I’m in a Starbucks waiting out a surgery for a dear church member so this is not going to be long or deep, but I’m reading off my iPhone all kinds of emphasis by people trying to defend the way Tina Anderson’s situation was handled by saying that it was “consensual”. This floors me.
It seems like people are only grudgingly conceding that it was particularly sinful because she happened to be a minor, but they try to mitigate the whole situation by emphasizing that it was “consensual.”
Friends, let me explain something. The reason an adult must not have sex with a child is precisely because a child sometimes consents to things that are horrible for them. I’m not saying that Tina Anderson did or didn’t. I don’t have any reason to not believe her. But it simply is repulsive to me that Chuck Phelps and others are trying to get mileage out of the idea that it was allegedly consensual.
A sadistic man could tell my four-year-old boy to jump off the roof of the house and, knowing my immature child, he’d jump. He’d consent. It would be unspeakably stupid and hard-hearted twenty years later to speak to my paraplegic son and say, “Well, the guy was really, really bad, but you consented.”
A teenage girl, already molested by a father-figure, could be susceptible to manipulation. She could be temporarily deluded. She could even consent. But the reason we call her a child is because somebody can tell her to jump off the roof and, not having experience or a sense of safety, she might think that the best thing to do is to jump off. However, Tina says she did NOT consent. Why is that so hard to believe when the church she was in had the perpetrator confess his activity as “adultery”?
If ever there was a useful lie, that was it. When a man or woman confesses adultery, there is generally a sympathetic but gracious response from the Body of Christ. In other words, God’s people are saddened and surprised perhaps because of who the person is, but there is not shock. People are not scandalized by a natural sin. Men and women are tempted all the time by sins that are, though sinful, natural. But by God’s grace they resist. And only by His grace. However, if the person confesses to pedophilia, an “unnatural affection” (to use a term from Romans), there is the added shock of scandal. They are repulsed. They are scandalized that a grown man would use a vulnerable girl.
Tina’s perpetrator got away with useful lie by saying it was adultery. And his leaders let him do it. I’m trying to figure out why I’m supposed to doubt the victim when perpetrator and church foisted on a whole congregation a very convenient spin.
I’m angered and saddened that the issue of consent is even discussed. It is irrelevant. There is still a real victim.
Filed under: ABC 20/20, News & Comments
Bob,
Let’s assume for the moment, theoretically, that Phelps account is true. After all, Tina’s mother does seem to support his account. If you are in Phelps’ place and you do make the call, and for whatever reasons the authorities don’t do anything with your report- what would you do?
It does seem to me that his case was mishandled by Trinity. But as I try to think through this, I’m not really sure what else I could do (short of not allowing the perpetrator to do anything more than attend the services).
Well according to Phelp’s, since Tina said NO(regardless of her age) it’s still a “dating relationship”. He should have explained this from the pulpit. I’m sure his daughter(if he has one) would have gotten quite a lot of dates with Ernie Willis.
Thank you, Bob, for some level headed wisdom on this.
What would I do? I am the Children’s Ministries Director at our church. If abuse were reported to me, I’d pass it on to the pastor, as per our Child Protection Policy. If I found out there was no investigation ongoing, PDQ, I’d march myself and a witness down to Child Protective Services and then to the police and make a nuisance of myself until I got one started. I would NOT consult with an attorney to see what my minimum legal obligations were, as Phelps says in one of his statements. You don’t do the minimum to protect a child (and 14 or 15 or 16 is still a child, as you know if you’ve parented one.) You do the maximum. You leave no stone unturned.
People are saying they don’t know all the facts or they don’t know Phelps’ side of the story. Go to his website and read “statements released to 20/20.” Watch the documentary and listen closely to what he says. There are enough facts there to get a good idea of what went down, if you’ve ever been a member at an IFB church. If you’ve been a pastor, you know very well what happened and why.
Legally, Tina Anderson was a minor when she got pregnant. The law says that’s a crime. Period. End. Finished. What are all of you talking about when you discuss her consent? Why would you even begin to say such things? Is the purpose of making her at fault to justify her having to get up in front of the church? To make what Phelps did ok, or maybe even the best course of action? I can’t think why else you would be back-and-forthing about the degree of her “consent.” Is making the pastor look good so important that you would imply that the VICTIM was a loose woman to some degree? Willis knew what he was doing and the ramifications of it. Is he not expected to be in control of himself and not be perverted no matter the circumstances? Why would the church want to defend his actions or lessen their gravity to any degree at all? Because that’s what it really sounds like you’re doing here. Reading your discussion here would ruin your testimony in front of any non-believer and harm the cause of Christ much more than 20/20 ever could.
