Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Former President of an Evangelical Baptist College is now under Investigation

I really don't want to turn this blog into a gossip column but it seems that every day I hear about another scandal among evangelical Christian leaders. (Hat Tip to Jerri Massi). I realize that no one is perfect, but my god, shouldn't we expect a little more from Christian leaders?

Chuck Phelps was formerly the President of Maranatha Baptist College and Seminary in Watertown, Wisconsin. In my former fundamentalist/evangelical circles, this was a highly respected institution. Before Phelps came to Maranatha, he was the Pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Concord, New Hampshire. In 1997, when Phelps was the Pastor at Trinity, a 15 year old girl was raped twice by one of the church leaders, Ernest Willis, who is now 51. The Concord Monitor ran an article yesterday on the subject. It reads in part:
After being raped and impregnated by a fellow churchgoer more than twice her age, a 15-year-old Concord girl was forced by Trinity Baptist Church leaders to stand before the congregation to apologize before they helped whisk her out of state, according to the police.

While her pastor, Chuck Phelps, reported the alleged rape in 1997 to state youth officials, Concord police detectives were never able to find the victim. The victim said she was sent to another church member's home in Colorado, where she was home-schooled and not allowed to have contact with others her age. It wasn't until this past February that the victim, who is now 28, decided to come forward after reading about other similar cases, realizing for the first time it wasn't her fault that she had been raped, she told the police.

The poor girl became pregnant and Willis offered to pay for an out-of-state abortion or to hit the girl in the stomach to cause a miscarriage.

When the girl's mother reported the situation to Pastor Phelps, he called the girl in front of the church to apologize.

Again the newspaper reported:

The victim said Phelps told her she would be put up for "church discipline," where parishioners go before the congregation to apologize for their sins.

She asked why. "Pastor Phelps then said that (Willis) may have been 99 percent responsible, but I needed to confess my 1 percent guilt in the situation," the victim told the police.

"He told me that I should be happy that I didn't live in Old Testament times because I would have been stoned."


The local TV station also ran a report on the crime yesterday. They contacted Chuck Phelps, who is now Pastor of the large Colonial Hills Baptist Church in Indianapolis, and Phelps was tight-lipped about the matter.

Phelps, who is now a pastor in Indianapolis, said Tuesday he reported what the teen told him to police and child welfare officials within 24 hours. Phelps would not comment when asked about his role in relocating the teen to a pastor's home in Colorado.

"I called in a report," Phelps said. "I think I've said what I need to say."

Not only is Phelps currently the Pastor of a large Baptist church but he is also currently the Vice Chairman of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, one the largest groups of independent Baptist churches in the US.

The mistreatment and abuse of children is appalling but even more so when it is covered up by Christian leaders.

BTW, the President of Maranatha Baptist College prior to Phelps was David Jaspers. He resigned in 2006 when he admitted to a “lack of modesty” during therapeutic massage. His resignation letter can be found here.

36 comments:

  1. "I realize that no one is perfect, but my god, shouldn't we expect a little more from Christian leaders?"
    They definitely should be held to a higher standard and a higher level of punishment if guilty. And what is even more sickening is that the people with the most access to childrens and in the biggest positions of trust in the eyes of childrens - there parents - are by far the largest group of abusers and abuse cover uppers in the USA. And it seems that where you are in society with respect to your income and social standings has lots to do with it to.
    * children whose parents are unemployed have about two times the rate of child abuse and two to three times the rate of neglect than children with employed parents
    * children in low socioeconomic families have more than three times the rate of child abuse and seven times the rate of neglect than other children
    * living with their married biological parents places kids at the lowest risk for child abuse and neglect, while living with a single parent and a live-in partner increased the risk of abuse and neglect to more than eight times that of other children
    http://www.childhelp.org/
    What segments of our society are currently addressing these ills?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I love the victim blaming. I guess she didn't scream out enough while being raped, since he said she would be stoned. This is completely amoral.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think such cases are rampant amongst Baptist ministers. You all have read of Darryl Gillyard (a disciple of Paige Patterson), of David Hyles' serial womanizing, and so so many of them. It is because they operated under the heretical idea of local church authority without accountability--same as the Liberty's philosophy. They are just predators in the pulpit. Most of them, not all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Appalling. On this we can agree. (Although, as we've seen, you have no reason beyond "I intuit that this is wrong" to call anything out as morally wrong.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rhology,

    And all you have is a "holy book" which has been interpreted many different ways. Each person subjectively decides what the "objective" morality of the Bible is. How is that any better?

