I’d do it for anyone.[Louise]…by publicly stating a policy on sexual abuseThis part is rock solid though. Public policy on this matter is a fabulous idea.
I think the majority of complaints about separation being inappropriately applied (by people who believe in separation) have to do with separating over externals that are not actual indicators of sin. Things like music styles, clothing choices, gender roles, Bible translations, etc. I don’t think there is anyone here who would deny that *these* are too often what cause ministries to separate. I cannot think of a thread when SI members have fussed about separating over “second hand accusation” or “unsubstantiated rumor.” It has probably happened, but I would predict that there are far more posts fussing about separation due to music and worship styles.
It is entirely reasonable for people to say, “If you are willing to separate over music choices, you should at least consider the wisdom in inviting Chuck Phelps to be a keynote speaker at a Youth Workers’ Conference.” How does that look to The World? At best it appears willfully ignorant of how abuse should be handled, at worst it appears malicious.
Rachel,
As a pastor, I totally agree with you!
As a pastor, I totally agree with you!
Roger Carlson, PastorBerean Baptist Church
Rachel,
I’d encourage you to read up on the separation debate. Much of it has centered on exactly the issues I mentioned.
But it’s really simpler than that.
We don’t separate from brothers because of their beliefs about things that Scripture does not reveal. The Bible does not reveal an age at which absolutely no one is capable of consent to sexual relationship. It doesn’t even reveal information from which we can infer such an age.
We could make some kind of wisdom case if some pastor was claiming that 3 yr olds can consent. But it’s not all obvious that a 3 yr old and a 15 year old are in the same category. Either way, we have no biblical case for what is, in reality, a consensus among social scientists.
So, if we believe in Christian liberty in any sense, we have to grant that believers must comply fully with the law in these matters but are free to form their own beliefs about what is sin or is not sin, or who is capable of sinning in what ways under what circumstances.
There is no precedent—as far as I know—for separating (in the “intentionally ugly” sense I wrote about recently) from believers over matters of liberty.
In a matter of liberty I might separate from a brother in the sense of not working with him because of incompatibility.
For example, if my ministry has a sex abuse policy that says “any implication that any minor could be guilty of sin in any way in a relationship with an adult is grounds for dismissal” and another ministry’s policy is to look at each of these on a case by case basis and see where the evidence leads, we might have trouble working together in some kind of children’s ministry. Some of his volunteers might be disqualified by my policy. But I can’t separate from him “for being disobedient to Scripture” where Scripture has not spoken.
But nobody has proved yet that it is somehow sinful to disbelieve a social science consensus and look at these cases individually for what those involved might need to do to move forward.
What’s being suggested here requires that we ascribe biblical authority to the beliefs of child psychology experts. It should be obvious that we cannot do that.
Furthermore, Christians do not decide what is true on the grounds of “how it looks to the world.”
I can’t believe I have to say that.
People in the world believe a brother is guilty of some evil, so we have to treat him like he is guilty. Surreal.
I’d encourage you to read up on the separation debate. Much of it has centered on exactly the issues I mentioned.
But it’s really simpler than that.
We don’t separate from brothers because of their beliefs about things that Scripture does not reveal. The Bible does not reveal an age at which absolutely no one is capable of consent to sexual relationship. It doesn’t even reveal information from which we can infer such an age.
We could make some kind of wisdom case if some pastor was claiming that 3 yr olds can consent. But it’s not all obvious that a 3 yr old and a 15 year old are in the same category. Either way, we have no biblical case for what is, in reality, a consensus among social scientists.
So, if we believe in Christian liberty in any sense, we have to grant that believers must comply fully with the law in these matters but are free to form their own beliefs about what is sin or is not sin, or who is capable of sinning in what ways under what circumstances.
There is no precedent—as far as I know—for separating (in the “intentionally ugly” sense I wrote about recently) from believers over matters of liberty.
In a matter of liberty I might separate from a brother in the sense of not working with him because of incompatibility.
But nobody has proved yet that it is somehow sinful to disbelieve a social science consensus and look at these cases individually for what those involved might need to do to move forward.
