Should sex offenders be allowed in church?

sex_offender

Should sex offenders be allowed in church?

As a convicted sex offender I was wondering what your views are. Perhaps this issue has a special resonance since much of the public discussion about sexual offenses against children in Ireland has revolved about the role of the Roman Catholic church in the matter.

This has been a matter of debate on USA noticeboards and on American blogs since the appearance in the US news media a few weeks ago of news stories concerning the presence in sex offenders in churches who had made their presence known to the congregations concerned, in particular this story:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070317-9999-1n17pliska.html

and here again:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20070314-9999-1n14church.html

Juza1973

Obviously if someone comes to the Church confessing that he is a (past) sex-offender people will look at them with suspect, but all kind of people should be accepted to Church. And if someone goes to the Church confessing this kind of things the danger he poses is limited by the fact he confessed, even thought I understand that there could rbe understandable resistance from families with childrens.

philologos

It's a very difficult issue. I'd say that sex offenders should be welcomed back into the community, if they are truly sorry for what they did. It is what Christ would do.

Excelsior

Yes. And welcomed as full human beings.

There are obviously some aspects of community with which they cannot fully participate (they won't be Sunday School teachers or Womens' Retreat Co-ordinators) but church is for everyone, including people society would prefer to disregard.

sex_offender

Accepting sex offenders in church must be very difficult for many who have been victims of sexual abuse / assault. This was one of the issues facing Pilgrim Church (see my post starting the thread) and how do you deal with the fears of parents?

From my experience I have found a reluctance to deal with issues surrounding human sexuality in church. In this the church is I think mirroring the denial and double standards of 'the world' on these issues. Try and talk forthrightly about sexual or porn addictions in church and I guess many will be squirming uneasily in the pews.

I have met gay men who struggling with their sexuality have told no one in their congregation about their struggles for fear (often well founded) of the reaction they will get.

I cannot imagine a congregation of any significant size that will not include not only victims of sexual abuse but also porn and sex addicts as well as sex offenders - even if the offenders have not been 'found out'.

My experience as a sex offender, leaving aside the personal issues that I and my family have had to work through, has made me conscious about how the church (and as I think of the church in its universal sense here as well as specific congregations and denominations) deals or does not deal with sexuality, child and public safety, forgiveness.

I feel reluctant to even mention the word forgiveness at all as it seems to me to be so abused and misunderstood, at least in terms of its Biblical use.

Any thoughts?

Well as long as they are not in danger of re-offending and realise what they did was so sickenly vile.I don't think it should be a problem.
Obviously if you don't believe what you did was wrong,then you should not go.

sex_offender

Excelsior wrote:

Yes. And welcomed as full human beings.

There are obviously some aspects of community with which they cannot fully participate (they won't be Sunday School teachers or Womens' Retreat Co-ordinators) but church is for everyone, including people society would prefer to disregard.

BTW Excelsior, do not assume that sex offenders are all male. Maybe some female sex offenders would be unsuitable as Men's Retreat Co-ordinators.

philologos

sex_offender wrote:

BTW Excelsior, do not assume that sex offenders are all male. Maybe some female sex offenders would be unsuitable as Men's Retreat Co-ordinators.

I've never heard of any female ones, but you do have a point it is possible that they exist.

Michael G

sex_offender wrote:

Should sex offenders be allowed in church?

Do you mean, should sex offenders be allowed to come to church and take part in worship and (to use the Catholic terminology that I am familiar with) receive the Sacraments?

Of course they should. Why not? It is a sin like any other sin; worse than most but still just another sin. I have plenty sins of my own. If the offender has repented, and made a sincere promise to God not to offend again (those are also indispensable requirements of a Catholic Confession), then he or she is as welcome in church as any other sinner trying to keep from sinning again. Coming to church may well help the offender to keep his or her good resolutions. (Or if I may once again sound the Catholic note - because I don't know whether the poster is Catholic or Protestant - the Sacraments of Confession and Holy Communion will give someone who is genuinely repentant some extra strength to keep straight.)

sex_offender

Jakkass wrote:

I've never heard of any female ones, but you do have a point it is possible that they exist.

Jackass I am surprised, female offenders are a minority but very real nevertheless.

The link below gives and example. It is an American, and it only includes female teachers having sex with their students, but it is a start, check it out:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53859

And I know some men out there will think of the idea of a teenage boy having sex with his teacher as an adolescent fantasy come true but remember that men who do this with their adolescent pupils are quickly labeled by the popular press as 'paedophiles' - a term that is technically incorrect but which does serve to demonise and curse them (with, I would say, many of the Biblical connotations of these terms). These are all sex offenders.

Would most parents of a 13 or 14 year old boy be willing to let his or her son into Sunday school with one of these women or with a woman who they thought was likely to behave like this? How do you feel or think about it?

sex_offender

Michael G wrote:

Do you mean, should sex offenders be allowed to come to church and take part in worship and (to use the Catholic terminology that I am familiar with) receive the Sacraments?

Of course they should. Why not? It is a sin like any other sin; worse than most but still just another sin. I have plenty sins of my own. If the offender has repented, and made a sincere promise to God not to offend again (those are also indispensable requirements of a Catholic Confession), then he or she is as welcome in church as any other sinner trying to keep from sinning again. Coming to church may well help the offender to keep his or her good resolutions. (Or if I may once again sound the Catholic note - because I don't know whether the poster is Catholic or Protestant - the Sacraments of Confession and Holy Communion will give someone who is genuinely repentant some extra strength to keep straight.)

FYI I am a Prod.

Coming to church is important to the rehabilitation of sex offenders. Indeed the safest place from the community's point of view to have sex offenders is to have them integrated into the community, engaged in meaningful work, and in relationship with family and friends who know their story, to whom they are accountable, who are informed and watchful for signs that they might be about to re-offend and who are realistically hopeful for the offender's rehabilitation. From my own experience the spiritual dimension of this is essential, and as some one struggles to follow Jesus, I know that I can only do this in community.

Contrary to public perception most sex offenders once caught do not re-offend. However the term sex offender encompasses a very wide sweep of offenses and it does include some very dangerous people.

