Church discipline, Chuck Phelps, and a Wolf
Posted by waterlilly · 7 Comments
In many church discipline situations, the pastor is privy to specific details that are not shared with the congregation. I believe this to be appropriate and would support my pastor in conducting church discipline in this private manner. However, this support is contingent upon the idea that sufficient details have been shared. The congregation can only make an informed decision regarding a member’s conduct and subsequent restoration or removal if sufficient information is given.
If my pastor brought a young man before our congregation, and the young man confessed to theft, I would hope the response (and requirements) would be different if the theft was of $10 from a friend’s wallet or the violent armed robbery of a bank. I would also hope that my pastor understands that — while he needn’t share all of the gory details — indicating the level of the offense to the congregation is vital to our decision-making process.
Relate this to the recent brouhaha involving Chuck Phelps and Trinity Baptist Church in Concord, NH. (If you are unfamiliar with the case, this article provides the most complete list of allegations that I’ve found.) Apparently Ernest Willis was brought before the church, and he confessed to unfaithfulness to his wife. The church then voted to forgive Willis and allow him to maintain his membership. (I was not an eye-witness, but members of the congregation who were present have related these events.)
Chuck Phelps says he reported the incident to both the Concord Police and to the Department of Children and Youth Services. My question is: What exactly did Phelps report to them? After all, he performed church discipline on Willis for unfaithfulness without also mentioning to his congregation that the unfaithfulness occurred during the course of two rapes of a 15 year-old girl. Given this, I’m not inclined to think that he was entirely forthcoming when he reported the incident to the authorities.
And THAT, my friends, is one of the reasons many think that Chuck Phelps holds some responsibility for Tina Anderson’s continued victimization. If Phelps minimized the crime to the authorities, then he did not seek justice for her as he should have as her shepherd. When a wolf named Willis injured one of Phelps’ flock, Phelps sent the injured lamb away and allowed the wolf to remain in the fold.
That’s just poor shepherding. (At best.)
So, let me get this straight this white trash “Ernest Willis” a church deacon in Concord, New Hampshire, at the time, rapes this child twice (15 years old, he was 38 at the time), gets her pregnant, he admits it is his child in front of the church, and this so called church (Trinity Baptist Church), and her parents, makes her stand up in front of this church congregation, as well, admit its her fault, because they believe its somehow her fault and to top it off her parents go to this same church to seek counsel on what to do with her and they both agree that she should be sent to another Baptist couple in Colorado, have the baby there and then force the child to put the baby up for adoption. You Baptists are real make me sick, is this your family values? I hope all of you involved get what’s coming to you.
Trinity Baptist Church
80 Clinton Street
Concord, NH 03301-2287
603-225-3999, info@tbcnh.org
http://www.tbcnh.org
Just for clarity’s sake:
Willis was not a deacon, he was an usher. (Different sources say different things, but I’ve been convinced that he was an usher.)
Willis did not admit that the child was his when he was in front of the congregation. The congregation was not told that Anderson’s pregnancy and Willis’ “unfaithfulness” were related matters.
Also, after pondering the related issue of Church Discipline for awhile, I’m not entirely sure where I stand on it. Church Discipline for an unrepentant member involved in serious sin makes sense to me. I don’t know that “public confession before the congregation”-style Church Discipline is appropriate. I’m still reading and studying on this.
Just thought I’d throw this out there in case any one gets hung up on that aspect of my blog post.
Waterlilly,
I belive the reason the congregation was not told of the rape (I would use the word “alleged” for legal reasons only) is because it was a criminal matter. Imagine for a minute that there was a trial and Willis was found not guilty. He sure would have a nice slander suit against the church for announcing to everyone he raped a child. Please don’t misunderstand my intent, it is only that what the Pastor said in fron of several hundred was carefully, and rightfully guarded to protect the church from a potential slander suit.
Thanks for your thoughts, Patrick.
Legal issues should certainly be considered, but apparently Willis admitted paternity to Phelps. Willis admitting to have sex with Anderson means that he admitted to rape.
The latest is that the grand jury is indicting Willis for forcible and statutory rape.