By now, I’m sure most of my readers have heard that Joe Paterno was recently fired after more than 40 years of coaching one of the top College Football programs in the country. Paterno won more games in his coaching career than anyone else in Division-1 Football. Even now his Penn State’s Nittany Lions are poised to win the Big Ten Championship. By all accounts he should be respected and revered. But he was summarily dismissed, and turned out — and this at the end of his golden career.
Paterno is an illustration of a changing reality in the world today. A reality that Fundamentalists and other conservative Church groups must pay attention to, and learn from. Paterno lost the battle of public opinion, because today’s public has an entirely different opinion of child abuse, and potential child abuse, than yesterday’s generation.
In the old days, when the “Good Ol’ Boy” club reinged supreme. An allegation, was just that — an allegation. An alleged incident that may or may not be true. And someone in a position of leadership, would usually be given the benefit of the doubt. In Paterno’s case, his son made the following argument on his behalf:
“Unfortunately,” Scott Paterno said, “once that happened, there was really nothing more Joe felt he could do because he did not witness the event. You can’t call the police and say, ‘Somebody tells me they saw somebody else do something.’ That’s hearsay. Police don’t take reports in that manner. Frankly, from the way he understood the process, he passed the information on to the appropriate university official and they said they were taking care of it. That’s really all he could do. [source]
Thinking this through, I was inclined to give JoePa the benefit of the doubt. He did what he thought was right, and someone else goofed up and didn’t report like they should have. But the more I think about the situation, the more convinced I am that he really does share a blame. It’s convenient to pass a problem off on someone else, especially when the allegation concerns someone you know and trust.
While occasionally, innocent people do get falsely accused, overall, today’s culture which prizes the innocent victims is really to be praised. Isn’t that what the Bible advocates? Standing up for those who have no voice of their own? Ministering to the helpless and the fatherless? The following Scripture verses comes to mind:
Thus says the LORD: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place. (Jeremiah 22:3 ESV)
Thus says the LORD of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart. (Zechariah 7:9-10)
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (James 1:27 ESV)
The Church is also to maintain a good reputation with the world, and particularly its leaders, the elders are given this charge: “Moreover [they] must have a good report of them which are without.” (1 Tim. 3:7a KJV) So, this changing opinion of the public in regard to allegations of child abuse is something that fundamentalists need to pay attention to.
Penn State University, when faced with the potential that some of their employees allowed child abuse to happen and didn’t report or ensure that a report was made to the police, quickly acted to remove all doubt about their stance against child abuse and to fire their high ranking, “good ol’ boys” who had come under a cloud of suspicion. But in Fundamentalism, this is not the road that churches and institutions usually take.
In Chuck Phelps’ case, he filed a report, but allowed the victim to flee the state while the police sought her in vain. He had done his duty by reporting, but didn’t go out of his way to help, because after all this was an allegation, one might say. The perpetrator of the abuse maintained his membership in good standing at the church, while the victim was viewed as a troubled teen who needed special care and who wasn’t worthy of being in the church-run school. Phelps wasn’t censured, that I know of, by any church or institution. He did lose a speaking engagement, and stepped down from the presidency of Maranatha Baptist Bible College (but we don’t know if that was related to this allegation), but he is still on the board of Bob Jones University.
In Fairhaven’s case, when CNN investigated allegations of abuse, there was no apology and no sympathy for the victims. They were said to be kids who caused a lot of trouble, or outright liars. Instead of apologizing and investigating the incidents, Fairhaven staff gave the CNN reporter a souvenir paddle in a mockery of the gravity of these allegations.
Thankfully, not all fundamentalist institutions react this way. The American Council of Christian Churches, a fundamentalist group parallel to the National Association of Evangelicals, publicly condemned Fairhaven’s actions – specifically referencing the giving of a souvenir paddle as an over-the-top and unChristian reaction to these serious charges. A fundamentalist mission board, ABWE, when faced with numerous people going forward about specific cases of abuse, launched an independent investigation, publicly apologized and took radical steps toward changing the culture of their organization in this regard.
Joe Paterno presents an example for fundamentalists that I hope they won’t ignore. The watching public won’t let us give the benefit of the doubt to the “good ol’ boys” anymore. We need to be as concerned as God is, over the victims of abuse. A man I respect, when learning of certain systematic abuse at a Fundamentalist institution that he had given years of his life to, reacted by confronting the leader of the church and institution, and then leaving. From what I’ve heard of this incident, he was told something to the effect of “Well, what do you want us to do about that? There’s nothing we can do.” He replied, “I’d dedicate my ministry to helping every last child who was harmed by the abuse that happened.”