However I would like you to read the links that I provided in my original post opening this thread. Here you had a recidivist offender who was open with the pastor of his church about his offenses. When the pastor opened this to his congregation he had not counted on:

- the number of abuse victims that were in his congregation
- the fact that many of these had very understandable feelings of anger and fear about the offender stemming from their own abuse
- the hysteria about sex offenders that existed in the community surrounding the church, in particular the school attached to the church (my own children attend a school with a similar relationship to an attached school on adjoining grounds).

The offender as a result of his honesty in opening to the congregation about his offenses lost his job and was evicted from his home.

Not a good outcome all round. Nothing here to encourage sex offenders to be honest about their sins and to seek support in their rehabilitation.

It also shows the extent to which the church is not dealing with the pain felt by victims of sexual abuse - and there must be some of them even now reading this thread.

So how should Christians be dealing with this in their congregations?

philologos

Christians should be wary perhaps. Although if you are truly sorry for your mistake, which I am sure you are considering that you are turning to Christ and His church for forgiveness. I'm a Prod also (Anglican) and I'm sure that you would be welcomed back into His Church, however that isn't going to stop people being wary around you. Do you mind me asking if it was child abuse or raping a woman? (You don't have to answer that if you don't feel comfortable).

Fanny Cradock

First and foremost, God would certainly welcome anyone who seeks him and would rejoice at their arrival. This, however, would mean having a sincere desire - with Gods support - to change. Easier said than done of course!

If a person is to follow the tenets of Christianity, forgiveness is one of the key beliefs. Whether the congregation is Christian enough to welcome a person is an entirely different matter. Christians should be practising what they preach, yet often they don't. However, reluctance to accept someone into the fold is understandable if they think that they, their loved ones or their children could be in danger. As difficult as it is for humans to accept, God doesn't have a hierarchy of sins... they are all the same in his eyes.

If someone doesn't trust themselves in certain situations, or if others don't feel comfortable around them, there may be ways around this. For instance, it may be possible to attend a bible study with people willing to accept the person is genuinely trying to change. The notion that getting close to God can only happen on a Sunday in a service led by a man (usually) in funny robes all located in a specified building is nothing but a construct of man.

I think that God can change anyone for the better, but they have to be willing to change.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote:

The notion that getting close to God can only happen on a Sunday in a service led by a man (usually) in funny robes all located in a specified building is nothing but a construct of man.

I think that God can change anyone for the better, but they have to be willing to change.

Amen to that!

I think another point to make, is that the former offender must empathise with others also. E.G. If for arguements sake it was the rape of a child. I could forgive if I thought the individual was repentant and truly sorry. However, I would never risk my children being alone with them. I cannot read the hearts of men, so I must remain vigilent. The former offender must accept this as a consequence of such an abominable act. Only he and God will know truly, if there is real repentance there. That should be good enough for the former offender, as he knows that the congregation will be concerned for their loved ones. He will also be safe in the knowledge that God forgives the repentant heart, so whatever trials he faces, God is his only true judge.

Sangre

Tbh, I don't see what place it is of the congregation to say who can and can't attend Church.

philologos

^^ I can't either actually.

sex_offender

Sangre wrote:

Tbh, I don't see what place it is of the congregation to say who can and can't attend Church.

I disagree strongly. It is their place and no one else's. Who else will decide? Surely the 'church' - the people of God gathered - is the congregation. In the case of the Pilgrim Church (see my introductory post to this thread) the pastor sought to make the decision and the consequences were:

_ a substantial number of his congregation left
- the sex offender had to leave

For better or worse this is something the congregation has to get to grips with.

I am struck though by how people are responding to this thread. The emphasis in many of the responses in on whether I (the sex offender) is repentant or not and later maybe on what sort of accountability the offender is willing to accept. And that is concern is fair enough. There are two sides to this though - the other being how the congregation going to act.

In the case of the Pilgrim Church - a church which by press accounts emphasized its openness to all - the offender was open about his past offenses and had accepted very clear accountability and supervision boundaries. Yet despite this the congregation found it difficult to accept him, the church community was split, the resulting publicity led to the offender being publically named in local news media and eventually in national new media, he lost his job and was evicted from his home. And of course the victims of his crime had to endure seeing the perpetrator of the abuse committed against them named over the press possibly triggering further reminders of the pain and abuse they had suffered.

Do you really think that it would be different in Ireland?

It is clear from the Scripture that Jesus preached and acted a radical inclusivity and that forgiveness was absolutely central and foundational to his ministry and so following this central to the lives of all those who would be his disciples. However the 'church', (i.e. 'Christians' - sorry for the inverted commas but I truly have problems in defining who or what a Christian is) really seem to struggle with this especially when it comes to issues about sex, and not just sex offenders. Why is this? Should anything be done about it?

In view of the likely fall out from having a sex offender in your church, really - think about it, should we be allowed in your church?

Sangre

sex_offender wrote:

I disagree strongly. It is their place and no one else's. Who else will decide?

Eh...God? Who are they to cast judgement alone? Who are they to deny him repenting his sin's to God?

In the case of the Pilgrim Church (see my introductory post to this thread) the pastor sought to make the decision and the consequences were:

_ a substantial number of his congregation left
- the sex offender had to leave

The actions of one church alone does not make it a valid position, either morally or theologically. Let the congregation leave, no one is forcing them to. However, they seek to force the offender away from Church. Clearly the former is the lesser evil.

'Judge not lest ye be Judged' (or something). Tbh, such actions of denying church access, let alone the chance of forgiveness are utterly repugnant to the teaching's of Jesus.

JimiTime

I don't think its a matter of should they be allowed here or there. Its what should a Christian do. The message is clear. Forgive, just as God forgives you. However, this does not mean that people should then be careless regards the offender. As I said, one can forgive a child rapist, but you would still not either tempt the former ofender nor risk a child by leaving them in a precarious situation together. It shouldn't become a witch hunt. this is more to do with people than entrance into a building.

sex_offender

God decides who can be in the congregation - well He does not. The Lord will separate the wheat from the chaff and the goats from the sheep, He alone knows what is in a person's heart. And He operates an open table and he associates our forgiveness of others with His forgiveness of us. He wants to see sinners, including people like me, brought into His Kingdom and welcomed by his disciples.

But humans have to assent to this.

So the only way that a sex offender (or anyone else for that matter) can join a congregation of the church and become part of its community is for the congregation to assent to it. The congregation decides, not God. God may decide who should belong. The congregation decides who does belong. They have to assent to God's will.

