A Friday rumination on sex offenders and church

I've been meaning to blog about this for a long time, and haven't gotten around to it: sex offenders and church communities.

No, I'm not talking about pedophile priests.  Rather, I'm talking about the issue of registered sex offenders who wish to remain -- or join -- a church community.  It's a fascinating question, and it got me into a heated debate with a friend a few weeks ago, and I just remembered to blog about it.

On the one hand, it is obvious that churches must be safe places for children.  Fewer responsibilities are as grave as that to protect kids from predators of all sorts.  On the other hand, unlike a public school, churches are multi-generational communities that have the task of welcoming sinners, regardless of the nature of the sin.   To be a truly welcoming Christian community, a church must embrace every sinner -- and by definition, that includes those with a history of sex acts with children.

This article in the Telegraph describes the British response to the issue.  Simon Bass of the Church Advisory Service is quoted:

"Churches know that the Gospel commands Christians to receive back the repentant sinner, even former child abusers, and the success of the Alpha course in prisons and other initiatives means that there are growing numbers of offenders who are now looking to join church communities," said Mr Bass. "We must not be naive, however, as some churches have been in the past. The fact is that some offenders are simply too dangerous to be allowed anywhere near children and it therefore may not be appropriate for them to be part of some churches."

Something about how Bass is quoted troubles me.  On the one hand, I can understand making sure that offenders are not to be in close contact with children.  On the other hand, how can any church that claims to follow Christ say that certain repentant sinners don't belong in their community at all?  As Christians, we must balance the need to protect children with our need to minister to the needs of those who have grievously harmed them.  The church is not an institution called to love only the loveable and the innocent; we are called to embrace sinners whose crimes repel us, and we are called to welcome those who struggle with the darkest of impulses. 

Christians can't choose between protecting kids and loving those who have offended against them; a church deserving of that name must find a way to make offenders welcome and keep kids safe.  The Unitarians have a sensible compromise, suggesting:

The message to the sex offender should be that they are both welcome to participate in adult worship, adult social, and adult educational activities and that they must covenant with the congregation to avoid all contact with children.

A copy of what the UUs call their Limited Access Agreement is here.

I can think of two former students of mine who were registered sex offenders.  (I'm sure I've taught many; the two I'm thinking of both shared aspects of their history with me.  I'm damned grateful that so many folks feel comfortable sharing virtually anything with me in my office).  One man, I'll call him "Eddie", was actually in my women's history course about three years ago; he was a bright -- if somewhat lazy -- student.   While serving time in prison for molesting his niece (and other girls, apparently), this fellow had become a Christian, joining Victory Outreach.  (I think the world of Victory Outreach -- they've had more success with "hardcore" offenders, especially incarcerated gang members, than any other ministry.  The theology is simple, intense, Pentecostalism -- but it works).

By the time Eddie took my class, he had been out of jail for a couple of years.  He was working part-time, going to school full-time, and hoped to become a paralegal.  He assured me that he had no temptation to re-offend, and that he was receiving counseling.  We talked about his faith, and about his struggle to really believe that God forgave him. Eddie had remained part of Victory Outreach after leaving prison, but his faith had evolved to the point where he wanted to join a more liturgical, mainline church with a more progressive theology.

When he told me he was looking for a new church, I immediately suggested All Saints Pasadena.    Almost as soon as I mentioned it, I regretted it.  What, I wondered, would happen if Eddie came to All Saints and re-offended?  Shouldn't I try and steer him somewhere else?  At the time, I was on the Vestry, the governing body of the church.  Was my first responsibility to Eddie, as a fellow Christian in need, or was it to the church?  I decided that if he did come to the church, I would welcome him.  But I would also ask him to disclose his offender status to the priest I was closest to.  As it turned out, I never had to ask him to do so -- Eddie moved away to Las Vegas right after finals.

I'm a childless man. If I had a son or a daughter, perhaps I would feel less pastoral concern for sex offenders and more anxiety for children.  But I do work with teens, and their safety is enormously important to me.  But in our ever-growing hysterical climate about sex offenders, I wonder if those of us in the church are really doing enough to meet our spiritual obligations to those who have struggled with this most indefensible of behaviors. 

I was grateful to know Eddie.  I'll admit that after he disclosed his status, half-way through the semester, I watched his interactions with his overwhelmingly female classmates very carefully, even though his crimes had been committed against much younger girls.  I briefly worried about my own moral and legal liability should he harm one of his classmates,  but decided that I had to trust his conversion and the judgment of his parole officer (who had urged him to come to PCC).  I expect that I will eventually have another Eddie, and I hope that if he or she trusts me enough to disclose his or her status, I will respond with compassion. And if that person should come to the church where I worship and where I work so closely with the young and the vulnerable, I hope I will have the grace and the discernment to act wisely to protect both a sinner in need and our precious children. 