    I don't need an ancient book to tell me that raping a 15 year old is bad and that for a Christian leader to cover it up is bad. BTW, as the "good" Pastor said, if this had happened in the OT period, the girl would have been stoned. Nice morality your "holy book" displays.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ken

    You are correct, you have devolved into a disturbing trend in your recent posts. With regard to this post, if guilty, all (regardless of religion) who violate children should be held to the strictest enforcement of the law. But, as I've noticed in your posts, you tend to only give the side of the story that suits your intent - the discreditation of your remembered Christianity. Furthermore, I notice you give no place to the mistreatment and murder of wives and daughters by Islamic parents. While I am in no way defending the guilty, your posts would hold much more credibility if you, as an atheist, would give fair treatment to all religious systems. I am not naive enough to disregard your obvious hatred of fundamentalist Christianity, but the least you could do is be honest in your treatment of it and its leaders. Give the full stories. Wait until investigations are complete and then comment. If found guilty, then you'll have fodder for the canons. However, if exonerated, I doubt you'd be gracious and retract your comments. I have a suspicion you'd accuse them of covering it up in some way. Your obvious bone picking is one-sided and tedious. So you don't want to be a Christian anymore. You say you've "de-converted." Big deal! Get on with your life. You say you keep up this blog to expose the dangers evangelical Christianity poses to society, but lately your posts appear to be nothing more than the rantings of an angry man.

    I would have much greater respect for you if you examined evangelical Christianity as a whole rather than limit yourself to the BJU and FBFI circles of your past. Rant if you must, accuse us of what you wish, but stick with your capabilities - deal with concepts and philosophies.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You say you keep up this blog to expose the dangers evangelical Christianity poses to society, but lately your posts appear to be nothing more than the rantings of an angry man.


    Isn't that exactly what Ken is doing here? He is exposing the vices and dangers of fundamentallist Christianity. This blog is not about other religions -it is about Christians.
    And what other side to the sotry could there possibly be? A 15 year old girl was raped. Even if she "consented" to sex, she is a minor and it is still statutory rape. What about shaming her in front of the congregation, whisking her away and virtually making her a prisoner with the home schoolng? Do you think that was a nice, normal thing to do to her? They may not be criminal offenses but they certainly rate as abuse, possibly even kidnapping.

    "Concepts and philosophies" are all very well, but isn't real life more important?
    I beleive that Ken (correct me if I am wrong) is trying to be nice to Christians in an attempt to "catch more flies with honey" in his discussions of the finer points of morality etc. in the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think it's a legitimate thing to do to point out the hypocrisy and the secret things that go on in fundamental circles. I came from that background, and I know how these "men of God" are put on pedastals by congregations.

    They get up there and teach stuff that confuses and torments you through your whole life. It's kinda hard NOT to have a little bitterness when looking back at all that and what it did to your mind. Then finding out years later, that so many were secretly doing whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  9. David,

    My blog is entitled: "Why I De-Converted from Evangelical Christianity," not "Why I De-Converted from Islam."

    There are blogs out there that deal with the abuses in Islam as well as the Roman Catholic Church and others. I didn't really want to deal with these matters as I prefer to deal with ideas and show why EC is internally contradictory and inconsistent and if look at my posts that is primarily what I do.

    However, EC is also discredited as being any different than any other man-made religion when its leaders do such terrible things. Again, I am not talking about the rank and file members, I am talking about the leaders for Zeus sake.

