Sexual predators, like any other criminal, look for an environment in which they can safely perpetrate their crimes. In an atmosphere where authority figures are viewed as 'anointed' and 'called' by God, where they are looked at as counselors and are privy to secrets in their congregation, where trust does not necessarily have to earned but is granted by the office itself. Women and children are to be submissive, which is often interpreted as subservient. Folks who ask questions are sometimes labeled as gossips and rebels. Stir in the fact that accusations of abuse are usually based solely on the word of a woman or child against The Man of Gawd and well... - you might as well pour Miracle-Gro all over it.
I found this quote on a thread speaking about the Tina Anderson charge against the IFB church. From what I gather these people are IFB as well. If we remember from the beginning of the 20/20 show they speak about these views well.
I think we all know there are churches out there that are bit more radical than others. If you have read around there is a variety of responses about this from IFB members. To me, the intelligent thing to do is speak out against the parts that have been proven and mishandled. Responsible organizations would take this example, and reexamine their procedures - then make sure everyone within their church is aware.
Its sad when certain well-known and respected IFB members can't admit they also see mistakes that were made, and instead take a defensive stand to throw others under the bus.
Dr. Chuck Phelps as I mentioned has a website up with difference letters, and explanations to basically cover his butt. Unfortunately, the more he places up on his website the worse he looks.
Its quite odd that a man of “God” thinks that it would be acceptable to the world to just ‘do his job’ and report a sexual assault, and then turn around and basically tell everyone he doesn’t believe a sexual assault happened. Then inform anyone that will listen about how he was ‘kind’ in his response.
Within the 20/20 show they spoke about the ‘old boys network’, and Chuck Phelps has now proved the point. Dr. Chuck Phelps has placed a letter on his site from one of the boys – Dr. Charles L. Surrett. In Dr. Surrett’s letter he characterized the show as ‘special pleading’.
Dr. Surrett defined ‘special pleading’ as intentionally presenting favorable evidence to one’s case, while at the same time purposely omitting unfavorable evidence. He states that this may be acceptable in courtrooms, because the whole truth should come out if both sides do their jobs properly.
I would assume Dr. Surrett’s letter is to show the other side. The problem I see is I don’t think the man watched the show, nor did he read the other documents on Dr. Chuck Phelps’s site. He tends to contradict documents on Phelps Site, and his own use of ‘special pleading’ is seen as continuing to twist what happened.
- He states ABC showed two cases of young ladies who were ‘allegedly’ sexually attacked from members within the IFB churches. The show actually showed at least three.
I guess he didn’t count the cases that had convictions. That would mean the word ‘allegedly’ at this point would be mute in light of them. He stayed away from that, and didn't acknowledge it at all. I guess it is because it may make his statements look 'unfavorable'.
I saw that as a play on words myself. If you are going to make your point you need to 'acknowledge' the conviction of more than one man in that case of sexual molestation that was spoken about on the program.
Don't accuse an organization of 'leaving facts out', and then turn around and do it yourself - 'If one were to accept that the allegations are true' – forming doubt for the audience. Special pleading?
'These charges go back at least thirteen years, and no doubt millions of people have attended IFB churches during this time. Due to the ‘depraved’ nature of mankind it wouldn’t be surprising if some forms of abuse happened.'
Yet in the next sentence he mocks these victims: website for people who consider themselves ‘survivors’ of IFB churches and their supposed abuse.
What his statements do is show the same attitude that Tina Anderson received during her traumatic ordeal. Sadly, he basically proved her point. I don't think he realized it.
We will acknowledge that abuse can happen, but then downplay the people that call themselves survivors with their ‘supposed abuse. I guess he was being 'kind' as well. - Surrett then wishes to have credit for all those people that have improved their lifes due to the result of IFB churches. He had the opportunity to use these testimonials, but then acknowledge also the need to have churches that consider themselves IFB to revisit their procedures to make sure they are more 'welcoming' to victims. The way he words his statements tends to make them look conceited.
James 2:8 One law rules over all other laws. This royal law is found in the Scriptures “Love other people the same as you love yourself.” If you obey this law, then you are doing right. 9But if you are treating one person like he is more important than another person, then you are sinning. That royal law proves that you are guilty of breaking God’s law. 10And you might follow all of God’s law. But if you fail to obey only one command, then you are guilty of breaking all the commands in that law.
Instead he used them as tool to say we are being attacked (IFB Church), and its unfair because we help people also. James 2:13 Yes, you must show mercy to other people. If you do not show mercy, then God will not show mercy to you when he judges you. But the person who shows mercy can stand without fear when he is judged.
To me that is seem as childish at best. Its very clear someone FAILED Tina Anderson within the church, and within her home. It seems clear others feel traumatized by their treatment within the church as well, and acknowledging them instead attempting to distance yourself from them? That would show Glory to God's name! - Surrett then attempts to pick apart the witnesses of her ‘alleged’ discipline action by stating he can come up with more people to say what a great church it is.