Comments

[jaketk]

there are a couple of sex offenders that attend my best friend's church (Catholic), and the response was very different than what i expected. of course many parents were concerned, but there was more concern about the people who associated with the offenders. they were marked in a way because of their willingness to pray with them or work with them.

one of the concerns that popped up was that of the sex offenders that attend, only one made it known that he was a sex offender. the others kept it secret, or perhaps only shared it with the priest. it is required by law that they make themselves known, but you feel, given the possible reaction, that the offender needs to disclose this to the whole congregation?

[ThoughtFood]

There are two issues with child sex offenders that I feel must take priority: 1) Treatment programs have a very high rate of failure. Although successfully rehabilitating child sex offenders vary, many offenders continue to offend, though often they do not get caught more than once. 2) The victims are often under the age of 12, too young to understand the risks or dangers they may be facing with a "friendly" adult. Growing up in an active church family, I can assure you that anyone can easily create an opportunity to be alone with a child. And within a church family, there are some assumptions about trust and values among the attendees than can make it even more dangerous for children. The idea of welcoming anyone into a church family is a lovely one--but I have to say that in limited cases, the risk is too high for my taste. Everyone deserves the opportunity for spiritual growth, but perhaps in certain cases that should occur in a different kind of setting, such as an adult bible study, adult service, or private consultations with clergy. Child sex crimes have no small effect on the victim. These are memories that often have lasting devastating effects, and for me, these factors must outweigh the desire to help the child sex offender.

[mythago]

Keeping an offender in a church family is also a good way to keep an eye on them. Aside from any desire to help the offender, being able to speak to a pastor in times of temptation, having adult company to remind the offender to follow his or her treatment program and provide activities away from children--those can be ways to protect children.

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

My feelings about Bass' remark that "The fact is that some offenders are simply too dangerous to be allowed anywhere near children and it therefore may not be appropriate for them to be part of some churches." depend on just what he is proposing. If it means that, for example, within a larger denomination, churches which are less equipped to provide supervision and adult settings that avoid contact with children direct the offenders to churches (or adult-oriented parachurch settings) that are better able to provide such, then I have no problem (as long as that's a mutual agreement). If it means that everyone's playing hot potato with sex offender and hoping he'll go somewhere else, I don't see much good in it.

[Hugo]

To my knowledge, Jaketk, sex offenders are not required in California to notify everyone when they join a church. Their registration and home address are matters of public record, but not church affiliation.

If I were part of a church that made an offender feel unwelcome, I would immediately leave that church, because to refuse to welcome a repentant sinner -- any sinner -- is ipso facto proof that you aren't a "church" in the true sense. That doesn't mean we can't go about creating covenants and boundaries, but the spiritual needs of the offender are not trivial concerns, and they are not automatically outweighed by a need to protect children. It can't be an "either/or" when it comes to welcoming the offender and protecting little ones; it must be a "both/and", or we aren't worthy of the name Christian.

[ThoughtFood]

Hugo, you make it sound so perfect. I'm sure you're a better person than I am because you are so willing to accept everyone, no matter their past. I'm guessing you were never molested at church. Do you have any idea how many children have had a very different experience, ESPECIALLY because adults trust other adults? Children also trust adult church members--after all, they're our teachers, pastors, and youth group leaders. Church members believe in forgiveness and compassion, as do I. And spiritual growth is something we hope for everyone. But, this is a naive stance. There are many, many cases of adults abusing this trusting relationship in the name of Christianity. And I believe a better choice is for the adult child offender to accept certain consequences of his past choices, and one might be staying away from children in all settings. You are dreaming if you think children are always safe in a church environment, and I hope you wouldn't put my daughter at risk in the name of "welcoming everyone."

Everyone makes mistakes. But, child sex abusers are a higher than average risk of re-offend. I think you give up that fact much too easily in the name of "Christianity." Why not err on the side of keeping the children safe and find OTHER means for spiritual growth, learning, and interactions for the adult offender?

[The Happy Feminist]

As a former deputy D.A., I have advocated (and obtained) lengthy prison sentences for a number of child molesters. Nonetheless, I am distrubed by the tendency to demonize these people. The surest way to prevent someone from ever being rehabilitated is to tell that person he can never rehabilitated, or to isolate him from the rest of society once he gets out of prison.

The Unitarian solution seems like common sense (and full disclosure -- I identify as a Unitarian). Churches should welcome sex offenders into their congregations and also do the extra hard work necessary to make sure these offenders do not come into contact with children. I suppose that may be easier said than done-- one particular concern would be how to prevent the sex offender from having contact with children through their families once he meets them at church and they decide to trust him because he is a member of the congregation.