    Just in the last several posts, we have seen some of the "greatest men of God" from the 18th and 19th century defend slavery. We have seen the President of one of the leading evangelical seminaries under investigation for lying (and there is no doubt he did, just look at Youtube.) Then today I hear about one of the FBF leaders who covered-up rape in his church and then sent the girl to Colorado where I am told she was under the care of Matt Olson who is now the President of Northland. How can you possibly be on "their side"?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Reporting is not gossip. If it were not for Fetid Fruit, Deep Thoughts and other blogs these horrible stories might not get "out there." Keep it up I say.

    Kriss

    ReplyDelete
  11. I never said I was "on their side." I said wait until the whole story comes to light. Would you retract accusatory language if these men and situations were exonerated?

    ReplyDelete
  12. David,

    I definitely would but there doesn't seem to be any doubt about it. Have you read the reports?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rhology, you keep beating this same drum over and over: People who don't believe in the Bible have no way of knowing whether it's wrong to rape/kill/torture. Ken keeps coming back with the perfectly valid objection that your book doesn't yield a consistent standard of ethics in the first place. Rather than refute that contention, you just keep repeating your original argument. Repetition doesn't strengthen a lame argument.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Each person subjectively decides what the "objective" morality of the Bible is.

    1) So 13 flies corn chips near Saturday up lunchtake?
    2) The obvious point I'm making is that there's an objective text, with objective commands prescribing objective right and wrong. There's a right way and many wrong ways to understand that text. Just like your comment. This is a postmodern conversation-killer, and a monumentally stupid thing to say, since it cuts the throat of ALL communication, including the assertion itself; thus it's self-refuting.

    My advice - don't use self-refuting critiques.

    SteveJ,
    Yes, no way to KNOW. Ken keeps saying (THERE's your repetition) that he "intuits" that it's wrong. Whoopie. My question has never been whether he feels like rape is wrong. My question has always been WHETHER IT IS WRONG.

    ReplyDelete
  15. BTW, as the "good" Pastor said, if this had happened in the OT period, the girl would have been stoned.

    Not if she was raped. At least have the common courtesy to quote the source correctly. Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rhology - seriously? Without the Bible, we can't *know* these things are wrong?

    "There's a right way and many wrong ways to understand that text." Yes, and anyone who reads it makes a *subjective* decision about which is the right way to read it.

    Even if your text actually did what you think it does - offer "objective commands prescribing objective right and wrong" - you would still need objective readers to interpret it correctly. Is there such a thing as a truly objective reader?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rhology,

    "Not if she was raped. At least have the common courtesy to quote the source correctly. Sheesh."

    Phelps may have been referring to the legislation about the rape victim crying out for help when assaulted in the fields. The passage is clear that if the victim is in town and doesn't "cry out," she gets the death penalty. What saves her in the case of being out in the country is that nobody can hear her cries. The legislation asserts that if the woman doesn't resist she too is guilty. How do you interpret that? Do you grant that other things besides "crying out" may count as resistance? Is it an extenuating circumstance if the guy sticks a knife or gun in her face? The text is brief and leaves a lot of extenuating or aggravating circumstances out of view.

    In the news article linked by Ken, it says she was in the back seat of a car in a business's parking lot one time. In her own house the other time. Is either of these cases equivalent to the scenarios presented in the law? Phelps may have been referring to just this passage, putting the girl in the case of the woman who does not "cry out" in town, and refusing to acknowledge that any extenuating circumstances apply. What the church board did appears consistent with a belief that the girl was guilty of indecency.

    The girl stated at the time: "I was completely in shock, but too scared to go and tell anyone because I thought I would get blamed for what happened." Exactly -- and all too often true. So, who's fault is that, the girl's? How did she get to be so cowed by authority anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rhology,

    Bzzt! on my last comment. Open mouth, insert foot. That's what I get for trying to rush the comment as I'm out the door and not double-check my references. The passage in question, Deut. 22:23-27, has to do with betrothed virgins, which the girl in this story apparently was not. If the girl had consensual sex she would still not be subject to the death penalty under OT law, AFAIK.