If IFB churches were painted with a broad brush by secular media, well, it isn’t the first time and it isn’t the last. Let our testimonies in our communities be such that our friends and neighbors will say, “Not them. They are not like that.” May it be true. May Jesus be glorified in our actions and in our reactions.
Dead on, Bob.
Greg, so in a case as serious as statutory rape, you call the cops, they don’t respond within a week, so you send the girl out of state and drop it? You don’t call back and say, “Hey, guys, what’s up? Is there somebody else I need to talk to?”? You just wipe your hands of it?
Phelps’ response is a bit confusing to me. On the one hand, he points out Tina’s age as being 16. The only relevance that has is for legal consent in the state of New Hampshire. He then says he called the police and DCYF. This would indicate that he thought that Tina was somehow a victim. He even states outright that “Tina accused a man of a crime”. The only crime in play here is rape, whether forcible or statutory. He should have followed up on that. Focusing on her age seems irrelevant.
Is there a formal response from Phelps’ somewhere? What is unnerving for me is the seeming silence on the one side of this story. While I want to believe that there are more facts that I don’t know to balance out the story, Ultimately I just want the real truth to be known.
FWIW, Bob, I don’t think anyone is defending the rapist in this case. I think the hue and cry isn’t really about that, but is about whether or not the pastor and/or church did the right thing (or the best thing) in handling the situation.
In answering that question, I don’t think the legal categories really have relevance. And I also think we don’t know enough of the facts to be pontificating confidently some years after the fact.
I do hope more facts come out so that we can all be cautioned and hopefully proceed with wisdom if ever (God forbid!) confronted with a similar problem in our churches.
But I do think there is a rush to tar and feather the pastor and church in this case for reasons other than being a help to the victim.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
> And I also think we don’t know enough of the facts to be pontificating confidently some years after the fact.
Pontificating you are.
Another thought… Bob, you mention your 4 year old son. Suppose you make it really parallel. Fast forward 11 years and you have a 15 year old son. Someone encourages him to jump off a roof. Now…
If he suffered such injuries as you describe, would you remind him at all of his consent if he were complaining of his situation in the future?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Thank you, Don, for bringing confirmation of how the “ifb fundamentalists” are thinking.
“In answering that question, I don’t think the legal categories really have relevance. And I also think we don’t know enough of the facts to be pontificating confidently some years after the fact.”
So it would seem. And really, can any of us know all the facts? Not even Phelps, not even the leadership of Trinity did (or could). But remember, we don’t have all the facts on JZ, either.
Marci, you are incoherent. I don’t know what you are talking about. Who or what is JZ? Where did I mention or speak about JZ?
When cases like the Trinity/Phelps/Anderson case arise, it is certainly possible for great error in judgement to occur at many points of the event. It is certainly possible that they did occur in this case. But until more facts can be known, I don’t think we can make accurate observations about those events, especially separated by time and distance as most of us are.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I think I just figured out that JZ is a reference to Jocelyn Zichterman, the one who started the Facebook page, “Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) Cult Survivors (and their Supporters).” She was interviewed in the 20/20 show. Is that right, Marci?
Don,
I think you’re missing the main point of this post. She is currently being accused of consent and that is wrong to do. It is not tar and feather to point that out.
I’ll butt in an answer your question to Bob. I would hope that I would never publicly assign blame to my child for falling prey to a deceptive, malicious act of an adult. That’s what we are talking about here–public statements that assign moral fault. That is, from my perspective, indefensible.
Dave, if it is true, why is it wrong?
I don’t know if it is true or not. I don’t know if we’ll ever know.
It just seems that a lot of people are trying to score points against fundamentalism by this case, including you. If facts come out that prove you entirely correct, I’ll be happy to agree with you, but I think you are running well ahead of the facts at this point.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
Rape is a crime. Victims of crimes don’t consent. IOW, it can’t be true, so it is always wrong to say it.
I wish I could say that I am surprised that you are suggesting that expressing a viewpoint about the propriety of assigning blame to rape victims is somehow an effort to score points against fundamentalism, but I am not.
Wrapping this in the cloak of defending fundamentalism is actually what makes the premise of the 20/20 show believable to so many people.
I have said nothing beyond the facts. She was a minor. An adult having sex with her is a a sexual assault. According to published statements by the principal party, she was not put forward for church discipline (and therefore was not being treated by the church as morally responsible).
To claim now that she was guilty of immoral conduct has no relevance other than attacking her character. It does, however, lend credibility to her story that she was treated as a sinner at the time. It won’t work to have it both ways–say she was not treated as such back then, yet claim and act today that she in fact was.
What I am concerned about does not require omniscience to know. Nothing needs to be surfaced from years ago to draw the conclusion that it is wrong to accuse a sexually assaulted minor of complicity. It seems that the only way that one can disagree is to reject the premise that an adult having sex with a 15 year old is a sexual assault. Morally blind.
