If they had felt that Christian Beliefs should override personal liberty and equality, they had the power to create a government that did just that.

Instead, they felt that a government should support the unalienable rights of man (regardless of his personal religious beliefs). So if you find yourself waxing poetic about when the USA was a Christian Nation, I will point out that it never was, and it never was on purpose. Our Founding Fathers didn’t want it to be.

And I’m glad. Because I want the freedom to worship as God leads me. If I don’t support freedom for everyone, then I’m giving away my future freedom.

I was also raised in a well-armed, firearms friendly home.

I have many, many more “liberal” friends these days that I did when I was in my 20s. This is a good thing. Knowing and loving people who don’t think exactly like I do is good for me. It is good for all of us, though some of us were raised in a paradigm that there is always ONE right way about everything, and that that right way is GOD’s way. That can make it difficult to embrace people who believe differently, but once you shed the fear that their “wrongness” is communicable, it all works out nicely. But I digress…

I’m having to look at the issue of gun control much more seriously than I’ve ever had to before. Previously, gun control was what “those crazy liberals” always wanted to do. Since I have so many lovely, liberal friends now, I want to truly understand what they are saying. I want to truly examine the solutions they are proposing. So, I’ve read a lot from them in the last week. I’ve entered into light debate about gun control on some forums. I’m examining.

But being the logical, practical person I am, I don’t really understand exactly how “they” picture this working. Granted, there is no real “they.” Everyone and his brother has a different opinion about what should be done, so I’m in danger of picking apart a strawman’s argument, which is pretty unhelpful.

And yet, I still want to pick apart some of the proposals I’m hearing. Some people process verbally; I process with a keyboard.

DISARM PRIVATE CITIZENS

Usually these words aren’t used, because they are so inflammatory. But when people post things about gun laws in Britain or Japan, I just don’t understand how that is helpful. Those societies are effectively disarmed. (During the London riots in the Summer of 2011, shopkeepers were nearly helpless to protect their inventory. A cricket bat against a crowd of 30 hoodlums isn’t very effective.) A society that is already disarmed has a certain mindset that simply doesn’t exist in the USA. We have about 200 millions privately-owned firearms in the US. HOW WOULD YOU GO ABOUT DISARMING OUR SOCIETY? Assuming that every gun owner decided that s/he is *willing* to give up arms, how would that work? Would we reimburse people for their arms? If we estimate that each of these weapons is worth $100 (which is wildly assumptive), that would be $20 billion in goods. Who is going to pay the owners for those arms?

Or would you expect the owners to give them up and not be reimbursed?

Would you be willing to give an asset worth thousands of dollars–with which you have never committed a crime–to the government? Isn’t it unreasonable to expect gun owners to do so?

Disposal of this many weapons would also be problematic. I also suspect that it would be rife with corruption, given the fact that they are valuable items that the criminal element has an interest in acquiring.

I’m not even going to try to address the absurdity of attempting to disarm a population who owns 200 million guns against the population’s will . . .

CONTROL FUTURE SALES/HAVE “BETTER” LAWS

This is the suggestion that I see the most often.

But I think we have to refer to “DISARM PRIVATE CITIZENS” to discuss its effectiveness. We are a country with 200 million firearms in private hands. Even if all firearms produced after 2012 were considered illegal to be owned (similar to how automatic weapons were regulated in the 1980s), there are still plenty of weapons to be used in crimes. As budding criminals grow up and want to own their own weapons, there are enough to go around already in circulation. If another Adam Lanza wanted a weapon, he could acquire one.

Controlling future sales of clips/magazines is another proposal. During mass shootings, there is an extremely short, we-are-equal window provided to victims during reload. It is a *very* short window, but in more than one case, that has been when gunmen were overpowered. This advantage is worth noting, and why I think that there is some validity to limiting clip/magazine capacities. (Please don’t tell my dad, my brothers, or my husband I just said that.) The problem I see with this solution is that criminals who want high-capacity magazines can still acquire the ones already in circulation. This leads me to the next proposal I’ve heard…

CRIMINALIZE ITEMS ALREADY OWNED

This is kind of related to “Disarm,” but I’d like to discuss it separately because limiting high-cap mags is really only useful if we were to destroy all of the high-cap mags already in circulation. If a criminal cannot purchase a 100 round magazine new, then he will simply purchase one used.

But if we destroyed “all” of them, wouldn’t that work?

That brings us back to the practical arguments against disarmament. Do you pay private citizens for turning in their now-illegal high-capacity magazines? Who pays them?