    What other OT teaching could Phelps have had in mind? Deut. 22 still looks to me like the likeliest candidate, and Phelps just goofed.

    On the other hand, my point is really about the Deut. 22:23-27 passage anyway, regardless of whether Phelps applied it correctly or not. The law as formulated, even if surrounded by an ocean of qualifications and limited to the very narrow circumstances described in the text, betrays fundamental ignorance of the psychology of rapists and their victims. If you want to blame God for that law, go right ahead. I'd rather blame some anonymous Israelite scribe.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ken, thank you for your blog. I haven't posted here before, but I read here frequenty.

    DWSmith, you sound just iike a typical brain washed Fundy. I know, I know. You won't get this. You can't even see yourself accurately. Be very careful though. You know what they say about 'those that doth protest too much..."

    As is typical with fundies, you are shooting the messenger. The information reported by Ken is from police reports. This egregious abuse that is rampant in fundamentalism will not stop until names are named and light is shed on the evils being perpetrated here.

    Honestly, you sound like you might have some of your own skeletons to hide. You sound very protective of these people. I grew up in fundamentalism, and I have heard Chuck Phelps preach. There is a whole class of IFB preachers who are so taken with themselves and their perceived power that they have lost touch with reality.

    What are you going to say if these men are found guilty?????

    If you don't like what Ken writes here, simply GO AWAY!!! Obviously the light here is too bright. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Black sheep said: "Honestly, you sound like you might have some of your own skeletons to hide."

    I wouldn't start making those kinds of insinuations, Black Sheep. Better that we stick to discussing ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Steve,

    I agree. I don't want to insult any of our commenters or cast aspersion on their character or motivation. First, its just not right to do that. Second, it drives away people who we would like to have dialogue with. Third, in this particular case, I know David. He was a former student of mine. I know his family and his wife's family. They are all good examples of what Christian's ought to be. While I don't share their belief system any longer, I can vouch for the fact that they are good, moral people.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Black Sheep,

    You ask, "What are you going to say if these men are found guilty????" Simple, lock them up and throw away the key!

    Pastors deal with more than most people, whether in or out of the pew, realize. In my tenure as pastor of my church I have personally filed 2 police reports and once hand-delivered a man to police. There are always items left unsaid in such instances, both to police and to pastors. Victims, especially children, are often hesitant to come forward for a variety of reasons, fear being predominant. My job, as their pastor, is to help the victims and their families deal with what has been done to them so they can heal and grow. I don't know the whole back story behind this incident and neither does anyone here. For the record, Ken cited the report given in the Concord Monitor not the police reports. This is an ongoing investigation, the police reports themselves would probably not yet be a matter of public record. I am sure that since the victim in this instance was a minor at the time of her victimization that her testimony to police would still not be a matter of public record, even though she's an adult now. In fact, the Monitor story does not even now name her. This is to protect her and her rights.

    I find it interesting that the Concord Monitor follow up "Facebook group helped police make rape arrest" interviewed former, and obviously disgruntled, members of the church. I DO NOT want anyone to take my comments as my approval, tacit or otherwise, of what was or was not done or said. My point is simple, give both sides of the story. Wait until the investigation is complete and then comment. If the then girl, now woman, engaged consentually, then sin was involved and must be addressed by the church. Does this excuse the pervert? Absolutely not!!!!! Was the situation handled in the best manner by the church and its leadership? I don't know, I wasn't there. I would like to see the CM do a follow-up story interviewing church members of that time period who are not currently disgruntled, rather than merely former members and those who have an obvious axe to grind with Fundamentalists (ie Jocelyn Zichterman). Some honest reporting would be a nice change. Sure, you can't sell papers that way, but it would still be a nice change.

    Ken, I am both honored and humbled by your comments. I was blessed to be your student and consider you now a friend. If my prior comments offended you, then I ask your forgiveness.