So the question I put - 'Should sex offenders be allowed in church' - is not asked in terms of what should happen but in the context of what does happen. In answers that question the answer might address what should or might be done about any divergence between what should and does happen and why this divergence exits.

Again look at the case of the Pilgrim church (again see links at my first post on the thread):

- many in the congregation left
- the sex offender was told don't come back until the issue is sorted
- the case generates widespread publicity
- victims of the offender see the story of the person who perpetrated the abuse against them plastered over the national news media probably awakening memories of the pain he inflicted on them
- the anger and pain of sexual abuse victims in the church congregation is exposed - maybe in some cases a good thing if appropriate support is available, but otherwise?
- the sex offender, given the publicity following his openness with the church about who he is, looses his job and is evicted from his home
- the inability of the church congregation to handle the situation calls into question the ministry of the church

The final point, if it was addressed, might make the whole thing worthwhile. But simply saying God tells us to forgive does not address the real issues of how fallen and broken people respond to this very challenging situation within the context of their communal life as followers of Jesus.

In the light of how the situation actually is, not how God intends it to be, should sex offenders be allowed to attend church?

As a sex offender, looking at it from the other side of the divide, asking myself, "Should sex offenders go to church?" - I think the answer is no. I do not want to walk into a situation like Pilgrim church. I am just wondering how from the church goers point of view it panned out?

Sangre

sex_offender wrote:

So the only way that a sex offender (or anyone else for that matter) can join a congregation of the church and become part of its community is for the congregation to assent to it. The congregation decides, not God. God may decide who should belong. The congregation decides who does belong. They have to assent to God's will.

So the question I put - 'Should sex offenders be allowed in church' - is not asked in terms of what should happen but in the context of what does happen. In answers that question the answer might address what should or might be done about any divergence between what should and does happen and why this divergence exits.

What should happen in the context of what does happen? What does that mean exactly? Either something does or it doesn't happened. Its a closed question which you can't reopen with the prefix 'should'. If a number of scenarios happen than I choose the one which I think is theoretically correct.
Tbh, I don't see why you seek to inhibit the debate like this. Especially with such an open thread title.

You also haven't shown whether the example given in the 'Pilgrim Church' is what 'does happen' rather than what 'happened once'. If its only the former than my original opinion is still quite valid in the context of the thread. If you show it always happen the same in every Church than you might have a point.

In the light of how the situation actually is, not how God intends it to be, should sex offenders be allowed to attend church?

Yes, their reactions can't not take away the teachings of Jesus. While reasonable precautions can be put in place they are in no position to deny him Church or confession. If they do then they need to be told again what they're supposed to believe in. I wouldn't stand idly by if a black man (or whatever) caused a similar ruckus to the congregation. Their strong reactions do not validate their position nor would they change my mind. Even if I knew all the above would happen again I still say they should be allowed attend (whether they choose to is a different matter).

sex_offender

Sangre wrote:

If they do then they need to be told again what they're supposed to believe in. I wouldn't stand idly by if a black man (or whatever) caused a similar ruckus to the congregation. Their strong reactions do not validate their position nor would they change my mind. Even if I knew all the above would happen again I still say they should be allowed attend (whether they choose to is a different matter).

Wow ... .. "They need to be told again what they are supposed to believe in"? Who are you to say what they are 'supposed' to believe in.

OK, I am a convicted sex offender, a very well publicised case, main evening news on RTE, TV3, BBC NI, UTV, sort of stuff. But I imagine that if I was a victim rather than a perpetrator of sexual abuse and you came and lectured me about what I was 'supposed' to believe in regarding forgiveness and somehow then I was supposed to overcome all the unresolved feelings of fear, self - loathing, anger and so on that might be triggered by having a sex offender worship in the same congregation as me just like that, I suspect that I would be extremely angry. It is a bit like telling some one whose child has just died that they should snap out of what ever negative feelings they have and be joyful because their child has just gone to heaven. The pain does not just go away because you know that you are supposed to believe in forgiveness. What support do congregations give sexual abuse victims? Forgiveness might be a life long struggle (it is for me, put me in a room full of Irish mothers as see my reaction - I hate mammys!!, big time), I think the Lord will look on that struggle with compassion - if he doesn't I am in big trouble.

For me the case of the Pilgrim church raises these kinds of issues. I have yet to come across a congregation of any denomination that dealt in the radical and compassionate way I think Jesus intended with these sort of issues. Forgiveness is central to the Gospel. Yet the really nitty gritty aspects of it are rarely built into the culture of congregations.

As to whether the case of the Pilgrim Church congregation can be used to represent the likely reaction of church congregations in Ireland - I suspect it does but I do not know. Maybe you know better than me - seriously, do you?

Sangre

I don't know you, I'm not sure how I could know if I knew better than you. I think its easy and straight forward to tell people what they're supposed to believe;

A: 'Hi I'm a Roman Catholic but I don't believe Jesus Christ was the messiah'
B: 'ehhh...aren't you supposed to?'

I not demanding these beliefs off anyone, nor am I judging people for having them. I'm simply stating the theological reality that if you claim to be a follower of a certain church then you're supposed to believe or follow certain doctrines.

philologos

"I'm simply stating the theological reality that if you claim to be a follower of a certain church then you're supposed to believe or follow certain doctrines."

Totally agree, hence it's the people who are having a problem. Jesus reached out to so many different people, even those that people disliked. e.g Zacheus, the greedy tax collector. If people don't accept you back into the Christian faith, then they are hypocritical imo. Just as Sangre said, you have to practise what you preach basically.

PDN

Sangre wrote:

Eh...God? Who are they to cast judgement alone? Who are they to deny him repenting his sin's to God?



The actions of one church alone does not make it a valid position, either morally or theologically. Let the congregation leave, no one is forcing them to. However, they seek to force the offender away from Church. Clearly the former is the lesser evil.

'Judge not lest ye be Judged' (or something). Tbh, such actions of denying church access, let alone the chance of forgiveness are utterly repugnant to the teaching's of Jesus.

Actually, the Biblical position is clearly that God has delegated to the Church the power to exclude individuals from the visible communion of the Church and to decide when they should be readmitted.

For example, Matthew 18 (interestingly, the context is just after Jesus has been speaking about the severe consequences of harming children) instructs the Church how to exercise discipline, including expulsion from the Church.