[mythago]

and find OTHER means for spiritual growth, learning, and interactions for the adult offender?

What do you propose that would be better than a large community where everyone knows about the offender's status and is committed to keeping an eye on him or her?

[Anon]

Something which effectively drove me away from my church was the fact that child abuse was never, ever spoken about from the pulpit, but the need to include members of the congregation who had abused children was. Intellectually and spiritually I was opposed to judgment of these offenders, but it was so incredibly painful to perceive my own grim experiences as unspeakable while the red carpet was rolled out for those who perpetrated violence against children.

My experience was paralleled by a close schoolfriend, who was raped over several years by our youth pastor. When, terrified of what might be happening to other young people, she informed our pastor, she was dismissed. The youth pastor is still working with young people, and (as far as we could tell) no investigation was ever held into his actions or behaviour.

I'm deeply suspicious of the motivation for including sex offenders, when the women and children who are hurt by the crimes they perpetrate are so silenced within the church.

[Hugo]

Anon and Thoughtfood, I in no way endorse the silencing of victims. Obviously, I don't think offenders should worship in the same congregation as their victims! I was thinking about sex offenders who seek out new communities for worship.

I am not defending the right of clergy to molest young people; Anon, the youth pastor to whom you refer should of COURSE not be working with children any longer.

If we say, however, that some people are not welcome in the house of God, how can we continue to say that we are the house of God? We need to tell the truth, always -- and we need to confront those who abuse the vulnerable. But we cannot close the doors to even the most vile of sinners and still call ourselves followers of Jesus.

[Anon]

Hugo, having been a lurker for the best part of a year, I am very clear that you are on the side of the angels.

I am also aware that I am profoundly biased on this issue.

However, from my experience as a member of several congregations, (2 x Pentecostal-ish, 2 x Anglican, 2 x Methodist), house groups, youth groups, women's groups, and student Christian groups; I have never seen any indication that men who perpetrate violence against women and children were unwelcome within the church.

I have seen congregations (this was the church-talk of the town) express their disapproval of a young woman who left home to escape a violent and sexually abusive father. I have seen a house group fail completely to support a woman who disclosed that her husband was beating her and her children. It then shunned her and gossiped about her when she left the family home.

I have heard no sermons from either conference platforms or from the pulpit decrying male violence against women, and acknowledging that it is as widespread within the church as outwith it. I have heard one mention of child sexual abuse at a conference seminar on forgiveness, and two mentions from one specific pastor that we be welcoming to the men who were convicted of child sexual abuse and in our congregation, because in Jesus' eyes it was as if those sins had never taken place. There was a strong implication given that these men should not be under any suspicion whatsoever, because they were now a 'new creation'.

I have never known a church I was in to have a procedure in place for reporting sexual harrassment or abuse perpetrated by members of the leadership team. I have never known a church I was in to have a child protection policy that did more than the legal minimum, and in all cases these were carried out with an eye-roll as if the saints were impervious to such tawdry issues.

At no point was the fact that a huge proportion of women have experienced sexual violence even considered in the delivery of services by the church. When part of a prayer ministry team at one of the pentecostal churches, I was appalled that no difficulty was seen in men and women laying hands on one another in the course of this ministry. When carpools were being set up for travelling to geographically distant conferences and events, individual women passengers were often paired up with individual male drivers.

The fact that the power structure of most churches is male (and considered to be so because of divine ordinance), the lack of policy or process that acknowledges women's experience of male violence, and the fact that secular (non-Christian) counselling or therapy is generally proscribed suggests to me that the Church is a fabulous placed for sexually violent men.

[jaketk]

anon, i have seen what you are talking about. though my friend's priest was very supportive, many church members ostracized a man for reporting his abuse by clergy member of another church and being critical of the church. following the priest scandal, i don't think my friend's priest ever discussed sexual abuse in the context of how it was hidden within the church, which actually rubbed a lot of people in the city the wrong way.

despite not being very religious, i don't agree with the characterization that the church is a haven for sexually violent men. there are certainly great places for offenders, both male and female to hide and be hidden, but most members are generally unware of what happens. the real problem is the in-house solutions that simply bump sex offending priests to other churches or threaten excommunication if a victim ever goes to the police about the abusive nun.

my concern with sex offenders worshipping is whether having that sort of contact will allow them to maintain control. part of their issue is that seeing a child often brings up those fantasies. in a way it is much like an addiction, and like an addict, the offender might otherwise be fine until in the presence of a child.

[ThoughtFood]

Anon, Hugo, and Jaketk, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I know we are all biased by our own experiences, and I'm sure the lenses through which I've seen church (and other parts of our world) have been tinted by my own past.