    Black Sheep - You are slightly correct in one point...I was raised in Fundamentalist circles. Am I a current member of the FBFI? No. Am I rising to their defense because I agree with every jot and tittle of what they do and say? No, I'm not even rising to their defense per se. I am asking for honest reporting. Atheists regularly accuse Christians of not giving the whole story and skewing the facts to suit our needs. While I am not accusing Ken of this here, I am dismayed at the one-sidedness of the treatment of Phelps and the church in this instance by those who are currently commenting and reporting.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Update : Both Pastor Chuck Phelps and the rape victim have given interviews on the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Michael Mock,

    Without the Bible, we can't *know* these things are wrong?

    I invite you to prove me wrong. Provide an objective moral standard by which we can know rape is wrong.
    This might help you think thru it.
    Situation: You are traveling in a foreign land and go to an out-of-the-way picturesque temple. There you meet a native, there to offer religious piety. He finishes lighting his candle and then greets you, speaking serviceable English. He introduces himself as Tkalim.
    He offers to tell you a little about his religion. You, being the courteous gentleman/lady you are, invite him to proceed. He tells you that he and his whole society worship 5 gods of the fish, air, earth, fire, and tree. He then tells you that part of his worship devotion is to go with all the men of his society to steal girls between the ages of 3-8 years from their families in the nearby large city, take them into the jungle, and rape them.
    Once raped, the tribesmen leave the girls in the jungle as an offering to the tree god. He says he knows of no girl that has ever returned to the city to her family.
    Once he finishes his story with calm voice and clear eyes, he falls silent.
    I have something to say to him about this practice. What would YOU say? How would you try to explain that what he is doing is wrong? *Is* what he is doing wrong? On what basis?


    you would still need objective readers to interpret it correctly.

    Oh, kinda like YOU'D need objective readers to interpret your comment correctly?
    Please, don't be so dense.


    Dean Dough,
    The legislation asserts that if the woman doesn't resist she too is guilty. How do you interpret that?

    As more or less consensual sex, which was a capital crime in the Mosaic Law.


    Do you grant that other things besides "crying out" may count as resistance?

    Probably, but I'm not a judge in the Mosaic administration, and neither are you.


    Is it an extenuating circumstance if the guy sticks a knife or gun in her face?

    1) A gun? In the Bronze Age? ;-)
    2) I would imagine so. I've never seen in the OT a command "Leave your brain at the door when you adjudicate these matters." It's not like the Mosaic Law purports to cover every single contingency.



    Is either of these cases equivalent to the scenarios presented in the law?

    Nothing today is, b/c we don't live in the Mosaic administration. I'm unsure what relevance all this has. I agreed that the situation is appalling, and I would put approximately 0% of the blame on the girl, just FYI. This dude would've been excommunicated promptly from my church, and the police called right after.



    How did she get to be so cowed by authority anyway?

    Probably the same way that the disciples of atheist Chuck Manson got that way. Some humans are weaker and more vulnerable than others.



    What other OT teaching could Phelps have had in mind?

    Tbh, it doesn't matter to me. The guy is clearly an evil kook, and he's just using whatever he can from the Bible to justify his perversions.



    If you want to blame God for that law, go right ahead. I'd rather blame some anonymous Israelite scribe.

    You seem to be implying that this is a bad law. Please provide an objective moral standard by which we can adjudicate between good and bad things.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Here is a local Denver TV station report on the rape incident.

    On another blog, I notice people coming to the defense of Pastor Phelps now. Phelps says that he did nothing wrong and he wants an apology. He says the rape victim refused to talk with police.

    The rapist Ernest Willis was made to read a letter to the congregation saying he had been "unfaithful" to his wife and asked for forgiveness. Phelps knew that this "unfaithfulness" was with a 15 year old girl and thus constituted statuory rape. He says he reported it to the police and the police never followed up.

    Excuse me but 1) didn't Phelps have a responsibility to make sure that "justice was done? 2) If Willis "repented", why didn't he confess to the police? Why did he refuse to give them a statement? 3) Phelps knowing that Willis refused to confess to police, allowed Willis to remain a church member in good standing.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ken, Thanks for the updates. I read both interviews with interest.

