When a Monster Comes to Church
Forum category
In almost every area of our society, sex offenders and pedophiles are considered monsters. Those who prey on the weak and defenseless are rejected, marked, avoided, and even persecuted. There is a valid societal safety need to protect ourselves and our loved ones. But are these people beyond hope? Does the church have a responsibility to minister to them? And if so, how?
Another article on the same topic:
Sex Offenders in the Pew
Another article on the same topic:
Sex Offenders in the Pew
One church in our area has a system to minister to sex offenders. They have volunteers to watch them, even escort them to the bathroom. I don’t know that many people would have enough of a burden to volunteer for this sort of duty in most of our churches, but apparently God has laid this upon the hearts of these people, and I respect them for it.
I have often wondered if sex offenders should attend a special fellowship for others like them and adults without children, or an adults only service, perhaps off campus. This is a tough problem.
I have often wondered if sex offenders should attend a special fellowship for others like them and adults without children, or an adults only service, perhaps off campus. This is a tough problem.
"The Midrash Detective"
A majority of the CTI survey respondents believe exclusion may be justified, but not for the sake of convenience. Sixty-six percent would consider excluding registered offenders if their victims attend the same church. Sixty-one percent, before permitting an offender to attend church, said they would review the offender’s probation terms and criminal record.Emphasis Mine
In addition, 62 percent of survey respondents say they are either not sure or do not believe a sex offender can be rehabilitated to the point where they no longer pose a threat to others.
I find it shocking that 34% of respondents would NOT protect victims by excluding their abusers from the church the victims are attending. That is horrifying, IMO.
I tend to agree with Ed that my inclination is that sex offenders should be served through non-traditional congregations. They aren’t “the unsave-able,” but they should also not be served at the expense of innocents.
Sixty-six percent would consider excluding registered offenders if their victims attend the same church. Sixty-one percent, before permitting an offender to attend church, said they would review the offender’s probation terms and criminal record.The term ‘sex offender’ is not specific enough for the questions posed, IMO, because it includes anyone who has committed any kind of sex-related crime, from harassment to distributing pornography to pedophilia, and encompasses the victimless crime of a 19 yo boy engaging in consensual sex with his 16 yo girlfriend to the truly heinous. Consider the case of http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/lead-plaintiff-removed-from-615911.html Wendy Whitaker , who was listed as a sex offender for 12 years for performing a sex act as a 17 yo girl with a 15 yo boy. Should she have been banned from church, and forced to move from her home when a church started a day care center less than 1,000 feet away?
The problem, especially when words like ‘monster’ are used, is that people’s minds immediately go to pedophilia. A sex offender is not necessarily a pedophile, and child sexual abuse/molestation can refer to pedophilia (attraction to pre-pubescent children), hebephilia (attraction to young adolescents), or ephebophilia (attraction to older adolescents). These are very different pathologies that call for completely different treatments.
Also, most (around 90%, I think) sexual abuse occurs in the home by parents, siblings, and close relatives who have access and opportunity. The second-most common scenario is victimization by a teacher, coach, or other trusted adult- again with access and opportunity. Stranger danger is often exaggerated. But the relationship between the victim and offender can create a very complex situation when attempting to keep them totally separated after the incident has occurred.
In light of the many specifics we need to keep in mind, it seems reasonable that people would give a general answer to the general question posed in the poll- that they would consider permitting an offender to attend the same church as the victim.
In light of the many specifics we need to keep in mind, it seems reasonable that people would give a general answer to the general question posed in the poll- that they would consider permitting an offender to attend the same church as the victim.Susan, were you addressing my comments with this statement?
The article stated that 66% of respondents would consider EXCLUDING perpetrators. My shock was not about this group since at least they are considering exclusion. It’s the other 34% who apparently are NOT even considering exclusion that shock me.
Somewhat- I am addressing your comments in light of the entire body of the article and the lack of specific terminology used.
The entire quote was “A majority of the CTI survey respondents believe exclusion may be justified, but not for the sake of convenience. Sixty-six percent would consider excluding registered offenders if their victims attend the same church. Sixty-one percent, before permitting an offender to attend church, said they would review the offender’s probation terms and criminal record.”
The study also proposed that “Pastors, lay leaders, and churchgoers overwhelmingly agree that sex offenders who have legally paid for their crime should be welcomed into churches. In fact, 8 in 10 respondents indicated that registered offenders should be allowed to attend church under continuous supervision and subject to appropriate limitations.”
We really don’t know how the other percentages answered these questions. The other 34% may not have understood the question, or been undecided or said “No comment”. The whole thing was just way too general- I would have answered very few of the questions as they were worded in the article. Complex decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis.
To specific kinds of offenses, such as pedophilia, I am willing to bet the percentage would be much higher and the answers more definitive. The full study is not available for us to read, so we really don’t know much about what questions were asked and how they were answered. Polls are very tricky things, and IMO unless they are done carefully they don’t really prove much.
The entire quote was “A majority of the CTI survey respondents believe exclusion may be justified, but not for the sake of convenience. Sixty-six percent would consider excluding registered offenders if their victims attend the same church. Sixty-one percent, before permitting an offender to attend church, said they would review the offender’s probation terms and criminal record.”
The study also proposed that “Pastors, lay leaders, and churchgoers overwhelmingly agree that sex offenders who have legally paid for their crime should be welcomed into churches. In fact, 8 in 10 respondents indicated that registered offenders should be allowed to attend church under continuous supervision and subject to appropriate limitations.”
We really don’t know how the other percentages answered these questions. The other 34% may not have understood the question, or been undecided or said “No comment”. The whole thing was just way too general- I would have answered very few of the questions as they were worded in the article. Complex decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis.
To specific kinds of offenses, such as pedophilia, I am willing to bet the percentage would be much higher and the answers more definitive. The full study is not available for us to read, so we really don’t know much about what questions were asked and how they were answered. Polls are very tricky things, and IMO unless they are done carefully they don’t really prove much.
Discussion