Since I pointed to Chuck Phelps’ presence on the BJU board as evidence that fundamentalism doesn’t treat mishandling of sexual abuse cases with the same level of outrage and alarm that the culture in general today, I thought I should inform you all that Phelps has stepped down from his position on the board. It seems that one of the factors in his decision was an online petition that was circulating concerning Phelps and his presence on any board of higher institution. I was unaware of that petition until Friday.
I had noticed Bob Jones University’s defense of Chuck Phelps [which has now been taken down from their website, apparently], and was saddened to see they showed little sympathy or concern for the abused but rather seemed to jump to defend one of their “good old boys”. Bob Bixby gives a fuller account of both the petition and the board’s role in this “defense” of Phelps.
I am not happy to see this whole matter unfold how it has. I wish the whole event wouldn’t have happened in the first place. Phelps could have handled the abuse case better, and since it happened years ago, he could have admitted he made some serious mistakes and apologize – and thereby teach many onlookers how to handle such situations with grace and also to bolster the cause for a clearer and more direct response to these situations by fundamentalist pastors. Sadly this did not happen.
I think that it is high time that fundamentalism wakes up to how devastating to one’s reputation mishandling of abuse cases really should be, and how horrific a crime these sorts of allegations (of sexual abuse) really are. Fundamentalists are all to ready to excuse leaders because they don’t have all the facts or because they’ve done their legal duty. But there is a further moral duty which fundamentalists often do not undertake. Tim Henderson, of Campus Crusade for Christ, talks of “the deficiency of love” in response to the Penn State scandals. And there seems to be a similar problem in some degree, with the response that Fundamentalist leaders and institutions often have to cases of alleged abuse. Let this whole affair be a wake up call to our God-given duty to defend the weak and help the hurting, rather than defend those in places of prominence and power.
Great perspective. This issue has radically shifted my approach to BJU and fundamentalism as a whole.
Thanks, Philip. I do hold out hope for fundamentalism, I think positive change and reform can happen. But more and more, it seems that such change is only going to be realized by individual churches and individuals themselves – and often by working independently of fundamentalism, apart from and outside of fundamentalist structures.
Agreed. I have always hoped to bring change within the movement, but as it splinters my hope is that new leaders will emerge to lead from the middle to create a convergence between fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism. The old fundamentalist centers of power are weakening and will eventually make themselves obsolete (i.e., as Bauder has suggested and due to hyperfundamentalist rift to the right and the emerging middle to their left). FWIW. Thanks for the excellent post.
Bob,
Thanks for your post. I saved a pdf screen shot of the statement. It’s stored online here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/74076506/BJU-Statement-Re-Chuck-Phelps-on-Board
I signed the petition since I remember standing up for an abused family in another church only to be marginalized and labeled as “unspiritual” for not restoring a guy who seduced teenage girls and was never brought to justice. I’m glad to see that these “good ole’ boy clubs” are finally being challenged, thanks to the internet!
Does anyone have a guess as to why IFB churches seem to habitually defend the man (regardless of evidence) and demonize the victim? Is it that pop conservative ideology has trained us to assume any female accuser is a “femi-nazi”? Are we taught to glorify maleness? It just seems weird that there are so many example of churches where the men always rally around the men, and women (including girls) are treated like stalkers.
The traditional American male of the 1940s would have taken the proven molester off into a field and left him considerably worse for wear, not excused him.
Jack,
As someone who is somewhat within the movement, I would first of all say that not all IFB churches handle abuse in the manner that Chuck Phelps did. That said, from the evidence that I have seen online, a number of failures occurred in New Hampshire under the direction of Chuck Phelps which I feel comfortable speaking to, but I think you’ve hit on one of the biggest of them all, namely failure to take pity on the victim or the defenseless. On the one hand, as you pointed out, taking up for the female victim of a crime is an inherently (traditional) masculine thing to do. Perhaps my perspective here is jaded because I have a loved one who was abused in her youth. I really have no reservations for the fullest of punishments for those who destroy the innocence of children. On the other hand, however, taking up for the weak and defenseless is also a very biblical thing to do. Whether in the OT or the NT, believers are instructed to do justice to the widow, the fatherless, the orphan, the child, the wife, the mother, the foreigner, the servant, etc. These were people who were subject to the destructive whims of the culture of the day, but, in contrast, the Bible has always taught us to take pity on the weak and defenseless.
With such a mindset, I cannot fathom that someone would lash out at the victim of a crime by calling her a liar, allowing her to confess her “sin” before the church, telling her that she is lucky that she doesn’t live in OT times because she would have been stoned, reporting that the issue was a consensual affair rather than a matter of statutory rape. I’ve put much thought into this before publicly stating my opinion, but I think you’ve hit a nerve here.
I am concerned that conservative talk radio has trained us to regard all claims of wrong-doing by females as lies propagated by nutty feminists. And it’s easy to think that way, because there are many women who cash in on lax laws to make some money from a false accusation. For instance, I ignored the initial complaints about Herman Cain, because it’s politics. I knew it was possible he was guilty of something, but I assumed it was a con-job perpetrated by his enemies. I have since changed my mind — based on evidence.
My point isn’t about Cain, though. He’s just an illustration of a mind-set among some of us conservative Christians, that girls or women who accuse a man of molesting them are attacked as gold-diggers, or that they must have brought it on themselves, or they’re all femi-nazis. Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, etc., are part of the worldly mentality of which the NT warns us to be wary.
That pesky Internet thing has exposed the pride, the arrogance, the crimes, and the truth of so many of these organizations. Let the light shine!
thanks for this post! This helps to shed light on the entire story. I’ve read all sides, from Tina Anderson, to Chris Peterman, to the blog I support Tina Anderson and Do right BJU. This story needs to be told over and over. This is not exclusive to IFB, which is horrible, but it needs to be talked about and not covered up. Those “Pastors” who cover for molesters and rapists should be held to account and exposed for the liars they are.