What’s being suggested here requires that we ascribe biblical authority to the beliefs of child psychology experts. It should be obvious that we cannot do that.
Furthermore, Christians do not decide what is true on the grounds of “how it looks to the world.”
I can’t believe I have to say that.
People in the world believe a brother is guilty of some evil, so we have to treat him like he is guilty. Surreal.
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.
To those who are reading this and agree with what I’m saying… or even half agree. I’m a bit busy and could use a little help answering these ideas.
(Though it would not be so taxing if those on the other side of the debate actually interacted with even half of the counter arguments I’ve mentioned over the last several days. I just keep repeating them. I should program some hot keys I suppose. “Still-unanswered argument #13”).
(Though it would not be so taxing if those on the other side of the debate actually interacted with even half of the counter arguments I’ve mentioned over the last several days. I just keep repeating them. I should program some hot keys I suppose. “Still-unanswered argument #13”).
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] Rachel,Here’s what Scripture clearly reveals.
We don’t separate from brothers because of their beliefs about things that Scripture does not reveal. The Bible does not reveal an age at which absolutely no one is capable of consent to sexual relationship. It doesn’t even reveal information from which we can infer such an age.
Romans 13:1 Let every person(A) be subject to the governing authorities. For(B) there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
The governing authorities have clearly said that 15 year olds can not consent to a sexual relationship. Furthermore, she says she did NOT consent, with enough evidence that a grand jury indicted the guy.
You may want to wait until the jury finally comes back with a verdict or a plea deal is reached. But this WILL be proven to be rape.
Until Chuck Phelps can admit to that, he is unfit for ministry. The Wilds and BJU will remain suspect until they either distance themselves from him publicly or, better yet, help him publicly make this right.
Louise,
No one is arguing about the rapist’s culpability legally or morally in this issue. Phelps has documented he handed the case over to the authorities in a timely manner.
The disagreement revolves around the girl. For that aspect, we don’t have enough facts to draw a conclusion yet. If she was restrained and raped, bringing her before the church was wrong. If she entered into a relationship that resulted in repeated consensual encounters, she has some sin to deal with as well. If the male in question had been a 16 year old classmate, the issue of statutory rape would be off the table. Then it would be a question of forced vs. consensual sexual activity. For the girl’s part in this circumstance. the issue remains the same regardless of the age of the male.
For some reason, several in this discussion refuse to acknowledge the possibility of any wrong doing from the girl. She says one thing. Phelps indicates another. Too few facts are present right now to make a judgement on this aspect of the case. Perhaps she was wrong then and is lying now. Perhaps Phelps was wrong then and is covering up now. We just don’t know yet.
No one is arguing about the rapist’s culpability legally or morally in this issue. Phelps has documented he handed the case over to the authorities in a timely manner.
The disagreement revolves around the girl. For that aspect, we don’t have enough facts to draw a conclusion yet. If she was restrained and raped, bringing her before the church was wrong. If she entered into a relationship that resulted in repeated consensual encounters, she has some sin to deal with as well. If the male in question had been a 16 year old classmate, the issue of statutory rape would be off the table. Then it would be a question of forced vs. consensual sexual activity. For the girl’s part in this circumstance. the issue remains the same regardless of the age of the male.
For some reason, several in this discussion refuse to acknowledge the possibility of any wrong doing from the girl. She says one thing. Phelps indicates another. Too few facts are present right now to make a judgement on this aspect of the case. Perhaps she was wrong then and is lying now. Perhaps Phelps was wrong then and is covering up now. We just don’t know yet.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Louise,
You’re right that all pastors are to submit to any legal authorities as defined by Romans 13, but I think Phelps’ argument is that he DID do that. Maybe he didn’t follow through as much as he should have (I don’t know if he did), but he is saying that he did report it and someone else dropped the ball. That’s his side. At this point, it’s all hearsay until we find out otherwise.