Good advice for all of us. Don’t hide behind the fact that these are only “allegations”. Don’t refuse to investigate the matter, or have it investigated by a third party, for fear of what the high-up, protected and revered leaders would think– or what could happen to them. Stand up for the oppressed and the abused, and take a stand. A watching world wonders if we really are as much like Jesus Christ as we say we are.
Bob:
This open ended claim about Dr. Phelps leaving Maranatha is over the top. This is just another high-tech, Internet hearsay lynching that men like you are becoming infamous for. What you guys in and around SI do and allow for over-and-over to assassinate character, demonize and besmirch at any expense sickens me to the core. And you want to be listened to, taken seriously by the older, mature?
LM
Lou,
I’m not sure what happened with Maranatha. I included it because someone might object as follows: “Look, Phelps has been censured in a way by fundamentalism because Maranatha pushed him out.”
That may or may not be the case. My argument is that fundamentalism has not censured him enough or come down strongly enough. There should be some kind of action to communicate that how he managed the incident is not only unwise, but wrong.
Bob,
I live 30 minutes from “Happy Valley.” For your information, when Paterno reported what he heard to the AD, Tim Curley, it was also reported to Gary Schultz, who was the VP over the University’s Finance and Business Department. Penn State has its own police department and it comes under the jurisdiction of Schultz’s department. This police department had investigated allegations against Sanudsky in the late 90’s and reported what they knew to the Centre County DA who chose not to prosecute. Once Paterno passed off what he knew to those who were supposed to do their job, what business of his was it to follow up with questions as to whether or not Sandusky was being investigated or if he would be prosecuted? Perhaps Paterno assumed that this case was the same as the one in the late 90’s. There is an awful rush to judgment here about what Paterno knew. Maybe it will come out that he did know the exact behavior that took place in that shower, but maybe he was only given a vague idea of what took place and passed on what he knew to those he trusted would investigate as the University Police had done in the past. Penn State is a Univesity with 40,000+ students and thousands of faculty and staff. This place isn’t a church with 3-5 staff members. Maybe the complexity of the organization got in the way; Penn State isn’t a church with 3-5 staff members or a small Bible college. What happened to that boy was wicked. But Christians should know that unless we can read the minds and motives of people, we should withhold judgment and let the investigations that are going to take place as to who knew what and when they knew it run their course.
On the other hand,
1 Tim 5:19-20
Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
Your equation of Phelps and Paterno is misguided. Phelps addressed the situation with (1) the legal authorities, (2) the victim, and (3) the perpetrator. Paterno did not.
Phelps took clear and noticeable steps to remove the victim from the influence and presence of the perpretator, and took steps to ensure that the perpetrator was not in a position to do it again under his watch. Paterno did not.
The police and DA at that time, for whatever reason did not follow up. The move to CO was not the issue. Willis signed adoption papers in CO so they clearly knew the connection. The nurse that saw Tina and those who provided her care both in NH and CO did not report (as they should have and there is no question of clergy confidentiality there). Phelps is an easy target. And he has done plenty wrong in a lot of areas. But there is a lot more blame to go around that isn’t being talked about.
However, it is funny to see Lou complain about the very thing that Lou does quite frequently. He believes that it is enough to make suggestions and innuendo with consideration of the facts.
I think Phelps departure from MBBC had nothing to do with this. It was about a difference in opinion about authority and how to run the place. The board let him go.
In the end, there really is no similarity between Paterno and Phelps. That is a failure of thinking.
Phelps has a lot of severe problems, but remember that he did more than anyone else did at the time. Tina’s move to CO was not the problem. The police could have easily found her there. She was not hidden at all. In fact, remember, the adoption papers signed in Colorado clearly had Willis’ name on it.
When investigations are completed and we know what people knew and when they knew it and what they did with what they knew, then those who need to be rebuked can be.
Paterno did report what he knew to those with authority. The VP Schultz was over the University Police. This police dept. had investigated Sandusky in the past. Why would Paterno not assume they’d do the same this time with the information that was given to Schultz?
Let me be clear.
1) I’m not assuming Paterno is completely culpable or guilty. I’m using his case as an example of how the world thinks of allegations of abuse, and the outcry and level of alarm that is attached to them.