I used to think that men have no idea how other men behave while alone with women...because men never are there to witness it, of course. Maybe it was my own unfortunate luck, or something else, but I endured so much of this unwanted sexual attention. The sexual advances that I personally experienced occurred both at school and in church. They were initiated by my peers and also by adult men in professional positions of power who had no business behaving this way. They were initiated long before I had any of my own sexual feelings, and it was always a shock.

I have to believe that the kind members and guests of my church had no idea this kind of thing happened, and I must also say that it was rampant and sometimes subtle (sometimes not). One incident was in an empty church parking lot just prior to a youth group meeting. It was terrifying and there was no one there to help. Another was in a women’s restroom during church. (Who will accompany all little girls to the bathroom during the service?)

I have a career related to education, and now all teachers, student teachers, and even volunteers have to be fingerprinted and have criminal background checks run in an effort to reduce child sexual abuse. It’s sad, but I have to say I hope it will help. And, for once, I’m in favor of erring on the side of the innocent child, even though a past abuser may suffer some pain as a result. I believe that child sexual abuse is far more prevalent than the average person believes, especially the average male. There are many, many little ones who never tell. I was one of them—it felt like a better alternative than traumatizing my parents. I felt it was important for me to protect them.

I believe there are data suggesting approximately one in three women have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime. I think that number may be low, and I think a common prey are young, naïve, innocent girls who are not equipped to handle the surprise, confusion, and shock.

[jaketk]

that statistic is currently in dispute. most sources put the number at about 1 in 4 for girls and 1 in 4-5 for boys. i would have to disagree with you also about girls being the most common victims. our society tends to turn a blind eye towards male abuse, but we often see its effects--drug abuse, suicide, risky behavior, self-mutiluation, etc.--so i think it probably happens at about the same rate, allowing for the fact that females out number males.

i do a lot of work raising awareness specifically about the sexual abuse of boys, and one of the things i try to avoid and prevent is the hysteria that surrounds the issue. if you want to see how bad it gets, go to the court tv message boards. it concerns me because there are many boys and men who have been falsely accused and their lives ruined, and often they are victims of rape themselves once in prison. the assumption that only males are abusers and that all males need to be watched not only increases the likelihood of false accusations, but it makes it impossible for male victims, such as myself, to report what happened without being labeled a rapist or pedophile.

following the break of the priest scandal, i made every effort i could to remind people that most priests aren't pedophiles and that simply because the victim was male does not mean the priest or the boy is gay. i also reminded them that it isn't the people with backgrounds you need to worry about. its the women and men who haven't been caught. the registered sex offender might reoffend, if pushed or alienated might even be more likely to reoffend. but it's the ones who haven't been caught who are the biggest risk.

and at the same time, i don't believe that most offenders can't stop. i think people just never really try to help them stop. the attraction might not go away, but that's fine. it's whether they act on the attractions that's the issue. teaching these women and men not to act on them is a good thing, and should be done. i grew up in a house of people like that, and as far as i can tell, they did what they knew. i wonder how much of that is what really drives sex offenders, and how much of it is a geniune attraction.

[Carolyn - SOhopeful International]

WOW. I'm glad to finally see such discussion taking place. But I'm saddened by the amount of misperception (although not altogether surprised). I wonder what Jesus would say here? Would He want sinners exlcuded? Would He want them to be welcomed or rejected because they are not socially acceptable, or because WE cannot forgive them?? Does God's forgiveness depend on whether or not WE forgive our bretheren? I thank God it does NOT!!!

I also wonder about the singling out of registrants. Would not someone who brutally abused a child (physically, mentally or emotionally) be just as dangerous to your child or all children? Using the popular logic: Why in the world not? Emotional/verbal abuse leaves no physical scars or marks, it can happen at any time, in any setting... if someone's done it before, just like the collective assumption about sex offenders, what makes you think they won't do it again???

Our organization, SOhopeful International, is working with victims, former offenders, families, citizens and professionals to reform Megan's Laws and to educate the public, media and legislators about the realities of sexual abuse, the realities of the recidivism (or reoffense) rate, how best to educate and prevent abuse, as well as the best way to handle the various situations after abuse has taken place. The Mennonite "Circle of Accountability" is a wonderful model of helping an ex-con successfully rehabilitate and reenter our communities by holding them accountable and responsible for their actions on a day-by-day basis. This includes a Safety Plan, which minimizes contact with young children (for those whose offense actually involved a young child) and keeps the registrant accountable and safe. This is something that we can all participate in, as part of our faith community.