You’re right that all pastors are to submit to any legal authorities as defined by Romans 13, but I think Phelps’ argument is that he DID do that. Maybe he didn’t follow through as much as he should have (I don’t know if he did), but he is saying that he did report it and someone else dropped the ball. That’s his side. At this point, it’s all hearsay until we find out otherwise.
"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
I am sure I’m going to regret stepping into this, but it’s hit the point where I find it hard not to comment. I don’t plan to engage in a long back and forth about any of this, but feel compelled to make a few comments.
First, this is not some hypothetical debate about made up characters and situations. This involves real people and has real ramifications. To imply or conjecture, therefore, about possible guilt of a minor who was sexually assaulted by an adult is flat wrong. For Willis to have sex with her was by definition a sexual assualt. Willis committed a crime. Period. Raising questions about whether it would be so if we lived in another time or place is not only a waste of time, it is contrary to our biblical obligation to do what is right not only in the sight of the Lord, but in the sight of men (2 Cor 8:21). We don’t live somewhere else or in another day. We live now, right here. The fact that our culture considers it to be morally repugnant and criminal in nature should end the conversation.
Second, I can see absolutely no relevance for introducing the issue of consent into this discussion in the first place. If it is being claimed that she was not being put before the church in relation to church discipline, then raising her culpability now seems to counter that claim. If she was being put before the church as some aspect of church discipline (I would assume expression of repentance leading to restoration), then it was a serious, grievous mistake given the criminality of Willis’ actions. There is no consent in rape (statutory or otherwise). Introducing allegations of Tina’s culpability for Willis’s sexual assualt looks an awful lot like blameshifting, i.e., turning the focus toward her instead of any potential wrongs done by others.
Third, as much as I don’t care for how some of this is being pushed and promoted, let’s not lose sight of the fact that very wicked things have happened and, sadly, many people have sufficient cause to believe that all the people in charge do is cover things up. My wife and I watched the 20/20 show with a sick feeling in our stomachs. Was it too broad of a brush? Yes, definitely. But it would be utter foolishness for any of us to use that to ignore the sad, terrible fact that this stuff has indeed happened and it has happened in our ecclesiastical neighborhood. I believe that this almost incessant jangling over technicalities and hypotheticals looks a lot like a defense mechanism. We ought to be grieving that we have tolerated pastors like Jack Schaap and preaching like the stuff played on that show. We ought to be broken about the fact that sexual crimes have too often been ignored under the banner of reconciliation when virtually no other crimes would be treated that way. We can’t bury our heads in the sand. We should not do or say anything that gives child abusers any room to hide from their wickedness.
Fourth, I really don’t expect the main parties driving the 20/20 show, etc. to be satisfied with or won over by statements, resolutions, etc. There is way too much distrust for that, and in many ways I can understand that. If all you’ve experienced is a culture which painstakingly covers its own backside at the expense of victims, you’re not going to think that changes quickly. In fact, you’re probably inclined to think the latest statement is just a more sophisticated smoke screen. The only way for credibility to be restored is to act credibly. Do the right thing. Keep doing the right thing. Perhaps one day they will believe you, but that isn’t the main thing anyway. One day we will all give account to the Lord and having done what’s right is what matters then.
I willingly concede that there is a lot about this present situation which I don’t understand. I wasn’t there and am not prepared to act like I was. I will not hesitate to say, though, that: (a) putting a minor in front of the church in a situation like this was wrong; (b) raising questions of culpability in this case at this point contradicts statements regarding non-discipline; and (c) raising the issue of consent at all in a case of sexual assault is wrong.
First, this is not some hypothetical debate about made up characters and situations. This involves real people and has real ramifications. To imply or conjecture, therefore, about possible guilt of a minor who was sexually assaulted by an adult is flat wrong. For Willis to have sex with her was by definition a sexual assualt. Willis committed a crime. Period. Raising questions about whether it would be so if we lived in another time or place is not only a waste of time, it is contrary to our biblical obligation to do what is right not only in the sight of the Lord, but in the sight of men (2 Cor 8:21). We don’t live somewhere else or in another day. We live now, right here. The fact that our culture considers it to be morally repugnant and criminal in nature should end the conversation.