    There is something that bothers me about all of this though. Why go so public? I completely understand the 15 year old's (now 28) desire for justice and applaud her for taking matters into her own hands to seek justice for herself even now. But, if justice is what she seeks, it could have been done without all the media attention. Please don't think I'm advocating trying to hide anything. My concern behind that statement is not for Phelps, Willis, or even the victim (she's allowed her name to be made public now). Has anyone thought about the victim's daughter - now a 13 year old girl? Hey, she's been adopted. For the past 13 years she's had parents who (I can only hope) have loved her and sought to raise her in the best way possible. Has her birth mother given thought to what information like this, made so publicly, would do to her daughter? The fact that she made no mention of her concern to protect her daughter that to Fox News makes me think she hasn't. What would you think if you found out at 13 that your birth mother conceived you as a result of rape? That could be emotionally and psychologically devastating. It is common for adopted children to preconceive notions and fantasies about their birth parents (if they don't know them). Such information, obtained so publicly and indirectly, could have debilitating results on her. I do not pretend to know the circumstances behind the adoption - whether it's an open or closed adoption. Nor does anyone here know if the adoptive parents have told the girl anything prior to this. What I am saying is that the same effect could be achieved (justice) without the media attention. The victim could have contacted police, pressed charges, and the police could have even begun an investigation into Phelps if they desired withou the media attention.

    FYI - I say this out of a life of experience. I am an adoptive parent of two beautiful children, one open and one closed adoption. The closed adoption is for legal reasons to protect my child. And yes, when he is mature enough to understand the circumstances of his birth and adoption they will be discussed with him. And yes, both of my children know they are adopted - as much as two toddlers can grasp the concept.

    Just some food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ken, I am not defending or accusing Phelps here, but the only legal obligation he had was to report his knowledge of the incident to police within 24 hours of finding out. The decisions he made subsequent to his reporting are another matter. He may or may not be guilty of obstruction of justice, that is a matter for the authorities to decide.

    I realize you're dealing with the morality of Phelps' action/inaction. I just wanted to clarify his legal responsibility.

    ReplyDelete
  28. David,

    How could he allow the rapist to continue as a member of the church? If Willis got up and confessed his "unfaithfulness" (since when is rape merely unfaithfulness), then why didn't Willis confess it to the police and why didn't Phelps insist that he do so or else be expelled from the church? I am having a hard time seeing any possible way that Phelps can escape blame. Yes, I know he might not be legally accountable but is that all that matters when we are talking about a Christian leader?

    ReplyDelete
  29. David,

    I agree that it is bad for the child. I don't know whose desire it was to make this so public. From what I've read, it was the Concord Police Dept. They either reported it to the press or the press monitors their arrest report (most local newspapers do this). Why the victim decided to do a TV interview, I don't know. Maybe she feels that this is her way of "paying back" (retributive justice :), the ones she feels mistreated her. I am sure there is going to be a whole lot more come out on this. We haven't heard from Matt Olson yet.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ken,

    I realize it was undoubtedly the police department, or the news. Our local paper publishes their "cop log" weekly. As I said earlier, I am not trying to judge Phelps without further information. I am having a difficult time, personally, aligning the information to see how this was handled properly all around. I, personally, may have handled this differently in Phelps' situation, but I am not he and was not there. It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I have been reading the comments on a Fundamentalist forum (SharperIron.org) about this Phelps situtation. Most seem to want to give Phelps the benefit of the doubt, as I guess would be expected. We are always easier on people within our group than people without (note how Rep. for example jump all over Dem's for a scandal but when the same thing happens to a Rep. they are silent or say very little and vice versa for Dem's). Anyway one particluar person, named Larry, who is a moderator on this forum made the following comments regarding Willis, the alleged rapist: I think he absolutely should take spiritual responsibility and legal responsibility. But I think those are two different issues. I don't think taking responsibility biblically and completely means necessarily giving up your legal protections or jeopardizing a legal case. It does not mean volunteering to take the full maximum penalty under the law. . . . He doesn't have to make the prosecution's case for them. One can in fact, break the law criminally (or civilly, but remember they are different) and never turn himself in and never be prosecuted or arrested, and still be biblical in his response.