Don,
The facts are there your not listening.
Bob thank you so much for this post. It is a vitally needed corrective for a response that has disheartened me greatly.
The response seems to me to be driven largely by personality rather than principle. If it every detail of the situation were the same except it had been a Catholic priest who did exactly what Dr. Phelps did his actions would not be receiving this kind of defense.
I don’t know Dr. Phelps at all. I grew up in a completely different circle of fundamentalism. I have neither animus nor affection for him. I would like to think that even if I knew and liked him though I would be able to see the glaring elephant of failure that so many are trying so hard to ignore or excuse away. There will never be repentance until there is first acknowledgement. And sadly I just don’t see that .
Greg,
“What would you do?”
A few thoughts, and these are assuming, for sake of the discussion, that everything Phelps says is true.
1. I would have a long, hard conversation with the elders of the church in which we’d wrestle with the example in 1 Corinthians 5 of the man who’s sin was so public and so odious even in wider society that he needed to be removed immediately from the church. (I think we can agree that 20/20 has demonstrated that pedophilia is still “not tolerated among the pagans,” for the most part.) I’d likely recommend that he be expelled as an act of church discipline regardless of any expressions of repentance. There is a wealth of precedent for such action in Baptist history.
2. Regardless of our conclusion on that issue, we would have to define what repentance looks like in the situation. It’s difficult for me to imagine how repentance would consist of anything less than walking into a police station and signing a confession, as well as a public statement to the church about the full extent of the offense, due to its public implications.
3. What I most certainly would NOT do is present it to the church as an “affair” (implying mutual consent, as Bob points out) and obscuring the gravity and forcible component of the situation. By the way, I’m entirely unclear what Phelps’ argument over Tina’s age at the time of the reporting of the offense has to do with anything. As I understand the law, what matters is the age at the time of the offense, but I’m open to correction.
4. I would also NOT ask a child who was the victim of a crime to read a public statement about what happened, even if it was not a “confession” (though the way Phelps permitted Miller to describe it as “adultery” leads to the obvious implication that he viewed Tina’s statement as a confession).
Would you disagree with any of that, Greg?
I could be wrong, but I believe that the pastor read Tina’s confession to the church.
This reminds me of the subprime mortgage situation. Some say that people who got in over their heads should have known better and that they are entirely at fault because they should have known better. Others use the term “predatory lending” to say that the lenders were at fault for getting people into loans who were not well educated, immigrants, naive or just plain gullible. But hey, nothing technically illegal was done because the people desperate for a house did not sign the mortgage at gunpoint. Just because something is technically legal does not mean it is correct.
I have no idea what that other poster was talking about. At first I was thinking that this story made TMZ. Hey, it’s made international news so at this point nothing would surprise me. The only thing I can think of is that there is another situation related to the 20/20 story with recent developments which sort of match those initials. I know nothing about that story other than it sounds very sad and I’m just hearing about it and it seems like the elephant in the room. I hope that mercy and grace and forgiveness cover that situation as well for all parties.
Ben,
Given what is known, I would agree with points 1 thru 3. I am not sure we have enough information to make conclusions about #4. That is basically what I have been arguing all along.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I would agree with that course of action, Ben.
I don’t know, though, if the consensual issue is completely without relevance. A girl of 15-16 is capable of making sinful choices- say, to fornicate with her boyfriend of 17-19. While legally there are issues of concern for the adult man in question (and much more so than the girl), I am not prepared to say that because she was 15 or 16, she could not possibly have any responsibility, at least before God (if not in the eyes of the state). I have been around 15-16 year olds who were quite capable of such choices (when I worked in the restaurant industry through college). I don’t think that lets any of the men or church leaders “off the hook”- but I do think that it helps flesh out the perspective, at least.
Cross-posted here: http://bobbixby.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/is-the-victim-guilty/#comment-3928
As I am reviewing my comments, I can see how my “thinking out loud” might be leaving a distinctly negative impression. To the extent that I have left the impression at all that Tina Anderson is to blame for what Ernie Willis did to her, I was wrong, and I apologize. In my admitted tendency to be overly-analytical, I have demonstrated a lack of compassion and sensitivity for those who have been sinned against. While I still believe that prevention includes educating and preparing potential victims as well as policing potential perpetrators, I have gone about discussing this here in an inappropriate way. To those reading, I ask your forgiveness for my behavior.
Fair point, Greg. I can imagine a set of circumstances in which a 15y.o. would need to confess sin before the church. (Though, that raises the question of at what age we should baptize, admit to church membership, and expose to church discipline, but I’m not going there . . .)
Let me rephrase #4 this way:
I would also NOT ask a child who was the victim of a crime to read a public statement about what happened unless I was absolutely certain that confession and repentance was necessary due to some sort of culpability on their part. Since Phelps is himself contending that her statement was explicitly NOT a confession, I’m arguing he certainly shouldn’t have put her up there.