Second, I can see absolutely no relevance for introducing the issue of consent into this discussion in the first place. If it is being claimed that she was not being put before the church in relation to church discipline, then raising her culpability now seems to counter that claim. If she was being put before the church as some aspect of church discipline (I would assume expression of repentance leading to restoration), then it was a serious, grievous mistake given the criminality of Willis’ actions. There is no consent in rape (statutory or otherwise). Introducing allegations of Tina’s culpability for Willis’s sexual assualt looks an awful lot like blameshifting, i.e., turning the focus toward her instead of any potential wrongs done by others.
Third, as much as I don’t care for how some of this is being pushed and promoted, let’s not lose sight of the fact that very wicked things have happened and, sadly, many people have sufficient cause to believe that all the people in charge do is cover things up. My wife and I watched the 20/20 show with a sick feeling in our stomachs. Was it too broad of a brush? Yes, definitely. But it would be utter foolishness for any of us to use that to ignore the sad, terrible fact that this stuff has indeed happened and it has happened in our ecclesiastical neighborhood. I believe that this almost incessant jangling over technicalities and hypotheticals looks a lot like a defense mechanism. We ought to be grieving that we have tolerated pastors like Jack Schaap and preaching like the stuff played on that show. We ought to be broken about the fact that sexual crimes have too often been ignored under the banner of reconciliation when virtually no other crimes would be treated that way. We can’t bury our heads in the sand. We should not do or say anything that gives child abusers any room to hide from their wickedness.
Fourth, I really don’t expect the main parties driving the 20/20 show, etc. to be satisfied with or won over by statements, resolutions, etc. There is way too much distrust for that, and in many ways I can understand that. If all you’ve experienced is a culture which painstakingly covers its own backside at the expense of victims, you’re not going to think that changes quickly. In fact, you’re probably inclined to think the latest statement is just a more sophisticated smoke screen. The only way for credibility to be restored is to act credibly. Do the right thing. Keep doing the right thing. Perhaps one day they will believe you, but that isn’t the main thing anyway. One day we will all give account to the Lord and having done what’s right is what matters then.
I willingly concede that there is a lot about this present situation which I don’t understand. I wasn’t there and am not prepared to act like I was. I will not hesitate to say, though, that: (a) putting a minor in front of the church in a situation like this was wrong; (b) raising questions of culpability in this case at this point contradicts statements regarding non-discipline; and (c) raising the issue of consent at all in a case of sexual assault is wrong.
DMD
Absolutely right on the mark.
Dr Doran said so much better in one post what I was trying to say last week. I was trying to engage someone last week (can’t remember who) and I erronously conceded that consensual sex was possible with a minor. It is not! I never intended it to come out that way. Doran hit this on the head. We all need to be vigilliant going forward. And I think we need to rethink what we believe seperation is about.
Roger Carlson, PastorBerean Baptist Church
OK so some watched a TV show. Big deal. Does the program have a compelling motive to have a sensational outcome to appeal to an audience? They did not do this to make Christianity look good. Better evidence was and is available. The incident regarding the church formerly pastored by Pastor Phelps deserves more grace than wisdom than to allow the pagans to drag it into a show boat context. Such conduct is itself immoral. Lets condemn them and move away from such careless and thoughtless connections. This is not about us, Jack Schaap, or Fundamentalism. To be fair and honest it must be handled alone.
It must be understood that in many jurisdictions sexual intercourse with someone age 16 or over is not punishable as statutory rape but as assault and has a lesser penalty and no responsibility to register as a sex offender. This change has been brought about as a result of societies recognizing that knowing the person is under 18 is sometimes impossible especially if the victim has lied. It also views a person 16 and over as more morally responsible than most who are younger. It is helpful to understand societies changing views on this. The law in some jurisdictions therefore raises age as a factor in consent and often sees the 16 year old as more responsible. However, the real issue for the Christian is that there was immoral conduct and it is made more serious by the parties age differences and perceived difference in moral and mental capabilities.