In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul instructs the Corinthian Church to expel an immoral member. Then in 2 Corinthians 2 Paul encourages the same Church to readmit a repentant sinner. Both passages only make sense if we assume that the members of the Corinthian Church had the authority to expel or readmit people into fellowship.

PDN

The issue of a sexual offender attending a church involves juggling the essential Christian concepts of love, forgiveness & restoration - but also the responsibility we have to protect & to care for the vulnerable.

Our church has a large number of children who run freely around the church premises & are not always closely supervised by their parents. If I, as a pastor, knew that a convicted pedophile wanted to join our church I would have to make the protection of children the #1 priority, especially due to the high rate of recidivism in respect to such crimes.

Therefore I would encourage the individual concerned to be a part of a small house-fellowship or cellgroup where they could get the love & support they need, but not to be present at the main Sunday worship gathering. Some might see that as judgmental & uncaring toward the individual - but we have to serve the good of the many as well.

Fanny Cradock

I think the OP and others should try to redefine their view of the church as something other than the traditional image of a building built specifically for worship. Christianity and the Church are often two entirely separate entities. I would strongly argue that sometimes the Church (and the congregation within) does (do) not serve the best interests of Jesus.

Not knowing the nature of your crimes OP, could you possibly understand that some people out there may be willing to forgive, but may also afraid that, in a moment of weakness, re-offend may happen?

This, however, is not a refusal at the door. If you still wish to attend Church, you must consider that they aren't places active only on a Sunday (I'm looking to my own non-denominational experiences here). Throughout the week there will be many meetings, studies and events where people gather together. These may be more suitable to your needs. This is really reiterating what PDN said. There may be better, more spiritually rewarding alternatives than attending what people often think of as a traditional Church service.

'Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them' Mat 18:20

You could meet in a cell group in a garden shed and that to God is the same as attending St Peter's Cathedral. Please see that as only a example, and not consignment to God's garden shed

sex_offender

PDN wrote:

especially due to the high rate of recidivism in respect to such crimes.

What basis do you have for declaring that there is a 'high recidivism rate in respect of such crimes'. Do you know what the rate of recidivism for sex offenders is? What research supports your assertion? How high has a recidivism rate to be to be declared 'high' by you?

sex_offender

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Not knowing the nature of your crimes OP, could you possibly understand that some people out there may be willing to forgive, but may also afraid that, in a moment of weakness, re-offend may happen?

FC - If you read the thread I think you will see that I am the one who to date that has been raising this issue in this thread.

sex_offender

Fanny Cradock wrote:

You could meet in a cell group in a garden shed and that to God is the same as attending St Peter's Cathedral. Please see that as only a example, and not consignment to God's garden shed

Sorry about the mis-posts - profuse apologies.

FC - No I think that is actually where I am confined. However being confined to the garden shed is better than being told to live under a bridge as happens in Florida - see here:

http://miaminewtimes.com/2007-03-08/news/swept-under-the-bridge/full#comments

I am happy to stay I the garden shed given the combination of uninformed views about sex offenders and the quite naive views of the nature of forgiveness voiced here. I would like to find a place where I belong but I would not venture into a church where the views expressed here were widespread, it would be a disaster for me and I suspect for any victims of sexual abuse about the place.

BrianCalgary

One of the problems I see in some congregations and in some people is that see Christianity as a club for people who 'have made it' as opposed to a place where the hurting and repentant can seek and find solace in Christ.

My wife runs a prayer ministry at our church focussing on prayer for our junior and senior high school kids and their leaders, one of the people we had sign up to pray was not sure if she was comfortable praying for kids who were or are facing issues such as alcohol, drugs and sex. In her mind church people don't have such issues. All to her though she has stuck with it and has been hit with reality.

Sex_offender, you would be welcome at our church, probably not in a position of leadership that could tempt you to reoffend. Just as I wouldn't bring the recovering alcoholic to a pub for a bible study. But we would love you and work with you.

Sangre

PDN wrote:

Actually, the Biblical position is clearly that God has delegated to the Church the power to exclude individuals from the visible communion of the Church and to decide when they should be readmitted.

For example, Matthew 18 (interestingly, the context is just after Jesus has been speaking about the severe consequences of harming children) instructs the Church how to exercise discipline, including expulsion from the Church.

In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul instructs the Corinthian Church to expel an immoral member. Then in 2 Corinthians 2 Paul encourages the same Church to readmit a repentant sinner. Both passages only make sense if we assume that the members of the Corinthian Church had the authority to expel or readmit people into fellowship.

Would those passages not refer to the act of excommunication rather denying a person who is still sign as a Chrisitan access to the Church? I think the position would be different if the OP had been excommunicated.

Although I'm only guessing, I'm not familiar with the verses you quoted. Can a person in a non-RC Christian Church be excommunicated?

Similarily, I hardly think Jesus had in mind expelling or discipling someone who was fully repentant and sought his salvation. Surely the rules he set out for discipline had to be in line with his constant preaching of forgiveness? I would have thought those rules only apply to the those who aren't embracing God's teachings anymore?

philologos

Sangre wrote:

Would those passages not refer to the act of excommunication rather denying a person who is still sign as a Chrisitan access to the Church? I think the position would be different if the OP had been excommunicated.

Although I'm only guessing, I'm not familiar with the verses you quoted. Can a person in a non-RC Christian Church be excommunicated?

Similarily, I hardly think Jesus had in mind expelling or discipling someone who was fully repentant and sought his salvation. Surely the rules he set out for discipline had to be in line with his constant preaching of forgiveness? I would have thought those rules only apply to the those who aren't embracing God's teachings anymore?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication

Yes they can. The Church of England last excommunicated a clergyman in 1909 for killing parishoners (eek). But excommunication is only used in very serious cases.

sex_offender

PDN might like to get back on this but I think his interpretation of Matt 18 but is stretching things a bit. I guess it is coming from an RC perspective. The passages I presume he is referring to are:

Mat 18:5 and whoever receives a little child like this in my name receives me."
Mat 18:6 "If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a large millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned at the bottom of the sea.

and later:

Mat 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go and confront him while the two of you are alone. If he listens to you, you have won back your brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he doesn't listen, take one or two others with you so that 'every word may be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
Mat 18:17 If, however, he ignores them, tell it to the congregation. If he also ignores the congregation, regard him as a gentile and a tax collector.
Mat 18:18 "Truly I tell you, whatever you prohibit on earth will have been prohibited in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will have been permitted in heaven.
Mat 18:19 Furthermore, truly I tell you that if two of you agree on earth about anything you request, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.

and from 1 Corinthians:

I wrote to you in my letter to stop associating with people who are sexually immoral-
1Co 5:10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or greedy people, robbers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.
1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you to stop associating with any so-called brother if he is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunk, or a robber. With such a person you must even stop eating.
1Co 5:12 After all, is it my business to judge outsiders? You are to judge those who are inside, aren't you?
1Co 5:13 God will judge outsiders. "Put that wicked man away from you."