Just another request. Where is there record of Phelps’ side of the story? I know he made a brief statement for 20/20 but refused interview requests.
OK…..I’ve not made much by way of public comment because I’m trying to get all the facts clear in my head before making statements. In the past I have too often charged off without getting all the facts first. So while I’m still trying to understand what’s happened I think I’m ready to give some of my own observations here:
1. Man this is a sad deal for everyone and I mean everyone. I hope all of us – and I mean all of us in and out of ministry learn from this. Holy Cow people – we can’t screw up like this on the leadership level. Wowzers!
2. Some of the statements made by Tina and the other gals in the 20/20 interview seem inconsistent – I’m not saying they “lied,” I’m just taking a second and a third look at a few of the points raised. That being said, I’m with Bob here on some of the following:
3.. From a pastor’s perspective – It is unthinkable that Tina’s actions are placed on par with Miller (then or now).
4. Those of you who are taking issue with Bob’s point – think with me please. Look, Chuck had Tina paraded up in front of the congregation (a minor) just as he did Miller. That clearly sent the message that in Chuck’s mind – the sin was on equal footing. The congregation was left totally out of the dark that Tina was violated – that point was left out entirely. Why would you hide that from her congregation – Dude, the congregation needs to know so that they can minister to this young gal. It’s like withholding key medicine from someone sick. What are we thinking?
5. Parenthetical Thought on how this connects with an issue I agrued with Chuck both publically and privatly some time ago – I want to encourage Chuck to reconsider his view of a plurality of elders – perhaps if he had had a group of equals they would have said, ‘Chuck – don’t do this, this way.” I argued that because the Scriptures make much of the plural part of elders in each church – well, Chuck publically called my view “Biblically illiterate.” I think I’ll stick with my approach. It seems as if perhaps getting a wisdom check from a group of leaders who are my equal may not be so illiterate after all! Especially when we’re dealing with a church issue that is also a legal issue!
6. So, I get the sense here the Tina suffered more discipline than Miller in this case. It clearly should have been Miller that needed to be the focus-point.
7. I really hope someone didn’t say to Tina, “be glad this isn’t the OT community.”
8. I wish Phelps would just admit – “Yeah I wasn’t thinking clearly”…..or “you know I just was not preparted to handle this part of the ministry.”
9. As far as our saying the police didn’t go far enough – well that’s true – but in our churches if a grown man has sex with a minor – that guy is going to jail – period! Also if he’s staying in the church at all, he’s a sexual offender by way of law. By way of law churches have responsibilities in handling this kind of issue. In our congregation we gather the expanded adult and leadership (all levels) and we have a candid discussion. The congregation and the leaders together agree that brother “so-in-so” stays because we really believe he is repentent and not just that “he got caught.” Leaders are assigned the responsibility of making sure certain individuals are not in bathrooms with minors. Brothers who have failed demonstrate a repentent attitude by accepting whatever we as congregations and leaders ask of them. This is serious guys!
10. “Holy Cow!” – What is up with New Hampshire? You have got to be kidding me! In our state of Arizona – there is no hesitation with anything close to this. Miller would have been booked, given pink underwear and then Sheriff Joe would turn his back and probably let the inmates in “tent city” deal with Miller their own way. Not sure Miller would make it to trial. I personally would want Miller to make it to trial but can understand the Arizona way. I don’t understand the New Hamphsire way!
Last Thought,
11. I really hope that both Mr. Miller as well as Tina can get somekind of closure, forgiveness and be able to move on. My heart goes out that we have brothers and sisters in Christ who are having all sort of strangers (both lost and saved) talking about the intimate parts of their lives. Man that’s hard and I really hope all of the families involved here have pastors and members of the body of Christ that are actively caring for them – regardless as to if they were more guilty or less guilty. Also – even though I disagree with my brother on a few levels, I feel bad for Pastor Phelps as well as some of the other ecclesiastical leaders attached to all of this. It’s easy to throw stones from the side, but In all honesty I can see myself making some of the same mistakes prior to watching all of this unfold. Of course I don’t think I would have because of the group of elders that serve with me (one more reminder there). I just wish leaders would say “I missed the mark” when they “miss the mark.”
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dave, the reply thing only goes so many levels, so hope you see this.
Rape and statutory rape are not the same thing. If the young girl had been 16 at the time of the incident, the alleged rapist could claim consent, as I understand it. But the reason for the statutory rape law is to eliminate consent as a defense to the charge.
If rape is rape is rape, then there is no need for a statutory rape law. The fact that there is means that there is a difference between the two offenses.