IMO there appears to be no reason to doubt Pastor Phelps facts and good motives.
Forget 20/20. They have a proven history of spinning facts and being selective in presenting them. We should give first and best consideration to what Phelps has posted at his website set up regarding this. His evidence is specific, confirmed by others, and compelling. It awaits factual and sensible rebuttal.
We should save the language of moral outrage and let us show that real moral judgment in the Christian realm is within the context of wisdom and grace. Also, this happened several years ago and now may involve motives and issues not readily perceived by some of us today.
This is my first and last internet post on this. I also avoid personal discussion.
It must be understood that in many jurisdictions sexual intercourse with someone age 16 or over is not punishable as statutory rape but as assault and has a lesser penalty and no responsibility to register as a sex offender. This change has been brought about as a result of societies recognizing that knowing the person is under 18 is sometimes impossible especially if the victim has lied. It also views a person 16 and over as more morally responsible than most who are younger. It is helpful to understand societies changing views on this. The law in some jurisdictions therefore raises age as a factor in consent and often sees the 16 year old as more responsible. However, the real issue for the Christian is that there was immoral conduct and it is made more serious by the parties age differences and perceived difference in moral and mental capabilities.
IMO there appears to be no reason to doubt Pastor Phelps facts and good motives.
Forget 20/20. They have a proven history of spinning facts and being selective in presenting them. We should give first and best consideration to what Phelps has posted at his website set up regarding this. His evidence is specific, confirmed by others, and compelling. It awaits factual and sensible rebuttal.
We should save the language of moral outrage and let us show that real moral judgment in the Christian realm is within the context of wisdom and grace. Also, this happened several years ago and now may involve motives and issues not readily perceived by some of us today.
This is my first and last internet post on this. I also avoid personal discussion.
[Bob T.] OK so some watched a TV show. Big deal. Does the program have a compelling motive to have a sensational outcome to appeal to an audience? They did not do this to make Christianity look good. Better evidence was and is available.To clarify, Bob, Tina was 15 when she was raped, for the 2nd time by the same 30-something married man. Phelps didn’t find out she was pregnant from that rape until 4 months later, after she had turned 16. And frankly, there are plenty of reasons for doubting his “facts” and “good” motives, not the least of which is his bandying about the “age 16” line and the effort to minimize the crimes involved by couching this as an “ongoing covert dating relationship.”
It must be understood that in many jurisdictions sexual intercourse with someone age 16 or over is not punishable as statutory rape but as assault and has a lesser penalty and no responsibility to register as a sex offender. This change has been brought about as a result of societies recognizing that knowing the person is under 18 is sometimes impossible especially if the victim has lied. It also views a person 16 and over as more morally responsible than most who are younger. It is helpful to understand societies changing views on this. The law in some jurisdictions therefore raises age as a factor in consent and often sees the 16 year old as more responsible. However, the real issue for the Chritian is that there was immoral conduct and it is made more serious by the parties age differences and perceived difference in moral and mental capabilities.
IMO there appears to be no reason to doubt Pastor Phelps facts and good motives.
Dave,
I have a great deal of respect for you, but I wonder if you’ve been following the conversation—and in particular what I’ve been trying to say since probably last Wednesday or Thursday. I wouldn’t blame you for not following it, that’s for sure!
Anyway, I realize Tina and others are real people and there’s a lot of pain in all this. As it happens, Chuck Phelps is a real person, too and so his is church—and they’ve got to be having a painful time right now, too.
So I want to be clear that my desire in this has not been to minimize the suffering of real people… or be insensitive about victims.
That said, what’s been happening is that folks have been roasting Phelps simply for believing these two things:
a) That he ought to conform to the law that says a legal minor cannot consent and that sex with a minor is a crime.
b) That the law does not necessarily understand what a real particular individual is capable of or what that person’s spiritual needs are.
For these two “offenses,” we are being called on to separate from the man.
This is wrong. It’s wrong because he conformed to the law, and though he failed to follow through, has admitted that failure.