Translation from the International Standard Version.

BrianCalgary

Now sex_offender, how do we reconcile the two?

If someone is repentant they fit in the Matthew passage and we work together to help one another grow in our relationship with Christ.

In Corinthians it is about hanging out with those thatrefuse to repent, lest they drag you into their immoral lifestyle.

1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you to stop associating with any so-called brother if he is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunk, or a robber. With such a person you must even stop eating.

The term 'so-called brother' tips it off to those Paul is refering to.

PDN

sex_offender wrote:

What basis do you have for declaring that there is a 'high recidivism rate in respect of such crimes'. Do you know what the rate of recidivism for sex offenders is? What research supports your assertion? How high has a recidivism rate to be to be declared 'high' by you?

"Pedophilia tends to be a chronic condition, and recidivism is high." (Lauri J. Harding in Encyclopedia of Psychology)

"And among convicted pedophiles--especially those drawn to boys--the recidivism rate is high." (Peer Briken, Andreas Hill and Wolfgang Berner, "Abnormal Attraction" at Scientific American.com)

"Months after Cardinal Bernard F. Law's November 1984 decision to send the Rev. John J. Geoghan to St. Julia's parish in Weston, despite a record of sexually molesting boys, US bishops received a report that identified sexually abusive priests as likely repeat offenders with little chance of being cured.
The recidivism rate for pedophilia is second only to exhibitionism, particularly for homosexual pedophilia,'' said the 92-page report, issued independently in 1985 by a trio of medical, legal, and church experts and delivered to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops that year" (Boston Globe, 1/7/02)

PDN

sex_offender wrote:

PDN might like to get back on this but I think his interpretation of Matt 18 but is stretching things a bit. I guess it is coming from an RC perspective.

An RC perspective? Now that is funny. I'm a Pentecostal pastor.

The passage I was referring to in 1 Corinthians 5 is "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?" (1 Corinthians 5:1-2)

The Church is supposed to expel those who claim to be Christians yet indulge in immoral behaviour.

BrianCalgary

PDN wrote:

The Church is supposed to expel those who claim to be Christians yet indulge in immoral behaviour.

I agree in the case whne someone refuses to give up their sinful lifestyle.

I understand your position of putting a person in a small home group. We actually had a member of our congregation drown her children, she was extremely ill. We rallied around her and her husband and worked on the healing process.

My question is, at what point would you allow a repentant paedophile into your sunday morning service?

I ask as one Christian to another as learning from someone else and not to criticize any stance or policy you would take.

PDN

BrianCalgary wrote:

I agree in the case whne someone refuses to give up their sinful lifestyle.

I understand your position of putting a person in a small home group. We actually had a member of our congregation drown her children, she was extremely ill. We rallied around her and her husband and worked on the healing process.

My question is, at what point would you allow a repentant paedophile into your sunday morning service?

I ask as one Christian to another as learning from someone else and not to criticize any stance or policy you would take.

That would depend on how the individual responds to the smaller fellowship and shows evidence of overcoming their problem. Maybe it would be advisable in some cases to have an 'accountability partner' who would accompany them to church.

BrianCalgary

PDN wrote:

That would depend on how the individual responds to the smaller fellowship and shows evidence of overcoming their problem. Maybe it would be advisable in some cases to have an 'accountability partner' who would accompany them to church.

thanks.

sex_offender

It seems to me that both passages refer to those that refuse to repent. For those that do repent it is a different story.

But Paul's writing here instinctively goes against my gut feeling - that of course does not mean I think it is wrong. Does mean that any members of a congregation who became a drunkards - say alcoholics and I presume by extension any substance abuser or addict - would be excluded. Hmmmm .... Should we even try and minister anything of God's love to professing Christians who fall into sinful addictions? And what about the greedy? In our consumerist culture how do we even start to identify the greedy (aren't we nearly all greedy today). I do not recall hearing greed spoken about in church in the last 10 years anyway and being treated as such a serious issue that we might excommunicate people for it.

Yet it is clear for other passages in 1 Corinthians that Paul was writing to a congregation many of whom were involved in many of these sins before their turn to Jesus. So somebody at some stage had a ministry to them.

Paul calls for the congregation to judge the offender yet Jesus teaches us not to judge.

In 1 Corinthians Paul is writing to a specific church that has lost the plot big time. So much so that her writes:

11:17 "In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good".(NIV)

Sunday meetings must have been interesting occasions! He seems to have in mind that there are specific people in the church who are causing such problems through their repeated and unrepentant sinful behaviour that the congregation cannot function with them present. In 5:5 he writes:

"hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord"

What I take from this is that Paul was pointing to a sort of tough love approach. It is rather like the family who end up having to expel their drug addicted child from their household because of their understanding that s/he is manipulating them, that as long as s/he stays the rest of the family are facilitating the addiction and the addicts presence is destroying the upbringing of his or her siblings. They expel their child hoping that she or he will hit 'rock bottom' and start to turn their life around. The expulsion is done in the hope of the sinners repentance and not to damn him or her. As the Message puts it:

5:5 Hold this man's conduct up to public scrutiny. Let him defend it if he can! But if he can't, then out with him! It will be totally devastating to him, of course, and embarrassing to you. But better devastation and embarrassment than damnation. You want him on his feet and forgiven before the Master on the Day of Judgment.


As I write this I am struck by the fact that Paul's letter was written to a church that had lost the plot. In raising this topic and starting this thread, I was hoping that following on the experience of Pilgrim Church (see my first post) that contributors to the discussion might reflect on the culture of our churches today so that they find issues of forgiveness, a central tenet of Jesus's ministry, difficult to deal with. And that they find issues surrounding sexual offending, sex in general and even sin in general difficult.