And, BTW, let me remind you that the alleged rapist has apparently pleaded not guilty. So in the eyes of the court he is ‘innocent until proven guilty’. I can’t imagine what defense the man will use. It boggles the mind.
As far as the rape charge is concerned, the courts will deal with it and I hope justice is served.
We have some conflicting reports about what happened in the church, we have some inconsistencies in statements, and we don’t have all the facts. So I am just saying… I don’t see how we can be so sure in our censure of either pastor or church.
At what point does this become a local church matter?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jeremiah 33.3
It’s a local church matter when it’s something like this, but it’s world wide web, “mark and avoid” separation for someone who shakes hands with Mark Driscoll’s third cousin?
Don,
Please wake up and think. Something can’t be true and untrue at the same time.
Follow these two seperate thought trails with what you know about this terrible situation.
1. A minor gave consent.
2. A minor did not give consent.
If think through each scenario logically you will end up questioning the way it was handled.
You seem to be unable to follow both trails to their logical conclusion. If you do you will end up concluding the last line in Bob’s entry…
“I’m angered and saddened that the issue of consent is even discussed. It is irrelevant. There is still a real victim.”
Thank you to all who made thoughtful comments here.
Does anyone know if the people soliciting money in Tina Anderson’s name (The Tina Anderson Foundation) are a non-profit group? (501(c)(3).
I noticed that today they are trying to raise $5000 to have children removed from a home which believes in spanking and only lets the children read the King James version of the Bible. http://on.fb.me/dKhxY5
Ken, The Tina Anderson Foundation is registered non-prof. I received an appropriate tax deduction receipt at the end of 2010 for the contribution I made. The foundation has a board of directors and legal counsel. I believe you are grossly simplifying the description of the family involved–at least in comparison with the appeal I read. For what it is worth, that is the information I have and can confirm.
The primary church matter is calling the police to investigate.
I experienced a similar situation in a church that I have attended before. This was over 20 years ago. The church men, I believe, really were seeking to do what God wanted them to do. They did not seek criminal charges against the man, also using 1 Corinthians, but not chapter 5. They based what they did on 1 Corinthians 6 where Paul commanded not to take another brother before the law courts. Can anyone comment on that. Right or wrong, those men were really hurt and saddened about what had happened. They were not in any way, in my opinion, trying to cover this up. They wanted to obey God.
Any thoughts?
My thoughts are to read 1 Corinthians 5.
I Cor. 6 is about civil courts, where the plaintiff is a private citizen. Criminal matters are different. The plaintiff in a criminal matter is the state. It’s a matter of obeying the magistrate.
Mike, I don’t think any pastor would agree that 1 Cor 6 would apply at all in such a situation. I certainly don’t. 1 Cor 6 has to do with civil matters, not criminal matters, or moral matters.
I am afraid the men you describe were sincerely wrong.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jeremiah 33.3
Thanks Don. I think the whole discussion can help sharpen thinking. I do think they could have been sincerely wrong; and at the same time, definitely NOT trying to cover anything up. They really were concerned about Christ’s name being dragged through the mud in the community.
I’d like to ask a question without my question pinning me to any particular position. Like a lot of people, this whole incident has me thinking through all the particulars and what the best way to handle a similar situation would be.
Dave, my understanding of your position is that it is impossible for a 15-yr old to give consent because, by law, that is under the age of consent. In a less severe situation, it would be like a teenager telling an adult that it is OK to speed on the highway. She does not have the legal authority to give that permission in either situation. I completely agree with that. In both cases, it doesn’t matter what, if anything, she says or does, it does not in any way excuse the adult from breaking the law.
Here is my question, though. Would it be morally wrong for a teenage girl to encourage a man to speed, to break the law? I don’t want to defend or accuse anyone in this particular case. I just want to know if under any circumstances the church needs to deal with a minor about encouraging or tempting an adult to sin. You may say that in this case with Tina, there is no way she could have done that, given the previous abuse that she suffered and other reasons. I’m fine with that. I’m just trying to think about the concept in its most generic sense. Obviously, we should all agree that an adult that commits a serious crime needs to be held fully accountable for that crime before both the state and the church.
Andy, I’m not Dave (obviously). Your question begs another: who is the responsible party for an adult decision? The 15 year old or the 38 year old man? I mean no unkindness, but I fail to see the relevance of your example. The Scriptures seem clear that the authority holds responsibility, and that wouldn’t be the 15 year old.
My answer is the same for those that try to equate this to a situation where a 15 or 16 year old girl or boy give consent for sexual activity to a 16 or 17 year old boy or girl TO a 38 year old man participating in sexual activity with a 15 year old girl. Doesn’t matter when the adult participant is a man or woman and the 15 year old is a girl or boy, the unequal status of the adult/child relationship means it is not a valid comparison to two children/teens giving consent to each other.