It’s also wrong because the idea that absolutely nobody can consent at age whatever is a legal construct, not a biblical principle (and logically, it fails as well because a person 17 years and 364 days old is not really different from one 18 years old and some 18 year olds are less capable of consent than some far younger, depending on a whole bunch of factors.)
So my concern has been very much for the real people involved here, but I’m including ol’ Chuck among them—as well other leaders who are likely to be targeted in the future.
I’ve tried to be clear all along here that I do not know whether Phelps is right or wrong about the particular case. What I’m convinced of is that the dogma that says he cannot possibly be right (because what he believes is categorically impossible) is wrong.
I’ve offered several arguments in support of my view on that, most of which have been completely ignored.
The law determines what we must do about conduct. It does not determine what we must believe about human nature.
To whoever brought up Romans 13, surely you’re not arguing that the laws of men always reflect biblical truth! Just a few days ago some state court decided cohabiting adults must be permitted to adopt. Plain wrong. The law says these people constitute good parents… ergo, they must be good parents?
This isn’t rocket science, folks. If I run an adoption agency, and the law says I have to do it, then I have to do it. But I certainly don’t have to believe it’s correct in every single case. As a Christian it might be my duty to try to persuade the couple not to adopt (if the law allows that even!).
So, how’s this for a radical concept: how about if we use the Bible and evaluate these situations on a case by case basis? —obeying the law always, but not limiting our ministry to the people involved to what the law says must be their nature.
I have a great deal of respect for you, but I wonder if you’ve been following the conversation—and in particular what I’ve been trying to say since probably last Wednesday or Thursday. I wouldn’t blame you for not following it, that’s for sure!
Anyway, I realize Tina and others are real people and there’s a lot of pain in all this. As it happens, Chuck Phelps is a real person, too and so his is church—and they’ve got to be having a painful time right now, too.
So I want to be clear that my desire in this has not been to minimize the suffering of real people… or be insensitive about victims.
That said, what’s been happening is that folks have been roasting Phelps simply for believing these two things:
a) That he ought to conform to the law that says a legal minor cannot consent and that sex with a minor is a crime.
b) That the law does not necessarily understand what a real particular individual is capable of or what that person’s spiritual needs are.
For these two “offenses,” we are being called on to separate from the man.
This is wrong. It’s wrong because he conformed to the law, and though he failed to follow through, has admitted that failure.
It’s also wrong because the idea that absolutely nobody can consent at age whatever is a legal construct, not a biblical principle (and logically, it fails as well because a person 17 years and 364 days old is not really different from one 18 years old and some 18 year olds are less capable of consent than some far younger, depending on a whole bunch of factors.)
So my concern has been very much for the real people involved here, but I’m including ol’ Chuck among them—as well other leaders who are likely to be targeted in the future.
I’ve tried to be clear all along here that I do not know whether Phelps is right or wrong about the particular case. What I’m convinced of is that the dogma that says he cannot possibly be right (because what he believes is categorically impossible) is wrong.
I’ve offered several arguments in support of my view on that, most of which have been completely ignored.
The law determines what we must do about conduct. It does not determine what we must believe about human nature.
To whoever brought up Romans 13, surely you’re not arguing that the laws of men always reflect biblical truth! Just a few days ago some state court decided cohabiting adults must be permitted to adopt. Plain wrong. The law says these people constitute good parents… ergo, they must be good parents?
This isn’t rocket science, folks. If I run an adoption agency, and the law says I have to do it, then I have to do it. But I certainly don’t have to believe it’s correct in every single case. As a Christian it might be my duty to try to persuade the couple not to adopt (if the law allows that even!).
So, how’s this for a radical concept: how about if we use the Bible and evaluate these situations on a case by case basis? —obeying the law always, but not limiting our ministry to the people involved to what the law says must be their nature.
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.
Thank you Dr. Doran.
[rogercarlson] Rachel I agee. I have been saying this privately and publically for over a year. Someone’s views on music and dress seem pretty silly when speaking of just the known facts in this case.This should be obvious. But…
From the comments on my blog about this….