    I don't agree with this at all. If a Christian takes a "biblical response" with regard to his sin, he cannot minimize it, he cannot lie about it, he cannot excuse it or try to hide it. If he does any of those things, he is not "confessing" his sin as 1 John 1:9 instructs. The word "confess" here means literally "to say the same thing." IOW, when a Christian confesses his sin, he is saying the same thing about his sin that God does. This commenter, who apparently is a leader of some sort in fundamentalism, says that one could commit rape and not turn himself in to the authorities and still be acting "biblically."

    Then, he says with regard to Pastor Phelps:
    Furthermore, while a pastor or church member can encourage a person to turn themselves in to the police, and volunteer to go with him, they cannot force the person to go. They can, and should, take all necessary legal steps of reporting the crimes (and it appears by all accounts that that was done). No one suggests that Phelps failed to report it the police, or tried to cover it up. It sounds like the police also dropped the ball in at least some respects.

    I disagree here too. Let's say it was a murder instead of a rape. The man has admitted to the church that he committed the crime. Would my responsibility only be to report it to the police and if they don't follow up, say, "oh well, I did what I was supposed to do." I don't think so. I think we would be obliged to make sure that the criminal was arrested, if for no other reason than to protect society from his doing this crime again. While rape may not be as serious as murder, its pretty close, especially when it is the rape of a child. I think the Pastor and the other church members who knew about this, failed to do what they were responsible to do. Now its pretty bad when an atheist has to tell a "man of God" what is correct behavior, isn't it? Especially when the "man of God," has an "objective" standard of morality and the atheist doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Especially when the "man of God," has an "objective" standard of morality and the atheist doesn't.

    Ah, you must have forgotten that Christianity has a fairly significant theology of man's depravity and sinfulness. Why is it that atheists and apostates always want to forget that part?

    ReplyDelete
  33. 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
    www.tbcnh.org

    ReplyDelete
  34. Montana,

    It is a terrible story but let me clarify a couple of things.

    The victim's father was not around. She was being raised by her mother. Her mother apparently just did whatever the Pastor told her "god" wanted done.

    She chose because of her age to put the child up for an adoption. But yes she was moved out of state and she was under the supervision of another fundamental Baptist pastor just like the one she had just left in NH.

    Its not just the Baptist though that have this problem, although they do have a big one, its Roman Catholics and other denominations as well.

    ReplyDelete
  35. As LV home placard bakes lacquer cortical earth will need to use special maintains agent nourishes the protection. louis vuitton outlet Zou teacher special remind said, some friends in common we give dermal sofa waxed Bess method etc glazing waxes cleaner to clean up these brand bag, actually this is wrong. Because of this kind of detergent containing wax will only in cortical surfaces leave a layer of wax, won't let a moist ingredient in-depth dermal wool stoma inside. This containing wax cleaner can cause cortical early ageing, winter days, because the temperature is low, we will see played wax purse surface bearing layer "hoar-frost". So leather bag as our skin are same, very selective, cannot abuse maintain article. For example in-store receiving the most LV bag must use special for LV home placard bakes lacquer skin custom-made maintains agent. This kind of maintains agent similar lanolin, very gentle, can penetrate the cortex wool stoma, achieve moist effect, still can be in the cortex surface to form a protective coating. And the metal buckles bags to use certain concentration of alcohol cleaning. Again the placard is home GUCCI senior waterproof fabrics will also need to specify the maintains agent "serve". Because these big bag each style of makings basic consensus, so still calculate very well managed. But encounter such as PRADA style span, the makings of rich bag, the teacher is more troublesome, Louis Vuitton Wristlet bags need careful find for the right to maintain article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is there anyone here willing to tell me about this so called horrible history of Maranatha? I really need to know and google is only coming up with pages telling you about it if you want to attend.

      Delete