In deference to what are probably good men making such suggestions, I can only assume that they have done no study on the dynamics of sexual abuse. The FBI has a well-developed library of information readily available on the internet. There are many non-profits and faith-based groups that deal with similar situations as advocates for the victim. Those organizations would also have materials any church could get for free.
I’ll be writing a separate post with additional information below.
The main point in these comment debates is that she was under 18 and a grown man had sex with her. That is still a sexual offense OUTSIDE the church, never mind how it should be viewed inside the church. I believe some people have lost their minds in the pursuit of defending the beloved IBF! I grew up in a strong fundamental pastor’s home, – and for what it’s worth, graduated from a fundamentalist college, and am still involved in a local church ministry – but never in my life did I encounter the type of people who could bumble and blunder and cover up and blame others for the gain of their own persona as I eventually learned (in my college church) to be true of the very real network known as the IBF.
People can say Tina’s stories don’t add up. Neither do Chuck Phelps’ in my humble opinion. He mentions on his website how she didn’t want to be alone and had a constant care team of which he and his wife took part. And then he states both in his “impromptu interview” with the 20/20 camera, AS WELL as his official, formal statements to the show, that this was an “ongoing dating relationship.” I was once a teenage girl and an early 20s girl, and I can safely assert that if a girl WANTS and HOPES that a relationship and attention will continue, she will do everything she can to put herself in the path of the person, including calmly staying home by herself, hoping that every car that drives by will be the person from whom one seeks attention. I can also safely assert that if a girl does NOT want the attention from a man, she will do everything in her power to NEVER be near him, in public or private, hence asking for people to be with her. This last assertion would apply both if one was raped or had consented in a sudden and irrational lapse of 16 year old judgment, much like jumping off the roof of a house at age 4. Most often, when someone has been through something traumatic (such as a car accident, robbery, or oh, say a rape) the last thing the person wants is to be alone. It’s a fearful place, that aloneness.
I’m sure Dr. Phelps had decent intentions. But overshadowing his intentions seems to be the distinct disregard that a 16 year old girl 1. Could be telling the truth or 2. Might NOT be to blame. I’m honestly not sure how either of the girls on 20/20 could have believably seduced these men with their lovely fundy hair and the huge puritanical collars on their floral garb. To me it shouts much more of succumbing to animal instinct on the part of the male, regardless of attractiveness or seduction.
Regardless of whether or not she was raped or gave consent, the point is that a grown man had sex with a minor and the church handled it poorly. Sadly, many big IBF churches are wracked with similar situations and the boys network is eager to blame others, especially the women for their OWN sin of failing to have true integrity. Eve may have given Adam the fruit, but Adam failed to be the leader and do what was right. Women may or may not be at fault. Men (whether the rapist or the pastor or those standing by watching from the pew) still need to do what is right, no matter the cost. And to the big men in the IBF network, I would implore you to stop with the mind control, the stone throwing, and the blame shifting, no matter who is at fault…and admit when you are wrong. Preach the word clearly and SHEPHERD your flocks, for you will give account for their souls, not for how large or well known your ministry was or if you were asked to speak at the BJU Bible Conference!
The issue has nothing to do with an attack upon fundamentalism. The issue is sin within the camp of fundamentalism, but it is not limited to fundamentalism. Sin is sin wherever it is. Rape of a 14 years old girl is not a dating relationship nor is it consensual sex; it is sin bot h Biblically and legally. That sin has to be dealt with Biblically and legally. Those attempting to paint the issue as something else or even as something too sophisticated to know for sure are actually defending that sin. Beware the sound of thin ice cracking beneath your feet. God has sent a wake up call and a warning that there is sin in the camp, and it took a secular news report to expose it. That ought to be a sharp rebuke to all because it suggests that God has been already sending the warnings, but they are going unheeded, and have already been ignored for a very long time as the abuse continues even now. What I see right now is the IFB and many of its leaders failing at owning up to the sin and publicly apologizing as ABWE did in its situation (without pressure from any secular media). I read post after post of IFB leaders trying to explain it away, minimize it, and label it something else (like persecution)–spin, spin, spin–attacking the victims, continuing to slander them–it is totally disgusting. I am publicly ashamed to have been a part of the IFB for 30 years; I renounce it and will not condone ANY abuse whether it be sexual, physical, mental, or spiritual. Get out of it!
I have some insight on the situation from my own time at Trinity Baptist Church and also my involvement with Tina and Tom and their mother, Chris. I first met Tina and Tom while on a visit to Glendale AZ where my dad was stationed at Luke AFB. My family attended the same IFB church as Chris and the two children. My mom was a teacher at the Christian School and had both of the children at one time or another. The name of the church has changed since then in the aftermath of the pastor’s (James Colyn) conviction for child sexual assault. He is a registered sex offender in TN the last time I checked.