Bob, I respect your opinion and don’t mean to be unkind, but the fact of the matter is that you are way, way, way off base. Music, amongst other things, is very important. If you would have watched the show you would have seen that at the so-called “church” that this young lady now attends they have a rock band playing right up on the platform. That is worse than any so-called abuse that may have occurred at her solid, fundamentalist, separated church that she went to before. I’m beginning to doubt her story and of others like her because I think they just don’t like to have solid music standards, dress standards and other separated positions and are just using some flimsy excuse to go into a liberal, non-separated, compromising “church.”I don’t even know how to respond to thinking like that. I guess, this mentality can contribute to the propensity fundamentalists have for this problem (as has been discussed in this thread).
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Aaron,
You say we should judge this on a case by case basis - let’s do it. Can you see how it is that someone who has been sexually abused by her step-father might have a skewed view of authority? Can you see how that when she would confide in another authority (the father of the children she is babysitting), that her view of authority might affect her view of that relationship? I don’t understand how you can argue that this is possibly consensual (or that you can understand how Pastor Phelps would look at it as if it were) because of the circumstances of this case.
You say we should judge this on a case by case basis - let’s do it. Can you see how it is that someone who has been sexually abused by her step-father might have a skewed view of authority? Can you see how that when she would confide in another authority (the father of the children she is babysitting), that her view of authority might affect her view of that relationship? I don’t understand how you can argue that this is possibly consensual (or that you can understand how Pastor Phelps would look at it as if it were) because of the circumstances of this case.
Aaron,
Perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I thought I was. Speculating about the possible culpability of mid-teenagers isn’t the issue. It is assigning culpability to a specific mid-teen who was the victim of a sex crime. The text I cited from 2 Cor 8 is very pertinent to this—Paul says he is taking every precaution not to be discredited by doing what is honorable not only in the sight of the Lord, but in the sight of man. According to our laws, Tina was a victim of sex crime. At the very least, to accuse her of complicity is not honorable in the sight of man—witness the outrage by just about everybody who looks at this as an outsider. Sex with children is deplorable and minimizing that by suggesting complicity is dishonorable.
Further, the published statements are contradictory. I kept my mouth closed about it until it became obvious that people are coming to Chuck’s defense by picking up on the accusations against Tina’s character. The problem here is two fold: (1) there is an inherent flaw in the logic of saying she was not treated as under church discipline while now accusing her of acting immorally; and (2) it is morally unacceptable to suggest the victim of a sex crime is complicit.
As I said above, I don’t know all that needs to be known about this. But I am not passing judgment on the entirety of it, only one very specific issue—assigning blame to the victim of a sex crime. It was rape and rape victims do not consent. The whole “Yeah, but she wanted it” line of thought is completely unacceptable and should be dropped from the conversation.
Perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I thought I was. Speculating about the possible culpability of mid-teenagers isn’t the issue. It is assigning culpability to a specific mid-teen who was the victim of a sex crime. The text I cited from 2 Cor 8 is very pertinent to this—Paul says he is taking every precaution not to be discredited by doing what is honorable not only in the sight of the Lord, but in the sight of man. According to our laws, Tina was a victim of sex crime. At the very least, to accuse her of complicity is not honorable in the sight of man—witness the outrage by just about everybody who looks at this as an outsider. Sex with children is deplorable and minimizing that by suggesting complicity is dishonorable.
Further, the published statements are contradictory. I kept my mouth closed about it until it became obvious that people are coming to Chuck’s defense by picking up on the accusations against Tina’s character. The problem here is two fold: (1) there is an inherent flaw in the logic of saying she was not treated as under church discipline while now accusing her of acting immorally; and (2) it is morally unacceptable to suggest the victim of a sex crime is complicit.
As I said above, I don’t know all that needs to be known about this. But I am not passing judgment on the entirety of it, only one very specific issue—assigning blame to the victim of a sex crime. It was rape and rape victims do not consent. The whole “Yeah, but she wanted it” line of thought is completely unacceptable and should be dropped from the conversation.