2) I’m not voicing anything new about Phelps that hasn’t been said by others in other places. I’m alarmed about the situation but am an outsider. It appears that Phelps could have done more. It appears completely absurd that the victim should not be allowed to the Christian school when she returned to NH because of her pregnancy. I know they have clauses in the rule book and such. I went to a Christian school my whole life. The implication is she’s a “bad girl” and we don’t want “bad girls” in our school.
3) I’m just making a comparison and people here are proving my point. When it comes to abuse and scandal, fundamentalists often circle the wagons and point to minor technicalities and to the fact that these are unproveable “allegations”. There is not the level of outcry and alarm in fundamentalists over allegations of child abuse as there is among the people of today’s world.
4) I know there is due process for accusations against elders. I’m not specifically talking about that. It’s more an observation about the culture of fundamentalism. A man may be implicated in an abuse scandal, there are questions about him, yet we don’t mind when he is on the board of our Christian university. Whereas Penn State distances itself from even the hint of scandal on the part of Paterno. It’s a strange juxtaposition, is what I’m saying.
5) You are of course free to disagree, but the news has already trumpeted their version of these stories. I’m just speaking to what is commonly said or known. This may be inaccurate in specific cases and to a great degree. But the actions done by fundamentalist institutions don’t quell the public’s fears, explain the issues well, or answer the charges convincingly. They smack of a disregard for the abused and a “circle the wagons” defense of the “good ol’ boys” club.
Who is circling the wagons?
Fairhaven and its supporters for one. Phelps supporters it seems like. That just seems to be the default response of fundamentalists to allegations like this.
Fair enough. I am not following what’s going on at Fairhaven, nor with Phelps anymore. I am certainly not circling the wagons because I think as I said, that Phelps has some severe issues, and they are likely no rehab-able (to coin a word) at this point in his life. He doesn’t have enough years to recover from such a situation, whether deserved or not (and its probably some of both).
My point is that there is no real comparison between how Phelps handled his situation and how Paterno handled his. Bringing that up is misguided and confuses people (which may be the intent … the old fundamentalist standby of guilt by association), unless your point is only to say that we should take it seriously and here are two situations where wrong things were done.
In which case, you didn’t a long post to say that.
Phelps is clearly wrong on a lot of issues. That BJU has him on the board is unconscionable, if for no other reason because of his reputation now. It is one thing to stand by friends and try to help them. It is another thing to publicly parade someone in a situation like this. Even if Phelps did nothing wrong (which is absurd), he still has a reputation that is bad. And that looks bad for BJU.
Fundamentalists should not circle the wagons in anyway.
LT,
The fact we are talking about this is good. The Phelps case and the Paterno case are different. But in my post I use Phelps’ case as one case in point among other cases in point. None are entirely equal and yes all deserve to be vetted on their own. I’m simply bringing up the cultural similarities and the fact that these things need to be handled carefully and with appropriate care for the alleged victims.
I probably could have said what I did better, but I was merely drawing a comparison and hope that some will hear it as a needed lesson to be learned.
I’m just speaking to what is commonly said or known. This may be inaccurate in specific cases and to a great degree. But the actions done by fundamentalist institutions don’t quell the public’s fears, explain the issues well, or answer the charges convincingly.
Really, Bob?
I challenge you to apply your own reasoning above to Jason Janz! Let’s have an article from you on the allegations, “what is commonly said or known” of Janz’s sexual misconduct (incest) and the silence from him.
Why don’t you just as eagerly as you and SI go after Phelps, “quell the public’s fears, explain the issues well, or answer the charges convincingly” on Janz?
The default response from you, SI, and the whole of the angry former yf’s is, tolerate, allow for, ignore and/or excuse Janz and his backing out of his public statement on the subject that he promised. (Verify that with Pastor Mike Durning) Yet, over-and-over you and the SI leadership regurgitate, gang-tackle and lynch Pastor Phelps. Clearly, your handling of this is another example of the double-standards, playing favorites and open biased (targeted) hostility of the SI culture and its personalities.
I was not going to add anything other than my first comment in this thread. This one was needed, but I am not going to fuel any more of this tabloid tripe from your blog on the subject with any additional participation.
LM
About Jason Janz. I don’t know many specifics and hadn’t read as much on that as I did of the other cases. I am not defending him at all, he just is not as prominent as the other examples I used.