My mom knew Chris and spent more time with her than I did. I was a college student at BJU at the time and only home for Christmas and other breaks. Chris was married to Daniel Leaf–not the father of the two children. During the time that they were in AZ, Dan was arrested and convicted for child abuse. You can find his criminal record here: http://www4.egov.nh.gov/nsor/Display.aspx?offenderID=2522.
I became reacquainted with Chris while Daniel was in prison in AZ. She moved with Tina and Tom to NH to be near her family. By this time I was married and attending Trinity Baptist Church. I helped Chris a lot during the time Dan was imprisoned. I helped her clean her apartment, wash laundry, and also babysat the children for free. I first offered to take care of them when I observed their current babysitter (someone who lived near me) was using physical correction of them that I thought was harsh and inappropriate. I told Chris about the situation and offered to help. Knowing what I did from my own interaction with Chris and Daniel in AZ and my mom’s observations, Tina and Tom needed someone to provide security and love for them.
When Daniel was nearing the time to be released from prison, I spent quite a bit of time helping Chris get her apartment in order. I had several lengthy conversations with her about Daniel coming back and whether or not he could be trusted alone with the children. I wanted her to have a safety plan and asked her to promise me that she would not allow him to injure them again. Obviously I did not have the power to enforce such a decision, but Chris knew that I was volunteering with DCYS in a parenting/mentoring program and that I was a mandatory reporter if I ever observed any signs of abuse.
(I’m giving this detail for full disclosure lest someone from Trinity Concord give it in an effort to discredit me) In the summer of 1991, while I was in Maine visiting a friend, I went to a movie with her and another friend and also had a wine cooler. I knew that was in violation of my terms of employment as a part time teacher at Trinity Christian School, but made the choice to participate anyway. The pastor in Maine at the time, Dave Pennington, found out and told me he would tell Chuck Phelps if I did not. So, upon my return to Concord, I told Chuck and he accepted my resignation from the school. I remained active at the church and spent a short time in counseling with Linda Phelps and my husband remained on staff at the Christian school.
It was after this point that I saw Tina and Tom less often since I wasn’t employed at the school anymore, but I did see them at church, and continued my friendship with Chris. As best as I could tell when I saw them, I did not see bruises, but I always saw them fully clothed. Chris would not answer my specific questions about whether or not Daniel ever hit Tina and Tom, but would just tell me everything was okay. I made a good faith effort to keep an eye on their welfare.
In the summer of 1993, my husband and I moved to another state for him to begin work on his doctorate. Just before that move, Daniel was arrested and convicted of a felonious sexual assault of a young girl (6 years old if memory serves me correctly) at a McDonald’s restaurant. As you can see from his sexual offender record linked above, he has several other convictions. At one point Daniel was also investigated by DCYS for child abuse because of extensive bruising. The children their injuries were from a belt with metal eyelets/rivets in it.
Fast forward to the fall of 1997. A friend at Trinity with whom I remained in contact, called to tell me that Tina had been brought before the church for discipline (there were several calls over a span of a few days–the first one came the Sunday night of the church discipline). I use the words church discipline because they are the words my friend used, and the scenario was familiar to me because of similar sessions I had witness while at Trinity.
This friend’s sister was a neighbor to Chris and Tina and Tina had told that neighbor that Ernie Willis had raped her. It wasn’t until after the church discipline that my friend realized the church was going to take an action with which she disagreed (sending Tina away and keeping Willis in apparent good standing). Because of my earlier connection with Chris, Tina and Tom, I wanted to make contact with the family and offer to help rather than Tina being sent away to the home of strangers. My friend could not get anyone to tell her where Tina was taken and I was never able to establish contact with Tina until years later after the police located her.
I’ve read numerous comments from people that are using Chris as a bolster for Chuck Phelps’ testimony. I am sad to point out the obvious since her children still love her, but Chris has on multiple occasions brought a convicted abuser of her own children (not Daniel’s–he was the stepfather) back into her home. In addition to that, she knowingly brought a convicted child sexual offender back into her home and allowed him to be in unsupervised contact with her children. That is not the decision of a loving, godly woman. Chris selfishly chose her own satisfaction over her own children’s welfare. How does that make her a reliable witness in this situation?
Tina and Tom both thrived on the attention they received in our home. They clearly showed signs of a need for positive attention, affection and a father figure. I mentioned that I washed laundry often. I offered to do that because the children’s clothing often smelled. It pains me to have to speak in this way, but in spite of my own failing the summer of 1991 that caused me to resign from teaching at the school, I had always been a member in good standing at Trinity. I loved Tina and Tom. I kept the dress code Trinity required, followed the music guidelines established in Kurt Woetzel’s class, sang in the choir, helped in a myriad of ministries. I was the model Christian School teacher’s wife.