How do you make sure that everyone turned theirs in? You can’t, of course. So once again, the only people who own them would be criminals.

In my mind, there is validity to the phrase “Peace through superior fire power.” I will continue to examine the gun control arguments that I come across, but I confess to my beloved liberal friends that I don’t understand how these proposals can effectively reduce society’s risk given the current level of firearms ownership in our country. I still see gun control measures creating a much greater risk to disarmed, law-abiding citizens.

Do I *wish* that there were a way to prevent people from gunning down unarmed, defenseless people? Absolutely. I cannot express to you how deeply I wish we could prevent that from ever happening again. I just don’t see a prevention measure that is both practical and implementable. No doubt incremental change is better than no change at all, but I sincerely don’t know which change protects law-abiding citizens while hampering criminals.

***Note: I’ve not discussed lots and lots of related issues. I haven’t touched proposals for gun registration, background checks, etc. Maybe another day***

I’m already seeing people within the IFB reacting differently to this situation than they did to the Ernie Willis/Chuck Phelps case.

Schaap was firmly within the EXTREME version of Fundamentalist Baptists (the IFBx to many online), and watching the “regular” IFB pastors you can see that. They aren’t saying, “Let’s wait until all the details come out,” or “There are two sides to every story,” or “I heard that it was consensual.”

I think that is notable.

Sometimes I want to laugh that this helpful link-er thinks that I haven’t read Phelps’ own words, and that I will thank them for their mad Google skills and will convert to being a Phelps supporter.

Other days I want to shriek at the dewy-eyed 19 year old, “Wake up! These men are wolves in sheep’s clothing. They rouse you to fight their battles for them. Don’t let them use you like this!”

Anyway. For the record, I am a Christian, I have read Phelps’ site many times, and I believe Tina Anderson’s version of events.

Why? How can I disbelieve Chuck Phelps’ version of events in favor of Tina Anderson’s?

Let’s stroll through the items that helped me reach this conclusion:

1. Anderson did not initiate the reinvestigation. While it was completely within her right to, and I whole-heartedly support any victim who chooses to pursue justice at any time, it does bolster the case to believe Anderson’s version of events that she was approached by police. It removes the ability of people to accuse her of being “bitter” or “out for revenge.” Again, both of these things would be understandable feelings for a victim, but they cannot be reasonably leveled at Tina Anderson.

2. Anderson’s behavior as a teen is entirely consistent with what would be expected from a child who had been abused and from a teen who had trusted and liked her rapist. All of the “gotchas” that Phelps’ supporters like to harp on are completely expected by professionals familiar with such cases.

3. All of the things that Anderson claims were said and done to her by Phelps are consistent with the attitudes I’ve personally witnessed and have been experienced by friends of mine within Fundamentalist churches. Not only that, but these fundamentalist attitudes can be readily proven by reading half a dozen threads on Sharper Iron about this case. There are precedents and corroborating stories that show that fundamentalist pastors from fundamentalist institutions like BJU and Northland do cover up these crimes and ask these victims to repent of their sins connected with their victimization.

4. Phelps lied by omission to his congregation. He did not tell them that Tina’s pregnancy and Ernie’s “infidelity” were linked.

5. Phelps believed that consensual sex is possible between a 15yo and a 39yo. He said in numerous places that he believed it to be a consensual dating relationship. As horrid as that is, that is the BEST POSSIBLE way that Phelps’ actions can be interpreted. Otherwise one must reach the conclusion that he kept a forcible-rapist-of-a-teen-girl in his congregation without warning anyone of the danger.

6. Phelps allowed Ernie Willis to remain in his congregation without anyone knowing that he (at a MINIMUM) was guilty of statutory rape. Why would he allow this? Out of pity for Willis’ family? Perhaps partly. But concentrating on their pain/shame increased the pain/shame of their father’s victim. It seems obvious that Phelps either thought that Willis was not a danger to other young teens (because Phelps thought that Tina was a willing participant) OR Phelps was willing to risk Willis raping more girls.

7. Phelps statements on the witness stand at Willis’ trial were self-centered and self-protecting. He was also a witness for the defense.* Yes, that’s right. Willis’ lawyer was convinced that this pastor’s testimony would be in his client’s favor. Phelps’ statements were consistent with the impression I’d been developing prior to the trial that protecting his image (by justifying his actions) was a much bigger concern than justice for Tina.