The responses to my posts in this thread seem to me to fall into two categories. Some of them focus on me, the sex offender and how, or in what circumstances (e.g. that I have truly repented, that I am restricted to certain areas, roles, places within the congregation). Others seem to deal with forgiveness as a simple matter of doctrine: the church / Bible / Jesus says forgive therefore do it - end of story.

Many people know they should forgive but they find it difficult. Forgiveness, in my experience is a life long process not a simple one off deed done in response to a commandment. It is part of the process of learning to love and of learning to receive forgiveness. Telling people to forgive and if they find it difficult, well then they should just get over it, seems to me to be an act of violence. Given the pain many people are in they cannot just 'get over it'. How does the church support people on their journey through forgiveness?

Leaving aside practical matters like having proper child protection policies in place, there are a range of issues raised by the Pilgrim Church scenario that go beyond matters pertaining solely to policy regarding having sex offenders in the congregation, but that deal in a more fundamental way with what it means to be church, that we might reflect upon.

I have obviously approached this matter in the wrong way. Sorry.

neuro-praxis

Any chance you attend NUI Maynooth, sex_offender? I only ask because they do offer a psychology/theology option...

A remarkable troll of an unusual quality.

BrianCalgary

There is nothing to be sorry for in starting this thread. It has been an interesting conversation.

I have learned or had clarified as to how to handle a situation like this.

An alcoholic really would not present an immediate danger to the body of worshippers. A sexual offender could. Dealing with each scenario would have to be different.

Both are welcome at church, both are given th eopportunity to grow in their relationship with Christ. But as a body we can't put any body in danger, hence the sex offender to be in a small group, not in leadership with kids, etc. The alcoholic, don't let him lead a Bible study at the local pub. The couple who are living together yet not married, no leadership in youth.

The church leaders must act in wisdom, taking into consideration the health of th ewhole congregation and weighing it against the salvation of one. It can be done, with love and understanding from both parties.

People leave churches for many reasons, some may leave because the church decides to work with you, we had a family leave because we prayed for the RC church in choosing the Pope.

God Bless in your search.

philologos

I think ultimately what BrianCalgary has said can be practised in any Christian organisation or church, parish whatever as long as people are all looking out in the interest of eachother, and if parent's are extra vigilent with their children. Given that the pastor, rector, priest can ensure safety for the congregation and their children, s/he should be welcomed back into the Christian community and encouraged to practise their faith.

sex_offender

I still have to get back on PDN's recidivism figures.

But in the meantime here is another story:

http://www.churchexecutive.com/Page.cfm/PageID/8842

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070329/LOCAL010103/703290453

and again here:

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/church-gives-money-to-molested-girl-molester.html

I do not think they got it right either. What do you think?

BrianCalgary

What a rough situation. As a father of three I wouldn't want to see the molester around again.

As a minister, I would want to be a part of reeconciliation.

The molester should be given the opportunity to be a part of a small group and not welcomed back into the full body until the family of the victim could be in the same room as him. As Christians we can forgive, but the pain continues, how long that would last would depend on the individuals involved.

That is the quick answer on which to start discussion.

Satan is doing a wee tap dance over this.

Michael G

sex_offender wrote:

God decides who can be in the congregation - well He does not.

So the only way that a sex offender (or anyone else for that matter) can join a congregation of the church and become part of its community is for the congregation to assent to it.

I don't agree (maybe this is my Catholic attitude coming through again). The congregation is not important. What counts is the individual person's relationship with God. Leave aside the sex offender aspect; as I have said before, it is just another type of sin. A repentant sinner, a description that covers every believer posting on this thread apart from the occasional atheist intruder and certainly covers me, has an absolute right to come to the Sacraments. Congregations are just accidental assemblies of believers and have no right to say who has access to the Lord.

sex_offender

This thread is pretty well wound up but before it disappears I want to respond to PDM’s post about recidivism rates for sex offenders. I was really upset by this post and found it difficult to collect myself to respond to it. I also found it difficult to respond to because it raises so many issues that they cannot be usefully dealt with in the confines of a post to a discussion board such as this. I can only deal with a few of the many issues it raises for me.

In a post to the thread PDM wrote:

“The issue of a sexual offender attending a church involves juggling the essential Christian concepts of love, forgiveness & restoration - but also the responsibility we have to protect & to care for the vulnerable.

Our church has a large number of children who run freely around the church premises & are not always closely supervised by their parents. If I, as a pastor, knew that a convicted pedophile wanted to join our church I would have to make the protection of children the #1 priority, especially due to the high rate of recidivism in respect to such crimes.

Therefore I would encourage the individual concerned to be a part of a small house-fellowship or cellgroup where they could get the love & support they need, but not to be present at the main Sunday worship gathering. Some might see that as judgmental & uncaring toward the individual - but we have to serve the good of the many as well.”

In this post PDM conflates ‘sex offender’ with ‘convicted paedophile [pedophile], not an uncommon thing for popular commentators to do’ (“paedophile: a person sexually attracted to children”, Cocise OED). Pat Kenny did it in a very obvious way in his Late Late Show some months ago in his follow up programme to his interview with the convicted sex offender Jack Goldenflame. (For Goldenflame’s website see: http://www.calsexoffenders.net/index.html) I questioned PDM on his assertion and asked him to define what a high rate is and to give examples of sex offender recidivism rates. He replied:

“‘Pedophilia tends to be a chronic condition, and recidivism is high.’ (Lauri J. Harding in Encyclopedia of Psychology)

‘And among convicted pedophiles--especially those drawn to boys--the recidivism rate is high.’ (Peer Briken, Andreas Hill and Wolfgang Berner, ‘Abnormal Attraction’ at Scientific American.com)

‘Months after Cardinal Bernard F. Law's November 1984 decision to send the Rev. John J. Geoghan to St. Julia's parish in Weston, despite a record of sexually molesting boys, US bishops received a report that identified sexually abusive priests as likely repeat offenders with little chance of being cured.
The recidivism rate for pedophilia is second only to exhibitionism, particularly for homosexual pedophilia,' said the 92-page report, issued independently in 1985 by a trio of medical, legal, and church experts and delivered to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops that year’ (Boston Globe, 1/7/02)"

We are back to writing about ‘high’ rates whatever anyone considers to be high in this context - is it 10%, 40%, 85% - and about paedophilia.