I am connected with SI but don’t speak officially on their behalf in this matter. SI is a grouping of like minded people but there isn’t an official SI policy on most areas of contention and I think some, like Aaron Blumer, have expressed much more caution and hesitancy over the Phelps case than others. SI could do a lot more to bash fundamentalists than they do. They really are trying to foster important conversation on important matters. I try to do the same from my own blog.
Lou,
Both Peet and Blumer have tried to diffuse some of the Phelps criticism at SI of late.
Just so you know.
“…the cops sought her in vain.”
That’s laughable. They could have asked the minor child’s mother. Either they hardly pursued the matter or they are bumblers.
Luckily–and I’m being sincere–JZ got hold of this, or justice might never have been done (pending appeals).
(not to address your main issue here)
That may be, Dave. And I too, am happy that justice was done, finally. I don’t like how JZ is stretching this to decry all fundamental Baptists. That is not my desire.
Yes, my appreciation of JZ is limited.
Lou,
You said, “And you want to be listened to, taken seriously by the older, mature?”
I would suggest that if you want to be listened to, and taken seriously by the leaders of the next generation, that you try to not sound so defensive of somebody who has such a soiled testimony as Chuck Phelps does.
Regarding Janz, I heard that he issued a public apology at his church on a Sunday morning. If that is true, then it’s alot more than we’ve gotten out of the “older, mature” men such as Phelps. If it’s not true, then I agree that Janz should be held to the same standard as anybody else would, regardless of age or ministry philosophy.
Well, I guess I have to stay engaged
Rick:
Regarding any leaders of the next generation- if any of them happen to come from the angry yfs, the ce wanna be’s and the like that populate and run SI- I do not write for them, because IMO they are well past being reasoned with or recovered, they will not listen. So, I don’t care if they take anything I write on any subject seriously. I write for those who recognize the shifting tides, those who are uncertain about what is transpirimg or those who are most at risk of being lead astray in doctrine and/or practice.
LM
I think that you are right on to use the Penn State situation to analyze how fundamentalists respond to similar types of allegations.
http://www.stufffundieslike.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=2854
And Rick, you’re suggesting Janz is a local church matter? Then why isn’t Dr. Phelps given the same consideration? I can TELL you- the ingrained bias of the group that runs and circulates in the SI environment.
Lou,
Why aren’t you crying out for separation from Bob Jones University for placing Phelps on its board. You argue for separation for ecclesiastical reasons, why not for actual “sin” reasons. BJU is now in the category of disobedient brethren for harboring an unrepentant liar on its board. That’s right, Phelps called Tina Anderson a liar for claiming that she was forcible raped. A claim that he later admits to in court after his “notes” are allowed in as evidence.
So, Lou, are you going to call for fundamentalists to separate for BJU or not?
Lou,
I’m saying that I’m pretty sure that Janz has issued an apology. If I am wrong about that, then that’s fine. If you think he needs to make his apology more publicly accessible, then that’s a case that you could possibly argue for.
Phelps, on the other hand, has simply made excuses for himself.
And btw, I’m not even a member of SI. But as I read SI’s comment sections, I think that Aaron Blumer and others tend to err on the side of protecting Phelps, rather than trusting Tina’s word.
Dave:
I am using my phone to post here today and just lost a much longer reply to your stating that Blumer and Peet are trying to diffuse the criticism of late. If that were true they could and would have stopped posting and participating in the many articles, Filings and Forum threads that contain criticism of Phelps, virtually all negative, mind you.
How many times had Blumer posted that he is going to cut it off and then had a convenient memory loss?
Just look at the current bash Phelps thread at SI. Yesterday in comment #35 Blumer wrote, “the thread will not likely remain open much longer.”
Twenty Four hours later and up to comment #47 its still going strong and many of the newest comments were posted by Blumer and Peet.
It doesn’t matter what they post in a thread. The fact that they keep allowing this to go on and on and personally participate in it guarantees it won’t be diffused any time soon.
LM
Lou,
You said that the threads “contain criticism of Phelps, virtually all negative.”
Do you think that we should have positive threads about Phelps at this point? Or would you rather there not be any discussion at all about him?
If you read Blumer’s responses, he typically tries to position himself as a more neutral party, but usually responds with a cynical attitude towards those who question Phelps. I wouldn’t consider him to be somebody who is a proponent of Phelps bashing.
Rick:
The suggestion was that Blumer and Peet are difussing the issue. I say their on going allowing for untold numbers of threads and comments to be posted, Aaron’s empty, unfulfilled assurances to close off discussion and active on going participation in said discussions does not help diffuse anything.