[* This is incorrect. Phelps was a hostile witness for the prosecution. I'm leaving it as originally stated with this clarification in an effort to acknowledge my wrong-doing. ]

8. Phelps has never apologized to Tina, despite obliquely admitting some (at least small) wrong-doing by stating that he would not handle such a situation the same way today.

9. Phelps’ defense has been primarily through people who claim that he spoke with them personally, and he told them XYZ. These claims have NEVER been proven or even publically stated by Phelps. Such tactics (using rumors and hearsay to create doubt) should never be employed by a Christian. If Phelps had proof of the claims his supporters are spreading, he would have revealed it long ago. A couple of the rumors I’ve heard that Phelps told someone: Tina bragged that she was going to seduce a married man. (Where are the girls she supposedly bragged to? Why haven’t they come forward before now?) That 20/20 sent him a letter of apology for misleading statements made in their expose. (This one would surely have been posted on Phelps’ website!)

10. Lastly, human nature itself leads me to believe that Phelps is doing everything in his power to cover up and minimize his wrong-doing and sin. First, fundamentalism itself breeds crippling perfectionism. While grace is preached, everyone knows that the important people don’t really need it because they are almost fully sanctified. The only acceptable sin to admit is pride, and you can cancel out pride by tearfully, humbly confessing it.

Human nature hides failings, minimizes hurts, justifies actions, fears discovery. If I didn’t know that based on my interactions with the woman in the mirror or by observing the actions of my children, I could learn if by reading scripture.

Those are some of the reasons why I do not support Chuck Phelps and why I believe Tina Anderson.

Either Phelps believes he did nothing wrong, OR he’s refusing to repent and apologize. Neither of those is an acceptable state for a pastor. Neither option is okay, and by not coming out and saying, “I did nothing wrong,” and accepting the outcry from reasonable people everywhere, we must assume that he is covering his wrong doing and lying to do so.

That is why I don’t give a flying flip what Phelps’ website says. He is a scared man whom I pity as I pity anyone who doesn’t understand the beautiful freedom found in embracing Christ’s covering for our worst deeds. Chuck Phelps, there is yet grace for you. I cannot speak for Tina or for other “critics,” but I know that with your sincere repentance and apology I will happily extend to you the love and forgiveness that Christ has given to me.

We believe that the biblical way to approach this information is to get all the facts before judging Dr. Phelps or his actions, including going directly to him for answers to questions.

Did BJU go to Tina Anderson? If not, by their own stated standards (getting all the facts), they cannot judge the veracity of Phelps’ claims.

Yes, I know that when one of your buddies is accused of something horrific that you don’t want to believe it.

Yes, I know that it is normal to be relieved when you ask him about it and he explains that it is all a misunderstanding.

Yes, I know that it is very, very tempting to leave it there and begin defending your buddy.

But is that Doing Right? Is that pursuing justice for the weak?

Or is that how the powerful help their friends retain their power?

Marshall Franklin needs to call Tina Anderson. He should also ask himself if “the critics” are insisting that Phelps be a perfect person (as is suggested in the link and by the statement he read today). Did Chuck Phelps do anything that warrants repentance and an apology to Tina?

If Phelps would “do things differently today” then he must feel that he erred (on some level) 13 years ago. None of us is perfect, but if love is guiding us then we must acknowledge our wrongs and apologize for them. THAT IS WHAT IS BEING DEMANDED. Repent, apologize, and accept the consequences of doing wrong.

This is not a witch hunt. This is not persecution. This is reading the Bible and applying it to our lives and the lives of those who profess to know Christ.

“Today, I would not allow such personal needs of a teenager to be presented to a congregation in an open forum. I certainly regret that the well-intentioned actions taken in 1997 have been reinterpreted 13 years later as a purposeful shaming  allowing many accusations to be brought against the good people of Trinity Baptist Church and against me, as the former pastor.”

That sentence structure can reasonably lead one to understand that his regret is because his actions have been “reinterpreted” unfavorably. He doesn’t say that he regrets bringing Anderson before the church. He says that he wouldn’t present such needs in this way now, and that he regrets that his actions have been unfavorably “reinterpreted.”

“While there was every effort to to cooperate fully with law enforcement professionals in 1997, I believe today I would be far more aggressive with other community professionals to assure that justice is served.”

This second quote specifically has me thinking . . . that word aggressive . . . so, he’s saying that he would pursue, and be determined, and not rest until his aim was carried out? That if someone resisted his aim that he would be more forceful? Is that what aggressive means? I wonder if he understood the word that same way in 1997?