There is not such crime as ‘paedophilia’. There is to my knowledge no legal definition of ‘paedophile’, certainly not in Ireland or the UK. And I have never heard of one anywhere else. ‘Paedophilia’ is a diagnosis that a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist or indeed a person might make about themselves to indicate someone who is sexually attracted children. That in itself is not a crime. It is rather like trying to identify some one as heterosexual or homosexual.

For an adult to use a child for the purpose of his or her sexual gratification is wrong and I think is rightfully a crime - so a person can be a convicted child rapist, sexual abuser, sexual molester and so on but not a convicted ‘paedophile’.

So, stop and think, are all sex offenders paedophiles and are all paedophiles necessarily sex offenders? And why are so many people so anxious to identify sex offenders, not by what we have done but by who we supposedly are - people with some terrible demonic condition that make us unchangeably different from the rest of humanity?

Many sexual offenders have adult not child victims. What about the juvenile who offends against another juvenile (and they really do exist)? Or the 18 or 19 year old boy who has sex with his 15 or 16 year old girl friend (and yes, people have been convicted of this in Ireland and registered as sex offenders)? Then there might be the 30 year old man who has sex with a physically sexually mature 14 year old simply because she is available and he is able to manipulate her - this man might (or might not) be a very dangerous predator but he is not a paedophile. What about men who access child pornography? Ray Wyre, one of the leading authorities sex offenders in the U.K. (See his website: http://www.sexabuse.co.uk/) and one of the commentators invited to the Late Late Show mentioned above is on the record as saying that between 30 and 40% of those who down load child pornography on the internet are paedophiles, i.e. between 60 and 70% are not. (For a little more on this you can download Ray Wyre Associates Newsletters from their site, mind you it is a pretty slow connection)

But even among those who commit offences involving contact with a pubescent or prepubescent child many if not most are not paedophiles. There might be the man (and this is not my own story for those who like to jump to conclusions) who was a victim of some relatively (and I use ‘relatively’ here with purpose) minor sexual abuse as a child, but some where it broke a boundary for him about how adults might behave with children. He learned from an adult what adults do. He is now years later under enormous pressure for a variety of reasons. The key thing pressing on him, his wife his step daughter and his other children is that one of his sons is dying of a cancer. Being a ‘man’ of his generation he finds it enormously difficult to express his feelings. His wife is angry at him because he is showing no open signs of emotional distress at what is happening to his son so she is emotionally withdrawing from him and indeed being hostile to him. As well as being emotionally exhausted he is physically exhausted as he and his wife are taking it in turns to keep a vigil at their sick son’s hospital bedside. One evening while his wife is in the hospital his 10 or 11 year old step daughter cuddles up to him while he is lying on the sitting room couch. They are both seeking some sort of comfort. He very inappropriately looks to his step daughter to give him a form of comfort he should really be seeking from his wife and he fondles her in an overtly sexual manner, though no more than this. The next two or three times that his wife is out at hospital while he is at home his daughter cuddles up to him in the same way and he repeats what he has done before. On the third or fourth occasion that this happens his step daughter gives him a signal that he understands as saying that she wants him to stop - she probably gave him signals of this sort before but blinded by his wanting to satisfy his own needs he did not read them correctly. Nothing inappropriate ever happens again but years later his step daughter makes what happened public. Nothing in the circumstances excuses what he did or diminishes its wrongfulness but it does make it understandable in terms of him not being other than a paedophile.

I will look at actual recidivism rates in my next post.

PDN

There are a number of points raised here "in response" to my post.

In this post PDM conflates ‘sex offender’ with ‘convicted paedophile

Your original post contained links to 2 media stories about a paedophile, so it is perfectly reasonable for me to answer within the same context.

We are back to writing about ‘high’ rates whatever anyone considers to be high in this context - is it 10%, 40%, 85% - and about paedophilia.

I don't pretend to be an expert on paedophilia, therefore I defer to the medical & legal experts who assert that the recidivism rate is high. If you want to contact them and argue the point with them, then feel free to do so. As a pastor, if I thought there was a 10% risk of someone abusing one of our church children then I would make sure that a responsible adult kept that individual under continual observation while on church property.

There is not such crime as ‘paedophilia’. There is to my knowledge no legal definition of ‘paedophile’, certainly not in Ireland or the UK. And I have never heard of one anywhere else. ‘Paedophilia’ is a diagnosis that a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist or indeed a person might make about themselves to indicate someone who is sexually attracted children. That in itself is not a crime. It is rather like trying to identify some one as heterosexual or homosexual.

I don't believe I ever said there was a such a crime as 'paedophilia' - so maybe you're responding to someone else's post here? Of course there is such a condition as paedophilia, and certain crimes are committed as a result.

And why are so many people so anxious to identify sex offenders, not by what we have done but by who we supposedly are - people with some terrible demonic condition that make us unchangeably different from the rest of humanity?

Maybe you would have to find someone who thinks this way and ask them? I personally believe that everyone can be changed.

Then there might be the 30 year old man who has sex with a physically sexually mature 14 year old simply because she is available and he is able to manipulate her - this man might (or might not) be a very dangerous predator but he is not a paedophile.

Yes he is. He is sexually attracted to a child (even a mature-looking child) & he exploits her to fulfill that perverted attraction.

As for your final example, that of the man who sexually abused his step-daughter on several occasions. Of course he is a paedophile. He may present excuses or reasons for his behaviour, but that does not alter the fact .

philologos

sex_offender wrote:

Then there might be the 30 year old man who has sex with a physically sexually mature 14 year old simply because she is available and he is able to manipulate her - this man might (or might not) be a very dangerous predator but he is not a paedophile. What about men who access child pornography?

That is worrying. That is clearly paedophilia. The age of consent in Ireland is currently 17. Men who access child pornography are commiting a crime and a sin against God.

sex_offender

Sex Offender Recidivism Rates:

So what are the recidivism rates for sex offenders? It is difficult to give a definite answer since it is a moving target. Recidivism rates may change over time but more significantly in terms of affecting the determination of the rate are factors such as:

• the definition of a sexual offence - this changes over time and between jurisdictions (for a more extreme example, urinating in public is a sexual offence in some states in the USA - I dread to think how many ‘sex offenders’ could be picked up in Dublin city centre early on a Saturday morning.)
• the definition of recidivism - some studies include convictions for sexual offences only some include convictions for any offence, some include convictions for offences which were carried out before the date of the first conviction but which only came to light afterwards, and some include convictions or returns to prison for violation of parole conditions, release licence conditions or violation of sex offender registry conditions.