As a devout Catholic and a survivor of CSA (by other children), I must agree with Hugo. Christ's mandate was not full of exceptions and caveats! Think of His mission and actions: he went to the lepers, the prostitutes and tax collectors (the most hated in their society) - the untouchables. He ate with them, talked with them and was seen with them, all of which caused a huge kebbie lebbie. He was truly a radical. He was strong in the face of bias, of inherent distrust, of a heirarchical social structure (WE are better than them mentality: i.e., Samaritan woman). He did what GOD wanted - he opened his arms and loved the sinners anyway. ("Go and sin no more") This, of course, is not suggesting that anyone ever condone or turn a blind eye to offending behavior or abuse of any sort.

It is so easy to be biased, it is so easy to simply discount those who offended, who we find distasteful. But that is not what God calls us to do. No amount of repentance will take away temporal punishments, nor should it be that way. We all must face the consequences for our actions, and we most certainly will face the consequences of our inactions as well... that includes being selective in who we call our "neighbor" and whether we love them as ourselves. We each will have to stand in front of Christ and answer why we denied Him, why we did not love Him in the lowliest of our society. "As you do to the least of these, so you do to Me."

As another poster mentioned, the obligation to protect our children must be balanced with the obligation to accept other sinners into fellowship of christ's flock. It is not an either/or. The best practices for having registrants (and this applies mostly to those who did offend against a small child, not the tree-tinklers, the Romeo & Juliets, the photos of "questionable aged models" and so on) is the Circle of Accountability. People in this Circle act as a sponsor does for an alcoholic (this is the loose explanation). Again, this includes having and following a Safety Plan, approved by the registrant's therapist.

Regarding the statements made about the prevalence of reoffense within the group of sex offenders commonly called "child molesters" - that is deceptive (not the poster, the label) simply because it has been used interchangeably by the media with "pedophile" that we all assume someone who offended against a "child" is a pedophile. That is simply not the case. It should be noted that a 17 year-old is a "child" in the eyes of the federal law. The range of actions that will qualify someone for this ignominous title is frighteningly large and growing by the month, (such as tinkling on a tree while hiking, even if you think no one is around - if someone sees you or reports you it's a sex crime) due to public hysteria and knee-jerk laws being passed around the nation.

It is of great import that the majority of sex offenses are committed by someone who is NOT on the registry. Focusing solely on those who are registered is folly - it breeds a false sense of security and that is dangerous. We as parents, need to be vigilant and in communication with our children always, whether there is a registrant around or not.

Within the entire category of those who offended against a child, there are subgroups. This is very significant because there are different issues at play, and they have differing reoffense rates.

The majority of child sexual abuse (CSA) occurs within the home or the "Zone of Association" (someone the child knows and/or trusts). This is by far the largest category. This group has the highest amount of remorse, responds the best to treatment and has the lowest reoffense rate of all. This reoffense rate is lower than for ALL other types of crime, except murder. That's a far cry from the "common knowledge" or "beliefs" that the media promotes... from what we "believe" isn't it?

These categories are significant because they each have unique issues that do not span the entire continuum. For example, rapists tend to have psychological issues with anger, power and control; their crimes are not usually sexually motivated. Intra-familial offenders tend to offend at times of great stress or family dysfunction; they also tend to have the lowest recidivism rates of all categories. Extra-familial child molesters have greater scope of psychological issues and tend to have deeper-seated sexual deviant tendencies. In that last category, those who molest boys outside the family tend to have the highest recidivism rate of all; they are the 'fixated pedophiles.' It seems they, in general, typically are non-violent, and have a very hard time breaking through their denial to be able to understand that what they have done (although non-violent) is harmful and hurt the child. They are the least contrite and the most likely to reoffend.

So, this is the breakdown:

TYPE   REOFFENSE RATE/RISK
Rapist........................... moderate
Child Molest
  Intra-familial.................. lowest
  Extra-familial
    Boys............................ highest
    Girls........................... moderate

These are not My assertions, they are facts from many, many studies, reports and white papers put out by the US DOJ, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness CANADA and world renown researchers and scientists. You can read these studies and more facts at www.sohopeful.org. In fact, the DOJ puts the reconviction rate at 3.5% overall. Other studies have shown an equivalently low reoffense rate. What is equally important is what that percentage relates to: the only other crime that has a lower reoffense rate is murder (at about 1.6%) - according to the DOJ and many state's Departments of Corrections reports.

SO - what do you believe? Who do you believe? The media, in their despeeate hysteria-mongering to keep the ratings up? The politicians in their desparation for the easy vote, preying on the inherent fears of the public and parents? Or the US department of Justice, who compiles their reports from information reported by all 50 states's arrest & conviction records? From the individual state's DOCs - Florida's new report puts the recidivism rate at a whopping 1.2%...