No one I’ve talked with about this case who feels like Phelps should be held accountable is claiming sinless perfection. None of us are saying that Phelps should be sinless and perfect. We are ALL sinners saved by grace who more often than not mess up and hurt others. When we hurt others, we are to repent and ask forgiveness and turn from our sin and face the consequences with as much maturity as we can muster. Do you see this attitude in Phelps’ words? He just released a post-trial statement. I’ve copied it below, and it can be found here.

The trial of Ernie Willis took place in Concord, NH, from May 23 to 28, 2011. After a week of hearing witnesses, a jury found Ernie Willis guilty on all counts placed before them. There are those who may be curious about my reactions.

 

I am relieved. Tina Anderson had the right to seek justice, and she is no doubt thankful that Ernie Willis has been convicted. Ernie Willis broke the law. No one has ever denied this. When Tina made allegations concerning Ernie Willis in 1997, her mother and I reported the matter as a crime to the Concord police department (a fact now affirmed under oath by me, her mother, and the Concord police investigator assigned to the case). Unfortunately, the Concord police were not diligent to follow-up on the reports given to them. Further, it was affirmed under oath by me and a Concord police officer that I called the New Hampshire Division of Youth and Family Services and reported Tina’s situation as was required by the law. Sadly, this report did not bring the immediate follow-up that is the expected norm today.

 

At my recommendation Mrs. Leaf took Tina to see a licensed medical professional who examined her in private and never called the police (a fact also established by the medical professional’s testimony in court).

 

The facts posted on this website since the April 8th 20/20 program aired have now been stated under oath. On Tuesday, May 24, 2011, the court determined that I could share what had previously been confidential information which I received from Mr. Willis many years ago. The release of this information no doubt played a very important part in bringing these matters to justice.

 

I am thankful for the prayers that have been offered for me, my ministry, and my family.  They have been much appreciated and have greatly encouraged my heart during this time. We have learned much.

 

Ecclesiastes 8:11 says, “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” Sadly, justice for Ernie Willis was long in coming. Much evil has resulted. I ask you simply to join me in praying that clarity will replace confusion and that God will be glorified.

 

Does that read like a man who repents of wrong-doing? Do you hear an apology in that? Do you even hear that he would do things differently today???

Perhaps Phelps would “do things differently” today, but he has not apologized or repented or said that he wishes he had not further victimized one of the sheep in his flock. If he would just say that — just acknowledge the breadth of his wrong-doing and the depth of the injury — then all of this would look so very, very different. Those of us who are urging for Phelps to be held accountable and held to the higher standards of the office of pastor are doing so out of an understanding of sin and out a desire to see God’s will being done. This is not a witch hunt. This is not an attempt to ruin a man’s ministry. This is Christians speaking up for the weak and the fatherless and to rebuke those who hurt them.

“. . . because of the nature of the allegations procedures were in place which assured that Mr. Willis never be permitted to participate in any ministry involving minors  or be unsupervised in his attendance.”

How in the world is this possible if others in the church did not know of the allegations?

What kind of procedures could possibly have been followed if the church body was only told that Willis had been unfaithful?

And if Phelps believed that this was a consensual, dating relationship that was immoral only due to adultery/fornication, why would lack of supervision or ministries involving minors be a problem?

Phelps can’t have it both ways. Either he believed it to be a consensual, dating relationship that did not require a criminal investigation OR he thought it was possible that other minors should be protected from Willis. In which case, he should have filled out the paperwork he had been told was required to make his report official.

*Before someone gets snippy about me using the technically-incorrect term “pedophilia,” let me state that I’m aware that “ephebophilia” is a more accurate term. However, most people aren’t familiar with that word, and societally we tend to equate the two with such a large age disparity and if consent cannot legally be given.

If you’ve read much from or spoken much with those within the IFB, you’ll find that the call for “neutrality” in these situations is strong. There is significant pressure to remain neutral:

• until “all the facts come out”
• because “we will never know all the facts”
• because “the truth is probably somewhere in the middle”
• because we wouldn’t want to ruin a good man’s life by believing a false accusation
• because we would want others to give us the benefit of the doubt if we were being accused

That all sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? That tone of reason is part of the problem. It hints at a view of ourselves that we’d like to maintain (that we are intelligent and reasonable) and it subtly encourages us to react in the way the speaker wants us to (to not do or say anything).

Too many Christians have accepted the claim that “neutrality” is the proper, Christian response in abuse cases. I’d like to suggest that Christians should emphasize fairness rather than neutrality.

