Tina Anderson, Chuck Phelps Take Stand in Willis Trial

Thanks, I was just about to look for this link when you tweeted it.

The crux of this unfortunate saga is the terrible how and why IFB has practiced church discipline over the years.

The crux of this saga is how an adult male took advantage of a young woman.

But you betray where your interest in the story lies. It isn’t on the side of justice.

Don, I agree with your assesment of the “crux”, but the other issues are not insignificant.

Maybe I said it wrong … a better way might have been to say that as far as the reason that the broader, IFB community has been pullled into this whole thing is because of how we have carried out church discipline in an unbiblical way.

Certainly, I agree that the greatest crime was what happened to Tina.

I think almost all of us agree that if it was actually discipline, then it was wrong. That being said, if Phelps and Willis are right, and the relationship was consensual, then discipline *may* have been warranted. That’s why I want to look at the legal testimony once the dust settles.

Again - it *MAY* have been warranted. All we know is that there’s two sides right now, and it doesn’t look like it was done correctly. But “looking like it was done correctly” and two bucks will get you a Coke.

-edit-
Legal Testimony of Tina’s Mom from Twitter is below

Willis admitting he was “the aggressor” is not necessarily the same as an admission that he used force. By admitting he was “the aggressor” he was saying that Tina was not “the aggressor.”

He may have meant only that he was the initiator of the encounters.

Moreover, do you understand the difference between a reporter’s words and the actual testimony?

The cross-examination has yet to happen with respect to bro. Phelps testimony. I am sure they will pick up on the word ‘aggressor’ and seek to have a full and frank explanation about what that word means.

It is interesting to note that there are contradictions between the WMUR reports and the Concord Monitor’s reports. The TV station says that the infamous question about ‘enjoying’ the encounter came from Willis’ wife, not from Mrs. Phelps, as has been reported repeatedly in the paper, and also the subject of commentary and discussion on the web. Which is correct? We don’t really know, do we?

Even that small discrepancy shows how foolish it is to sit as judge and jury on the internet based on news reports. The reporters often don’t get the story straight, even after all this time. So how can we expect to get the story straight here?

Remember what the issue is. Think critically.

The issue about her age also seemed to be settled in court during Pastor Phelp’s testimony.

Although it is a separate issue, I still have quite a few questions about the way the church discipline was handled. Why were Willis and Anderson brought before the church?

Was it because of gross, unrepentant sin as in I Corinthians 5? Or was it because of an offense against a brother? In what way was Tina “restored”? Trying to figure out what biblical model was followed here - if Willis repented when confronted privately, does Scripture still demand that he go before the church? I guess that Tina’s “sin” would have become public, so that might demand some kind of public accounting … but boy …

Growing up in IFB-dom, I only remember church discipline being practiced for two things: physical immorality and alcohol use.

You can hear a video clip of part of Pastor Phelp`s testimony http://www.wmur.com/news/28010837/detail.html here . This is concerning Ernie Willis being the aggressor and there having been two incidents.

I am not disputing the word “aggressor”, I am pointing out a difference in the reporting of a different point. Please read my post again.

The word ‘aggressor’ is important. I am sure the defense will not let it lie there without getting some kind of clarification. You will have to wait to see what that clarification is. One plausible scenario is suggested by dan in post # 8, there are probably other possibilities.

My point in pointing out the other discrepancy is to simply urge outside observers to let the process play itself out. It will be interesting to see how the jury takes all the testimony in the end.

[Joshua Caucutt] The issue about her age also seemed to be settled in court during Pastor Phelp’s testimony.

Although it is a separate issue, I still have quite a few questions about the way the church discipline was handled. Why were Willis and Anderson brought before the church?

Was it because of gross, unrepentant sin as in I Corinthians 5? Or was it because of an offense against a brother? In what way was Tina “restored”? Trying to figure out what biblical model was followed here - if Willis repented when confronted privately, does Scripture still demand that he go before the church? I guess that Tina’s “sin” would have become public, so that might demand some kind of public accounting … but boy …

Josh-

The reason why I say that discipline *may* have been warranted for Tina is that if it was a consensual relationship when she claims that it wasn’t (and Phelps, Anderson’s mom, and Willis all agree on that it was consensual), and if she continued to lie about it, parcelling out bits of info as the lies were revealed, and then fought against Phelps or her mom’s reporting to the cops, then yes, I might consider discipline because it’s obvious that she’s lying about being forcibly raped (again, because it was consensual in my hypothetical example) and also for lying about what happened to her mom, her pastor, her lover, and the church / society at large.

Now, we’re back to the legal / moral question of legally she was raped (because she was underage) when in fact she was fully aware of what she did (morally, in my hypothetical example). Legally - either way, she was raped because she was a minor. Morally - is it rape if the law says it is but she’s actually furthering the relationship after her ‘attack’?

As for Willis, I’d say that’s much, much easier. If Willis “repents” after being confronted but doesn’t turn himself into the police, then I think you can and should pursue discipline because a part of repentance is bearing the consequences for your sin / actions. Furthermore, I would make the report to the police myself (if it hadn’t been done already) - reporting this is mandatory by law, and failure to report can get the pastor jailed.

-edit-

I think that it’s better to get some actual facts via sworn testimony and act on that than rumors and hearsay being passed around by people with agendas. As John Adams once said:

[‘Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials’] Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

I think Jay was addressing a hypothetical.

So, based on the hypothetical and what we know, no one was “put out” from the assembly in this situation, so we have to assume that they both repented?
At what point is a person compelled to go in front of the church? Because if they repent prior to that step, they are restored…right? So, if Willis repented before his wife and pastor, why did he have to go before the congregation? Same with Tina, assuming this was a moral sin and not a legal matter, why did she have to go before the church? Did she repent after that service? Because if she repented prior, she should not have had to go through the ordeal. Is she did not repent, the Scriptural command is that she be “put out”.

There seems to be no consistency with biblical instruction, hypothetical or otherwise.

Hi all,
I have alot I want to say about this. But I am going to refrain so as to not bring anything close to a mistrial. The last thing any of us want is for that to happen. I certainly don’t want to see the victim go through this again.

[Louise Dan] ag·gres·sor
–noun
a person, group, or nation that attacks first or initiates hostilities; an assailant or invader.

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.

If it doesn’t mean he raped her, then Phelps wrote down the wrong term.

In a thesaurus, one if the synonyms of “aggressor” is “initiator”, another is “instigator.”

I’m just pointing out that in the only quote I saw, an admission of being the aggressor is not a clear admission of being an attacker - it could easily have meant initiator in the context in which it was used. It’s fairly standard English usage.