We have worked with victim advocates and other groups whose primary purpose is prevention and education to find the best practices and promote those around the US and Europe.

We all have a stake in this, folks. Of course, education and prevention are the cheapest and most effective, however, once an offense has occurred, we, as Christians, cannot just throw a person away. We have a divine mandate to do what we can to help that person become whole and 'plugged in' - all research shows that ex-cons do much better when they have family and community support (community = common + unity). When they succeed, WE ALL SUCCEED; when they fail, there may be another victim or another unrelated crime, and we ALL lose.

One thing that no one has mentioned yet in this discussion is that of the family of the registrant. Believe it or not, a large majority of registrants have families and children. Has anyone thought about how the ostracism, stigma and constant humiliation affects them? Has anyone even considered how much pain they are in (especially considering that the majority of CSA occurs within the family, and their family member's name & address are published for the world to see, thereby doubly victimizing the child-victim)? How much they desperately need fellowship? How it will (and does as I am told very often) affect them when their family member is forced to state to the parish/congregation their sin even if it was 35 years ago? How those little children feel being rejected by the ONE group that is supposed to be accepting? How does that influence their image of God? of Christianity? How is the non-offending parent/spouse to carry on when God's own people reject her for staying true to God's word and NOT divorcing her spouse? What does that say about us as God's people???

Please consider the issues brought up here. You all need to know that your bias, prejudice and judgment affect millions of people. There are (as of 8/6/05) over 567,000 registrants in the US. Most of them have wives and children - even if they are just married, that is over 1 million souls who Christ wants to present to God.

I have heard a saying, "When a sinner repents, the angels sing. When a really bad sinner comes to God, how much louder do they sing?"

Did the father of the prodigal son say to him, "Well, I'd like to take you back, but since you've sinned before, you may again, and I just can't take that chance. I'm sorry, but too bad!"??? Was that the point of that parable? I think not - the entire point was that we are welcomed back (or supposed to be anyway) with with open arms, NO MATTER WHAT SIN WE COMMITTED BEFORE. At least, that is God's message...and remember the Father's admnition to the other son, who was resentful that the Father welcomed the prodigal son back?

How do we, as God's people want to be, really? How would Jesus want us to be?

What would JESUS do?

[Anon]

Carolyn

I don't mean to be hurtful, but you've just exemplified my reasons for leaving the church.

You have assumed so much about the people who have commented in response to this thread, including a lack knowledge or understanding of the crimes perpetrated against them. I can't speak for everyone else, but that isn't true in my case. My analysis isn't the same as yours, but I'm not ignorant of the facts.

Shrieking "What would JESUS do?" is typical of the trite, glib responses to people within the church who are seeking healing not only as a result of their sins but also as a result of the sins perpetrated against them.

I spent years trying walk in the light and forgive my abuser, because that seemed to be the sole piece of advice my co-religionists had on the subject (plus the only way to avoid hell). No one could help me figure out how that actually worked in practice, though. It took 'secular' support to give me any useful tools to work out what was going on with me, but the process of getting to them, given the admonitions about worldly counselling, was total misery.

I don't believe in God anymore, but if he wants to forgive my abuser He's more than welcome. For me, I'm happy now I've stopped trying.

[Hugo]

Anon, I am sorry that you were not able to find healing in the arms of the church. That is the church's failing; as I've said, we've got to find a way to both welcome the worst of sinners and protect their victims simultaneously. It's a both/and, not an either/or, and both are equally precious goals. If the church errs on the side of either the victim or the offender, the church has indeed grievously erred -- and it seems to have done so in your case.

Many churches, I assure you, including most I've belonged to (from Episcopalian to Roman Catholic to Mennonite to Foursquare) DO advocate therapy and counseling for the victims of sexual abuse. I've spent years closely tied to the Counseling Center at Fuller Seminary, which is a faith-based provider of low-cost psychotherapy to Christians and non-Christians alike. It was tragic that your church did not see fit to support you, but I assure you that many, many churches today do reach out eagerly to those wounded by sexual abuse.

Peace.

Oh, and Carolyn, your organization looks very interesting; I'll check out your site.

[Anon]

Hugo, thanks for your comments. I am glad that all of your churches have lived their missions more successfully than the ones I seem to have ended up in.

I would point out that I am a 28 year old city dweller, though, and that my church experiences weren't as a Magdalene sister in 1920s village Ireland ;-).

[ThoughtFood]

Carolyn and Jaketk,

I'm really uncomfortable with sex offender registries. I am deeply troubled by people having to live with labels that may not accurately describe the truth because sexual "crimes" vary a great deal, and it's sad when a young person has to live with this for the rest of his or her life. I also agree that probably the most dangerous people are those who have yet to be caught, if they ever are caught. I think we all know the most likely offender is someone either within the family or very close to the family. It is rarely a stranger, though it can be. Never have I believed that sex offenders are always male, though they are more commonly male. Women can very much be abusers, too. I am also well-educated, well-informed, read widely, and believe strongly in civil rights and peoples' rights to privacy.

