Why Do I Believe Tina?

If you’ve recently spoken up in Tina Anderson’s defense or said that Chuck Phelps needs to apologize and repent, I guarantee that someone has replied to you by linking to Phelps’ excuse-making website. Usually the link is accompanied by a comment like,”Have you read this? It seems pretty clear to me that you are just reading the things Phelps’ critics are saying.”

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.

Phelps’ Defenders Say He Would “Do Things Differently”

Phelps’ defenders claim that he would handle things differently today, and that that should be enough for people to stop calling into question his fitness as a pastor. I’ve searched high and low for apologies or acknowledgements of wrong-doing from Phelps. The only statements that I can remotely put in either of these categories are these two from his Specific Answers to Some Difficult Questions:

“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.

He Can’t Seem to Decide if it was Consensual or Pedophilia . . .

Phelps claimed in his Specific Answers to Some Difficult Questions that:

“. . . 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.

IFB Rhetoric Surrounding Tina Anderson’s Story

This post is a follow up to this one. Ernest Willis was found guilty of four counts of rape. Chuck Phelps’ testimony on the stand did nothing to dissuade me from the idea that he obstructed justice and further victimized Tina Anderson.

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.

Church discipline, Chuck Phelps, and a Wolf

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.)