I believe that Christians who desire to be fair should seek to mitigate the power differential that is inherent in abuse. Only by supporting the abused, so that s/he does not remain at a disadvantage, can fairness be achieved. Neutrality (taking no position) allows the powerful person to retain his power and place of advantage within the situation and within the community. Christ championed the underdog. Christ told us to support the weak and the fatherless. Supporting the weak and the fatherless requires ACTION, not the INACTION inherent in neutrality.

WHAT WAS SAID . . .

I’d like to discuss the IFB rhetoric generated by this case. For a sample, go over to Sharper Iron here and here and you will see that the majority of posts regarding this case say one of two things:

1. We don’t know all the facts. We shouldn’t be talking about this. We shouldn’t be making any judgments until all the facts come out. We need to wait and see what comes out in the trial. If you are talking about this issue you should shut up because this is malicious gossip that is damaging a good pastor’s reputation.

 

2. We don’t know all the facts, but we should acknowledge that statutory rape is not in the Bible. A teen can engage in sex with an adult and Biblically it can be consensual even if legally it cannot. Our churches should be prepared to deal with a teen’s sin of fornication even if his/her partner is convicted of statutory rape by our legal system.

Get your jaw up off the floor.

WHAT IFs . . .

Tina Anderson’s story has revealed that in the IFB no one is allowed to question a well-known pastor’s actions even when an undeniable criminal act has been committed and covered up. Given this, can you imagine any victim being willing to go to trial if everything rested solely on her testimony that she had not consented to having sex?

The above two reactions shocked me to the core. And now that we have a conviction, I can’t help but wonder:

What if these crimes had happened 6 months later and there was no legal argument for statutory rape? What then? The legal category of statutory rape was the only thing that gave concerned Christians any traction in discussing this case in IFB circles. What if a criminal act had NOT been undeniable (as it was given Anderson’s age)? What would the rhetoric have sounded like then? I honestly shudder to think of it. If the above two responses were the loudest statements when a crime had UNDENIABLY been committed, what would have been said if this were truly a “he said-she said” case?

God help us all.

(But mostly, God help the victims within the IFB.)

If the victim had been older, I predict the  two responses from those within the IFB would have looked like this:

1. We don’t know all the facts. We shouldn’t be talking about this. We shouldn’t be making any judgments until all the facts come out. We need to wait and see what comes out in the trial. (Oh, wait, there won’t be a trial because the victim is aware that her burden of proof is too big. She knows that her mother, her rapist, and her pastor-at-the-time all considered this a consensual RELATIONSHIP.) If you are talking about this issue you should shut up because the “victim” isn’t even pressing charges and you are spreading malicious gossip that is damaging a good pastor’s reputation.

 

2. We don’t know all the facts, but we should acknowledge that statutory rape is not in the Bible. A teen can engage in sex with an adult and Biblically it can be consensual even if legally it cannot. Our churches should be prepared to deal with a teen’s sin of fornication even if his/her partner is convicted of statutory rape by our legal system. Everyone except the teen in this case is saying that this was consensual. This pastor, this respected man of God, is saying that there was an on-going dating relationship. The pastor has much more information than we ever will about this case, and I know him and trust him. The “victim’s” unwillingness to take this to trial indicates that she’s just having regrets about this consensual relationship. Even her OWN MOTHER is saying it was consensual. End of story. All of you who keep bringing this up are harming the name of Christ and attempting to destroy a good pastor’s name.

WHY WE MUST SPEAK

Ernest Willis was convicted despite his, Anderson’s mother’s, and Phelps’ claims that it was consensual sex. Would the jury have returned the same guilty verdict if Anderson had been just 6 months older at the time of the rapes? This seems likely since the sexual assault designation of which Willis was convicted is not tied to the victim’s age. (At least as far as I can tell. I’m not a lawyer. )

And yet, if Anderson had been six months older when these crimes were committed, this case would probably have never even been tried in court . . .

. . . though the injustice would have been no less.  Anderson’s pain would have been no less. Willis’ crime would have been no less. Phelps’ protection of a criminal and persecution of an innocent would have been no less. All of this evil would not have been challenged because the screams of “Shut up! You cannot talk about this! You are spreading malicious rumors!” would have been deafening and the victim may not have had enough support to endure a trial.

There are reasons that covering-up sexual abuse within the IFB has been so successful. Cover-ups work if there is no oversight and if people can be coerced into shutting up. This is why the internet is so valuable in fighting this evil: a measure of oversight can be created even without the cooperation of the pastors and churches involved, and there is no way to make us all shut up.

Speak out. Speak out for the weak and the fatherless.