However, Hugo's original post involved his decision to invite a known child sex-offender to his church. So, there are some issues there that felt near and dear to my heart. Hugo made the decision that the risk was worth taking--he felt the man was not likely to offend again, and that he would be part of a large group with no one-on-one contact with a child. I wanted to point out some holes in those theories. What's wrong with inviting this person to an adult bible study as an alternative? Who asked that his spiritual needs be ignored?

I felt, and still do, that the other side of the coin is worth deeper consideration. Anon's experiences were very similar to mine in churches where children are taught obedience and men predominantly hold the roles as leaders. Adults join a church, slowly build trust with others over time, and still may still struggle with sexual attraction to young children. Like Anon, I had a great number of experiences in a variety of churches where abuse took place without consequences.

Recidivism rates only include data of offenders who are caught offending again, obviously. Do you have any idea how many are never caught to begin with and how many re-offend and are not reported? We brush a great deal of this under the rug still today. So, I'm not buying the 1: 4 statitstic. I think the 1:3 is low and I have not-yet-published data that supports this theory. The recidivism rates are misrepresentative of the big picture.

I'm quite saddened by these responses, actually. I haven't asked these offenders to have faces plastered on public signs posted in neighborhoods, nor for anyone to be banned from church. I have simply said that I believe those who are sexually attracted to children should make choices that eliminate their interactions with children and find spiritual guidance in an adult setting. I think it's a very reasonable, non-hysterical, well-informed point of view. I chose the health and safety of the children over the complete comfort of the offender. And, I also believe that sexual harrassment and abuse in churches is widespread and under-reported among all age groups. I would encourage any known child sex offender to attend an adult service or adult bible study if he or she wanted spiritual guidance.

[jaketk]

i agree with you about the sex offender registry. i think it should be used for the most serious offenses, not owning child porn, and minors should not be included. i also think that in instances where the offender has returned to his or her family, we have an obgligation not to ostracise them, particularly when the victims are their children. such things only cause more problems.

the recidivism rate is actually fairly low, but higher than the rate of other crimes. the media usuaully fails to mention the first part, so people tend to assume that every offender with offend again, which honestly is not the case.

my issue is that many offenders fail to see what is wrong with their acts, and in the case of certain offenders, spiritual guidance simply allows them to avoid confronting what they did, specifically by focusing on themselves. but i do think that those who want forgiveness should be allowed to worship like anyone else. barring them goes against christ's message, and it potentially may make them seek more drastic solutions. if it can be done without people losing their minds in hysteria, then i think it's a great chance to help those who really need it.

[Carolyn - SOhopeful International]

To clarify, every person who does wrong (in whatever category of crime) MUST be held accountable, face the legal consequences and seek and fully participate in treatment and rehabilitation. We do not make excuses for offenses or offenders.

Thought_food, I would really like to see this study that you have, we can add it to our Resource Library.

It is very important to evaluate the studies critically. Many of them are flawed because their methodology is flawed in that they only use subjects who are serving life in prison or are civily committed and have many victims and/or violent and egregious crimes, and therefore lack credibility. Many also artifically inflate their reoffense numbers by including the following: technical violations of parole/probation, and arrests for other unrelated crimes. The true measure is the numbers for a arrest and conviction for a subsequent sex offense. Considering the ease with which a person is convicted of a sex crime, and many, many people take pleas when they are totally innocent (because it is terrifying to face life in prison and putting your family in the spotlight for this issue, not to mention the cost of representation) even these numbers should offset the amount of those who reoffend and are not arrested or convicted.

I disagree that SOs should be barred from regular service. We have families who are not allowed to attend together. The father has to get a separate ride, cannot *look* at anyone under 18 and is not allowed to acknowledge his family in any manner. This is distinctly unhelpful and counterproductive. These are conditions imposed by the court, not the church, and incidentally, they won't put these conditions on paper, yet the family is required to abide by them or fact returning to prison and losing parental rights.

Again, there seems to be the persistent misperception that all sex offenders have brutally offended against a small child. Again, the federal government and states deem anyone under 18 to be a child, so this is misleading at best. In addition, many states do not list the date of the conviction, so the general public will naturally assume that the offense happened recently. Since the registration requirement is retroactive (and unconstitutional) to 1956, it could have been up to 49 years ago! The majority of recent research shows that the risk of reoffense declines even further (from that 5%) over time - so the longer time passes from the original offense, the lower the risk to reoffend is.