LOOK OUT! There’s a stick of dynamite! Quick, diffuse it! What do you do now? Stand around and talk about diffusing it? Form a committee to discuss who should diffuse it? No, you pull the fuse out of the stick of dynamite. Pulling the fuse, plug whatever is exactly what SI will not do.
LM
It looks like Lou is just another hypocritical fundamentalists who only calls for separation over things like music, attending conservative evangelical churches, etc.
What we haven’t heard from Lou is a call to separate from BJU because it has placed on its board a person in authority who did not defend and protect a victim of sex crimes. Phelps disobeyed the biblical admonition to protect the helpless and defenseless. Phelps is a disobedient, unrepentant brother.
So one more time, Lou, are you going to call on fundamentalists to separate from BJU?
McQueary has just been put on administrative leave. Reports state that it would be inappropriate for McQueary to continue coaching.
Every single person in authority at Penn State who did not protect and defend the victims of sex crimes has been fired, has resigned, or has been put on administrative leave. No one is being allowed to continue in their roles or positions at Penn State.
Not so at Northland International University where Matt Olson remains as president. When Matt Olson was at Tri-City he took in Tina Anderson. Who knows what Chuck Phelps told him about Tina. But when Matt discovered that Tina was impregnated by a 38 year old man when she was only 15, what did Matt Olson do? Did he call the police in Colorado and report this? Did he call the New Hampshire police and let them know where Tina was? Did he believe Chuck Phelps story that Tina was in a dating relationship with Ernie Willis that became sexual in nature, or did he believe Tina when she stated that she had been raped?
The bottom line is this, Matt Olson failed to protect and defend a victim of sex crimes. He did not call the police or social services. When he found out that Willis was the father, he did not report the crime to anyone. Matt’s failure to contact the authorities allowed a rapist access to other teenagers for more than a decade at Trinity Baptist, where the members were unaware of what Willis had done!
The good things that Matt did at Tri-City are why he was hired to be the president of NIU. The bad things he did at Tri-City are also why he can and should be fired at NIU.
If the Penn State situation has taught us anything it is that the length of time that passes from the failure to protect to the time that you are found out is irrelevant. When your sins find you out, you must go. Matt must go!
Matt failed to protect Tina Anderson and his actions allowed a rapist to go free. The same moral outrage that is evident with regard to the Penn State situation is what normal people would feel if they knew who Matt Olson was.
Northland board, are you watching what is going on at Penn State? Did you learn anything? When are you going to fire Matt Olson?
SP,
But as I say in my post, there is an argument and a rationale for what Matt did. That’s an old school thought, the one guy said (I reported it). So that should be that….
I don’t have to report it.
That’s what my post is saying. Times have changed and we better recognize the new landscape and bend over backward to defend the helpless.
Bob:
SP has taken this to an important related concern. Are you choosing to excuse and give Matt Olson a pass? Your reaction to SP’s valid and legitimate concerns with Olson’s inaction seems to indicate such?
LM
I’m just saying I can understand it. But I don’t sympathize with it. I can add him to my list no problem. I don’t know all the particulars of how closely he’s tied to things. I don’t want to give anyone passes. I realize that there are more particular points and knowledge needed before I could make a judgement in this and many cases.
My primary point is that we should be thinking through things differently and better now – as Bill says in his recent post here. We can’t excuse away things and ignore them. If that’s true about Matt Olson too, then it’s just another case where Fundamentalism is content to let the past lie buried and not really clear house on an important matter. Again the point of my post.
This is interesting Lou. When it comes to Matt Olson the concerns are legitimate and valid. Is that because he is one of your “persons of interest”? Or are the concerns about Dr. Phelps legetimate and valid as well? Perhaps an IDOTG article is forthcoming?
Let me say as a father of four I am outraged. Outraged at all this legal talk about reporting to the proper authority and then leaving It alone. I just don’t get it, I really don’t.
People who turn their eyes to a crime or simply think they have met their legal obligation are guilty. They are guily of not helping the weak and the helpless and they have to be punished. Whether that is going to jail or losing their job, it has to be done.
My heart grieves for the victims and not those in power. Even our godless society demands protection for the weak. I am more in agreement with society than most Fundy organizations.
We don’t know what Matt Olson was told by Chuck Phelps. He’s not talking. I know, because I have written him letters and he won’t address what he knew or didn’t know. But the fact remains, regardless of what Phelps told him, when he discovered for himself that Tina Anderson was impregnated by a 38 year old man when she was only 15, he had an obligation to report what he knew to the police and to child protective services in Colorado! He didn’t!