It seems sad that he has not done any reading in this area, because more people have come forward to state they viewed this as a ‘discipline’ action as well.
The 'great church' ideal at this point is silly. That has nothing to do with this. Awful things can happen in great places - can we at least acknowledge that?
Again he has the opportunity to state how placing a ‘rapist’ up on discipline calling it ‘adultery’, and then have his victim ‘ask for support’ as a pregnant teenager was deceitful.
It was a huge mistake, and it caused trauma in her life. THEN work towards acknowledging there is WORK to be done! How healing that would be if those words were followed up by actions to victims.
Willis discipline action wasn’t the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (his words not mine).
Anderson did need support, because she said she was attacked. There was no support for the rape.
WHY Surrett seems to think he can twist this to make it look better than it is? If you can't acknowledge the ‘failings’ in this the IFB church you again make them look suspect. That is called logic! - Surrett then attempting to state that program never mentioned Dr. Phelps reporting of the rape. I have to again wonder if this man even watched the program. They speak about that.
They quote Phelps from the documents that were supplied from Phelps, because he refused to be interviewed.
Christine Leaf also refused to be interviewed, which is noted on dr. chuck phelps .com site, and yet he accuses 20/20 of purposely not interviewing Tina’s mother to give her side.
Did Chuck Phelps even ‘catch’ that prior to placing this letter on his website? - Dr. Surrett next states that the videos shown on the 20/20 show were sermons from 'presumed' (but not documented) quotations from pastors of the IFB church. Is he saying those pastors are NOT IFB pastors? He had the perfect opportunity to say that, and yet he didn't.
Dr. Surrett then states these pieces of video were taken out of context possibly, and acknowledges their statements are improper, and subjective opinions of these pastors.
Then he whines about how ABC didn't give good examples of proper preaching from the IFB churches, and sadly neither did Surrett.
He is also chosing to omit significant information, for example ARE those pastors IFB or not?! - Dr. Surrett also seems to feel that using examples of what the program is trying to get across by using 'real life' examples of their points? He shoots back that 'people' can see through this kind of fallacious reporting.
Why the statement then? I mean he seems to be pointing out that everyone knows the 20/20 program was bunch of bull in their eyes...than why brother with his statements?
Dr. Surrett realizes that is not true THUS his paper. I think he lost his logic point there. - 'Nothing is true simply because a human being said so' rule of logic Dr. Surrett wishes to use.
He reasons that since - to use ABC's words - hundreds of thousands - would say they love their IFB church those that are disgruntled due to their experiences don't count for anything.
Why?
He figures he can get more people to say they LOVE IT compared to those that say they were harmed by it.
Since there are convictions of mishandling things within the IFB church this 'logically' makes no sense.
The convictions show more than 'true simply because a human being said so'.
If you notice at the beginning of his paper he conveniently leaves those 'convictions' out of his points.
He was using his own form of 'special pleading' by ignoring those facts. Does he not realize that makes him look dishonest? - His last point on page 2 was 'emotion is not an acceptable substitute for proof'. Since the 20/20 program used the tears of individuals within their program, and NOT the tears of the individuals 'who had given of themselves to help'? That makes it a play on emotions.
It would make more sense to me if he would stick by his previous comments about how they experienced 'supposed abuse'. If he had done that he maybe able to prove his point by stating since they didn't have the people with them that helped with the crying along with them - there is no proof this is true. DON'T get me wrong it would still be silly, but at least it would look consistent!
I covered part of the letter that was posted. I will again attach copies of them, because I don't wish to link to Chuck Phelps site. Page One and Page Two.
When the church is more concerned about how they are 'viewed' from the outside world, compared to acknowledging the harm that was caused to a human? You don't have your priorities straight. Charles L. Surrett is using what he called, 'argumentum ad hominem' by discrediting the program and the victims - while showing others to 'disprove reasoning'. Yep. I switched his definition around a bit.
I wonder how much time Dr. Surrett dedicated to make sure this attitude within IFB churches is only a select few. I'm not sure he CAN since they are independent.
The program wasn't presented to disprove the entire doctrinal position of the IFB, but how 'depraved mankind' at times abuses it to their advantage. BIG DIFFERENCE! I guess in his defensiveness he completely missed the point of the program.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to use common sense, and the diversions shown by comments like he has made do make PARTS of the IFB look like they are hiding things.
Lastly, I figured out why the age 16 kept coming UP in the case of Tina Anderson! The way Dr. Chuck Phelps worded and concentrated on her age in his documents on his site? If you look closer at what he said...she was 16 WHEN he was told about the rape. NOT that she was 16 at time! I also noticed he didn't try to correct that misunderstanding like he did so many other 'mistaken' statements.
I have to wonder how much deeper they intend to dig their hole.
If you enjoyed this post and wish to be informed whenever a new post is published, then make sure you subscribe to my regular Email Updates.
Subscribe Now!Thanks For Making This Possible! Kindly Bookmark and Share it:
0 comments:
Post a Comment