DMD
I’m thankful for the strong stand Dr. Doran took in his comments here. I also note that http://bobbixby.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/consensual-or-not-there-is-a-r… Bixby’s latest post on this attacks the idea of the supposed ‘consensual’ nature of this quite convincingly too. He also notes this, which I haven’t seen anyone at SI (having read the filing thread and this thread about the 20/20 show) point out.
The perpetrator of the crime confessed to ‘adultery’. He didn’t confess to ‘pedophelia’ or ‘rape’ or ‘sexual assault’. That is hugely important. Everyone says they are not letting the perp off the hook. He is guilty of rape. He is a child offender/molester. He is guilty. But when he stood before his church to supposedly repent, he admitted to adultery not that far more serious crime. So just in that sense of the discipline case being brought against the man, Pastor Phelps apparently saw no problem letting the man confess to adultery. And that’s enough? He doesn’t need to confess to more than that?
Another point, which wasn’t brought up in the 20/20 case oddly enough, but which StuffFundiesLike (of all places) brought to my attention, was the fact that we can’t claim the churches in the report were just oddities, small inconsequential churches totally disconnected from other IFB churches. Matt Olson was named in the report, and he is the current president at Northland Baptist Bible College. Chuck Phelps was president of Maranatha Baptist Bible College. Jack Schaap who wasn’t named but had lots of face time, is president or chancellor of Hyles-Anderson College. These are highly influential institutions in fundamentalism. What these men do, and how they do it, is emulated by hundreds of young pastors and church leaders going out into thousands of IFB churches. This can’t be a non-story that says nothing about fundamentalism in general. It says alot about fundamentalism in general, in my opinion.
Perhaps the reactions of fundamentalists to this issue will say even more, unfortunately. Will radical change happen? Will policies recommended by groups like GRACE (see earlier in the thread) become the new standard that churches will be encouraged to adopt? Or will a culture that allows dynamic leaders to have free reign and overlooks the convenient spins and cover-ups which have happened and continue to happen, continue to be the norm.
I agree with Mike Durning both that the fundamentalism represented by SI (a more careful version), is not as predominant as that espoused by Schaap and his wannabes. I also agree that abuse seems far more prevalent in these circles than others.
The perpetrator of the crime confessed to ‘adultery’. He didn’t confess to ‘pedophelia’ or ‘rape’ or ‘sexual assault’. That is hugely important. Everyone says they are not letting the perp off the hook. He is guilty of rape. He is a child offender/molester. He is guilty. But when he stood before his church to supposedly repent, he admitted to adultery not that far more serious crime. So just in that sense of the discipline case being brought against the man, Pastor Phelps apparently saw no problem letting the man confess to adultery. And that’s enough? He doesn’t need to confess to more than that?
Another point, which wasn’t brought up in the 20/20 case oddly enough, but which StuffFundiesLike (of all places) brought to my attention, was the fact that we can’t claim the churches in the report were just oddities, small inconsequential churches totally disconnected from other IFB churches. Matt Olson was named in the report, and he is the current president at Northland Baptist Bible College. Chuck Phelps was president of Maranatha Baptist Bible College. Jack Schaap who wasn’t named but had lots of face time, is president or chancellor of Hyles-Anderson College. These are highly influential institutions in fundamentalism. What these men do, and how they do it, is emulated by hundreds of young pastors and church leaders going out into thousands of IFB churches. This can’t be a non-story that says nothing about fundamentalism in general. It says alot about fundamentalism in general, in my opinion.
Perhaps the reactions of fundamentalists to this issue will say even more, unfortunately. Will radical change happen? Will policies recommended by groups like GRACE (see earlier in the thread) become the new standard that churches will be encouraged to adopt? Or will a culture that allows dynamic leaders to have free reign and overlooks the convenient spins and cover-ups which have happened and continue to happen, continue to be the norm.
I agree with Mike Durning both that the fundamentalism represented by SI (a more careful version), is not as predominant as that espoused by Schaap and his wannabes. I also agree that abuse seems far more prevalent in these circles than others.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Discussion