Overall one thing is consistent, aside from murders - who are usually incarcerated for a long time or are executed, sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rates of any category of offender and besides murderers they are the only category of criminal where the majority do not re-offend.

However sex offenders are a diverse bunch and some sub - categories have lower recidivism rates than others, and some include some extremely dangerous people.

One of the most influential series of studies had been conducted by Karl Hanson now of Public Safety Canada and formerly of Canada’s equivalent to our Department of Justice or one of its subsidiary agencies.

A summary of the latest finding can be found here: http://www.ps-sp.gc.ca/res/cor/sum/cprs200407_1-en.asp

Hanson’s studies have been influential since they have based on a meta-analysis of other studies conducted in Canada, UK, and USA.

His conclusion is that within 5 years of release from prison 14% of sex offenders have a new charge or conviction for a sexual offence and the twenty year recidivism rate is 27%. Most, 73%, do not re-offend. As a sex offender this gives me hope that I probably will be successful in my rehabilitation. Now, I have many other reasons to be hopeful as well as this but when I read stories to the effect that all sex offenders will re-offend I feel cursed, that there is no hope for me. I practically end up believing that I have re-offended and have to spend hours going over the facts re-assuring myself that I have not.

Hanson’s results also point to the applicability of the 85% / 15% rule to sex offenders. (Please do not take the actual 85 / 15 per cent figures exactly). But the idea as applied in this case is that most (say 85%) offenders commit few (say 15%) of the crimes while a small number (15%) of the offenders commit most (85%) of the crimes.

Consistent with this Hanson finds that first time convicted offender have lower re-offence rates (roughly half) than those with prior convictions.

After that ‘boy victim’ child molesters have the highest recidivism rates followed by rapists (adult victims) with ‘girl victim’ and incest offenders having the lowest rates in this classification. Other studies show results consistent with this.


Other Studies, some examples:
Department of Rehabilitation: Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offender Releases, State of Ohio, 2001:

This study showed a 10 year recidivism rate for sex offenders of 34%. However the recidivism rate for sexual offences was 8.0%. The remaining 26% of offences committed were for non- sexual crimes or for things like violation of parole conditions.


In the UK a study of sex offenders emerging from long-term imprisonment (and so presumably people who had been convicted of relatively serious sexual offences) published in 2002 by a team led by Oxford University's Roger Hood, found that of 94 ex-prisoners followed for six years after release eight were re-convicted for a further sexual offence. Another four were re-convicted and jailed for a non-sexual violent crime. (New Statesman 19th March, 2007)


So the situation for the rehabilitation of sex offenders is not hopeless. Most of us will not re-offend. And most of us are not potential Ian Huntleys or rabid compulsive child predators. But people should not of course be naive about the dangers involved in having a publically acknowledged sex offender in church, both in terms of the real risk that it involves to children but also in terms of the effect it might have on those who have been the victims of sexual abuse (and any congregation of any size has these). I agree with PDN's sentiments that he as a pastor should put a high priority of the safety of children in his congregation.

Hanson draws the following ‘policy implications’ from the results of his studies;

1. The level of sexual recidivism in sexual offenders is lower than is commonly believed.
2. Policies based on the assumption that all sexual offenders re-offend at a high rate or that all sexual offenders pose the same recidivism risk may lead to over-supervising lower risk offenders.
3. Actuarial assessment tools can assist in differentiating high-risk offenders from lower risk offenders.

Perhaps these have some relevance to how sex offenders are to be received or not in church?


What is the level of danger from sex offenders?

I do not think any pastor or church congregation should be blasé about having a self declared convicted sex offender in its midst. But perhaps it should be even more concerned about those convicted sex offenders who have not declared their presence or those who have not yet been found out.

While the statistics show that those who have been convicted of sexual offences have a greater likelihood of committing a sexual offence than other members of the population, collectively more sexual offences are committed every year by people convicted of non - sexual offences and an even greater number of sexual offences are committed by people with no criminal history at all.

I do not know of any comprehensive study on the contribution of convicted sex offenders to the total numbers of child sexual abuse cases each year (I write here about child sexual abuse since that I think is what most people are concerned about when they think of a sex offender in church, or anywhere for that matter), but I have seen some partial figures for individual states in the USA. These show that less than 2 percent of all child sexual abuse cases each year attributable to already convicted sex offenders.

According to NBC2 News in (5th February 2007) Matt Heterick of Lee County, Florida, Sheriff’s Office :"Parents in general are paying too much attention to the website and to the people who have already been convicted and already been caught,"

In Lee County there were 534 sex crimes reported in 2006, only 3 involved convicted sex offenders.

So what point am I trying to make here?

Firstly, PDN’s cited sources indicating that sex offenders / paedophiles had high recidivism rates. High and low are relative terms and what is high to one person my appear low to another. I wanted to quantify, as best I can, what the recidivism rates are. I wanted to respond to some common misapprehensions about the level of recidivism of convicted sex offenders. Readers can make up their own mind about how to evaluate these.

Secondly, while church congregations should take a sensible, careful and cautionary approach to protecting the children in their midst (and I truly do not have fixed views on what this should entail, and maybe I should not be allowed in church) I want to draw attention to the fact that an obsession with convicted sex offenders draws takes attention away from where the greater danger to children lies.

Brian Calgary in one of his posts expresses his concern as a father about the safety of his children. It is common to see parents making statements to the effect that “as a mother / father I am really concerned about sex offenders about the place”. However if Brian Calgary’s children are sexually abused (and Brian I sincerely hope they are not and I am only using your name here as an example of how most fathers would say something similar), statistically the most likely person to have abused them will be Brian Calgary, the children’s male guardian. The same of course is true of my children, if my children are ever sexually abused I am the person who statistically will be most likely to have committed the offence (and not because I have already been convicted of a sexual offence).

Most sexual abuse of children takes place in the family home or is committed by relatives, close friends, babysitters, close neighbours, trusted professionals and others closely associated with the family - and this could of course include those in their church community.

I think this is relevant to my original post and question as to whether sex offenders should be allowed in church. The fact is that there are already sex offenders in churches and there are child sex abusers, some convicted by the courts, more unconvicted. Is there some way of responding to this?