In light of that, it is illogical to bar everyone with the lable from attending church and being part of the faith community. Again, all the research shows that all felons do so much better (including not reoffending or committing a different crime) with substantial family and COMMUNITY support. By rescinding that support, we are actually working to make the community less safe. It may satisfy our inherent lust for vengeance and the desire to exact our own bit of retribution, but it actually is totally counterproductive.

I do understand and acknowledge that in some families, communities and churches, the issue is swept under the rug, it is not really dealt with in a satisfactory manner. This is unfortunate and is something that needs to change. We are to lead by example, although the best of us falls (sins) every day, and most of us sin multiple times a day, whether we know (or acknowledge) it or not.

I don't understand how someone attending a populated Sunday service is a threat to all women and children. Of course, I do agree that those who offended against small children should not be in a Sunday School teacher position or in a situation where they are one-on-one. But this has to do with the SAFETY PLAN, which is, again, is approved by the therapist. This is the responsible approach, that respects all involved.

Again, this is not an issue of making "the sex offender completely comfortable" and therefore disrespecting all victims. It is a matter of RESTORATION. This a basic precept of Christianity - when we sin, we disrupt our relationship with God and the community; repentance (penitence) and absolution are meant to RESTORE our relationship with God AND THE COMMUNITY. This is meant to apply to all situations... This is also in the best interest of the victim (at some point in time). Restorative justice is exponentially more productive, gives a great amount of participation, and a great deal of positive closure to victims who take that route. We recommend a program in use in AZ called "RESTORE" (link available on our website). They have had fantastic success - excellent marks from all victims who participated and a ZERO PERCENT REOFFENSE RATE from those offenders who have participated... isn't that what we are ALL looking for???

A note about forgivenness. Forgiveness, like love is not an emotion or feeling. It is a decision. The decision to forgive means that even though the action (or inaction) hurt, embarassed, or angered me, I am consciously letting go the the option throwing it in that person's face, I refuse to stay trapped in that moment or destroy myself by being bitter or resentful.

Christ asked us to forgive because it is the hardest thing we could do. Loving our neighbor with whom we are on good terms is so easy. Loving our neighbor who hurt us and who we can't stand is much harder, and it requires God's mercy and grace in order to do it. The same goes with forgiveness. It is totally against our instincts and human nature. God has asked us to do these two things because they both REQUIRE us to deepen our relationship with Him by admitting that we can't do it by ourselves. Love and forgiveness are gifts of grace.

Anon, I am sorry that you had bad experiences and cannot at this time let go. There are many faith communities in cities and if you 'shop around' you may be able to find one in which you feel comfortable.

My husband has a saying, "Resentment is holding burning hot coals in your hands. You hands, therefore, are full and you are not able to accept good things that others offer you. So your resentment is not hurting the one who hurt you at all, but it hurting you and preventing you from accepting good things in life." Resentment and bitterness only shrivels our souls, our minds and our bodies. The people I admire the most have endured more than we can imagine, yet they are not bitter or resentful; they choose to live life each day and enjoy it as well as looking forward and not back. We can never change the past, only the present.

Hugo, I hope you will visit us and please feel free to contact me at any time. I invite all here (and lurking) to visit us as well. Together we can really make a difference.

[Anon]

Wow, Carolyn, I'm really sorry that I'm not going to make it on to the list of people you admire most. The survivors you come into contact with are really lucky to have you to quote from your book o'platitudes.

I am so sorry to disappoint you, but I *love* my life and am a thousand times happier since leaving the church.

[Hugo]

Carolyn, if I make it up to Portland again (for a visit to Powells!) I'll stop by SOHopeful and perhaps worship with y'all. Sounds like a truly wonderful outfit.

[Sandy]

This is a very good example of how the world has crept into the church. Why do we only have these discussions on sex offenders. What about someone that has murdered a child that comes into the church? How about someone that has dealt drugs to children and ruined the lives of many of them? For some reason we don't have the same objection when they enter the church doors. Are we not all wretched sinners that are in need of salvation? I don't remember Jesus ever singling out a person that had sexual abused a child in the Bible.

As far as the victims of sex offences go, I do feel bad for you. I don't like to hear about anyone that was abused. My husband is a register sex offender and was physically and emotionally abused by his parents nearly every day of his childhood. His dad was a cop in a small town and every person in the town knew it but no one said anything. Where is the compassion for him? He has been through therapy and gotten help for his problems. He has also forgiven his parents. I believe the biggest victim in this world was Jesus. He was totally innocent but yet hung on a cross for everyones sin. When he hung on the cross, what did he say? He said, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do?" If we want to know what Jesus would do, I believe we can get our example from that.

[criminal background check]

at least these criminals are going to church.