I’m not perfect by any means, but Chris abdicated her own responsibility as a mother to provide a safe environment for her children. She expressed to me on more than one occasion that she wanted Daniel back because she “needed” him and for other reasons that do not seem appropriate for me to repeat. But clearly–by the simple fact she kept bringing him back into her home, she was not putting the needs of her children first.
By Tina’s own testimony, Ernie Willis had become a confidante of sorts –someone she trusted and confided in about the abuse she endured at the hands of her stepfather. I saw Tina several times upon our return trips to NH to visit with my husband’s family. She was a sweet, kind girl–thoughtful, quick to give me a hug when she saw me, excited to see our new baby the year he was born. She wasn’t a seductive temptress. She wore the standard modest jumpers, and really, seemed like a late “bloomer” in my opinion.
By her own account, Ernie forced himself when she said no. That is rape. Before I saw the 20/20 show, I had a conversation with a woman with whom I am very close. She said to me of her own abuse, “I just wanted to forget it. I mean–surely it didn’t really happen? Maybe I imagined it.” Those are very similar words to the ones Tina used in recounting her own experience.
It was not Chuck Phelps’s role to investigate and figure out whether or not Tina was telling the truth. Why did he allow Ernie to confess to adultery in front of the church? Phelps has not disputed that fact. The church members on the 20/20 show all agree what his “charge” was. If Phelps really believed and reported it as rape, then why did he not take Ernie to the police station? Those of you that are fathers and pastors–would you have such a man sitting in your congregation around other young girls? Would you allow two phone calls to be enough action on your part?
I cannot help but ask those questions. It seems reasonable to conclude that at that time, Chuck believed what he is saying now–that the sex was consensual and not rape. Again–it was not his role to decide that back in 1997, but his action allowing Ernie to remain in the church, knowing he was not arrested, certainly seems like he was all too willing to assign guilt to Tina.
I’m writing about what I know from my own relationship with Chris, Tina and Tom because the things I am saying are just not out there anywhere I can see — at least where pastors and fundamentalists are reading. This for me and my husband goes well beyond “taking sides” to confessing sin. I failed by not creating a big stink over this after I got a call from my friend telling me Tina was sent away. I should have called the police myself. My answer at the time to my husband was “what can I do?” I was an adult, and I should have tried harder.
I am not in a fundamentalist church today, because the continual stress of external “standards” and a rules based church instead of a church where the gospel message –freedom in Christ was preached–finally led my husband and I to make a change. My own family has been touched by sexual assault and child abuse in every single fundamentalist church we attended. Sadly, it was covered up at each one. In spite of that, and all of my siblings and I treasure a deep and abiding relationship with God today. We’ve all taken different journeys in our own healing, but we are whole and happy in our families, all serving God in different ways.
I guess that last paragraph was for full disclosure too. I’m not holding anything back. I may not meet your standards for a “good witness.” I am just appealing to you all to please think about whether or not Tina may read what you say. David Doran, you may not remember me from all those years ago at BJU, but I want to thank you for interjecting what feels like a voice of reason over at Sharper Iron. I have been truly grieved by what I’ve read there. I just can’t help but think that if it had been a different girl–the daughter of a leader in the fundamentalist movement–that maybe this would be treated differently. But you know–if that were the case, she would not have been a perfect victim to be groomed by a pedophile for rape. If the church in question were anything other than a big church in the movement (I was there–I know how much of a leader Trinity is in New England with the Leadership Conference and other things like the NEACS), say–someone other than Chuck Phelps–would this be handled differently?
God will get the honor and glory due to His name because He is God. He doesn’t need ABC to promote Him and His purposes cannot be thwarted by ABC. The power of the Gospel message cannot be hindered by the sin of men. If that were the case, the Gospel would have perished long ago. He uses imperfect people all the time to accomplish His plans. As believers though, we can choose to allow this 20/20 episode to push us to embrace truth. It can push us to confess, repent, and restore while making restitution. If Chuck says in his statement, that he wouldn’t have a young girl come before the body like that now, then why not simply apologize?
I think we all have to accept responsibility in these matters so such a thing never happens again. Fortunately, and for our own comfort, Tina says now, “We made it through and God is good.” Doesn’t it say something that ABC ended the broadcast with that statement?
Sincerely,
Laurie Moody
Im a IFB and I dont support any child abuser at all. No matter if it is sex or beatings.
Everyone is quick to blame the Preacher and church but were was the parents. If a person sexually abused my children. I would call the law. I would press charges. I would follow up with the law. So again were are the parents at. As Parents are we passing the raising of our children on to churches, the public, or the government. We are the parents of these kids. We dont stand up for kids, we dont protect them, we dont even raise them and we wonder why teen pregnancy is rising, kids are killing other kids.