Lou, are you calling on fundamentalists to separate from BJU for putting Phelps back on their board?
Moderator’s note:
I will not be posting comments that refer to a coverup of the Penn State story by pro-homosexual groups. That kind of thing is beyond the scope of this story. I will especially not be posting comments that insinuate one of the commenters here is trying to cover up the story still to help out the homosexual agenda.
So don’t bother trying to post anymore comments on those lines.
Lou, I’m disappointed that you wouldn’t answer my question. I’m sorry that I came on too strong, but I would really like to know why you don’t call for separation from BJU for reappointing Chuck Phelps to the board.
Is NIU’s alleged slide to New Evangelicalism more of a sin than BJU’s endorsement of Chuck Phelps?
Lou,
What do you think of Phelp’s bashing of MacArthur using a paragraph from “Hard to Believe” containing a known editor’s mistake back in 2009? I communicated with him about it and he was sure that there was no reason to apologize or retract it since he didn’t like the revision either. The sermon is still up at sermon audio here:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=616092236573
It appears that there is both a credibility and humility issue at play here…
The impression I get from the Penn State board is that they are trying to save their behinds! Sports commentators and others are decrying the lack of moral character at Penn State. Are these same moralists opposed to abortion? It’s the greatest moral atrocity in America and not one of them will speak out against it. As a pastor I’ve had to deal with the aftermath of a 26 year old man taking a 17 year old “girlfriend” out of our state in into another state for an abortion. The “law” in that sate allows for the girl to keep her rapist anonymous.
If someone thinks the board at Penn State is not just as much a part of the good old boys network as all the leadership, you need to get your head out of the sand. They realize, as the original article stated, that the public is upset and they need to “appear” to be doing something. Good old American politics.
Yep, the church in America (fundamental and otherwise) sure does need to pay attention to how our political experts manage a crisis. Thanks for the advise.
Matthew:
For the record, and out of respect for our host, you have strayed off topic in this thread. I will reply and then leave off this topic.
On the paragraph in question (p. 93) in MacArthur’s book Hard to Believe Dr. MacArthur has never personally disavowed that statement. We get Phil Johnson’s story about some unnamed editor taking liberty to drastically alter a paragraph from an alleged original draft by MacArthur. Furthermore, the revision is nearly as disturbing as the original.
To date I am not aware of any instance in which Dr. MacArthur has personally disavowed, edited, explained or eliminated the original paragraph from Hard to Believe. This is significant! If anyone can document MacArthur having personally and publicly retracted the paragraph from Hard to Believe I’d like proof of his having done so.
Read this article for additional details including that of Chuck Phelps on the subject from the FBFI conference. Read What is Lordship Salvation: And Why Does It Matter? for some fine tuning on the LS debate.
LM
Heh.
Okay Lou,
It is obvious that you will not answer my question to you.
I don’t disagree with Northland’s direction, but I do disagree with BJU’s direction. So I am calling on all fundamentalists to separate from BJU.
Since you won’t call for fundamentalists to separate from BJU but you do for Northland, I must assume that you are in agreement with BJU and their placement of Phelps on the board. So you agree that Phelps did nothing wrong and he should be supported and embraced even though he did not defend and protect the victim of sex crimes.
This is your position, right Lou?
I personally feel you gave ABWE too much credit for their response to the bangladeshmksspeak. They were not pro active in reporting Dr. Donn William Ketcham to the medical board until much duress from the victims. His pleading “no contest” in December and finally surrendering his license in late February should not be credited to ABWE whatsoever. They seem to take 1 step forward and 2 backwards in their handling of the whole situation and their syrupy sweet letters. They could save a lot of time by admitting their cover up and complicity of the sordid sin of this doctor. It was and I believe still is a “good ole boys club.” Full stop.
Wow Lou is from a looney toons cartoon I think, little buddy you are wrong and embarrassing yourself. for a guy who defends a grace based gospel you are certainly not practicing what you preach
i am going to google your name lou and see what comes up. i bet i see a pattern of bad behavior on your part..
google Lou Martuneac and he is the comedic gift that just keeps giving… check out
Lou Martuneac fundamentalforums on google, louney toons is the gift that keeps on giving
How come there are no consequences for Matt Olson of Northland International University?
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ncaa-pen-state-sanctions/2012/07/23/id/446213