Growing is the list of “unchangeables” from the perspective of our society.
- Terrorists do not change, we are told. They can never be rehabilitated. Lock them away forever.
- Bullies do not change, we are told. It’s better not to trust them.
- Failed cities and their inhabitants do not change, we are told. That’s just the way that neighborhood is. Let the police clamp down on it as much as they can and keep those people over there.
- Sexual offenders do not change, we are told. Register them. Monitor them. Never give them a break.
- Sexual orientation and gender identity do not change, we are told (expect, that is, to leave heterosexuality in favor of homosexuality). Once you’re born that way (which is a political tautology, not a scientific discovery), you’re stuck there forever.
- Substance abusers are always going to go back to the booze or the dope. It’s just too hard to beat.
- Give a job to an ex-con? You’ve got to be kidding! He’s just going to wind up in prison again.
…and the list goes on. Ours is a people who generally believe in the inevitability of recidivism (relapse into a former bad way of life).
But a lot of the “facts” upon which we base our perspectives may not be factually sound. People speak pretty frequently about the recidivism rate among sexual offenders, for example, leaving the impression that sex offenders are far more likely to re-offend than are criminals of other types. That’s actually not true. Thieves have a higher recidivism rate than sex offenders. So do drug users, prostitutes, and murderers (in addition to the preceding link, here are some supplemental data from one state that corroborate the NIJ statistics). Now, it is true that convicted sex offenders are more likely to commit another sex offense than a former bank robber is likely to commit a sex offense (duh). Yes, the former bank robber, if he commits another crime, is likely to rob a bank again rather than sexually assault someone. But the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics reported
“Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prison, sex offenders had a lower overall rearrest rate. When rearrests for any type of crime (not just sex crimes) were counted, the study found that 43% (4,163 of 9,691) of the 9,691 released sex offenders were rearrested. The overall rearrest rate for the 262,420 released non-sex offenders was higher, 68% (179,391 of 262,420)” (source).
What about this is important?
I believe that people can change. To put it more accurately, I believe that people can BE changed. I believe that it lies within the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ to change anyone. I’m not saying that every change is equally difficult to make. I’m not saying that nobody will ever relapse into significant struggles with past temptations. I’m simply asserting that I take it as a cardinal point of my faith that God can change anyone through the power of the gospel.
I’m a believer in “such were some of you.”
As a true believer in this idea, I find it important to put the facts in front of you. I find it important to note that more than half of convicted sex offenders never face charges again. I find it important to note that nearly one in four drug offenders will never face charges again once they get out of prison. I find it important to note that one in five people arrested for a property crime will never be arrested again.
Why do I find it important to note these things? Because the worst kind of recidivism comes when people acquainted with the gospel go back to a way of thinking that denies it—having escaped the prison of a sinful world into a new creation, they return to thinking about the world the same old way. They lose sight of the idea that Jesus is mighty to save. This is the worst kind of recidivism because of the impact it has upon our churches:
- It leads Christians to do the unthinkable—to say no to the gospel on other peoples’ behalf. “She’s a prostitute. She’s not interested in the gospel. I’m not going to witness to her. He’s a druggie. Let’s skip to the next house and share the gospel over there. He’s a registered sex offender. That kind of person never changes. Don’t knock on that door.” Yet those are just the sorts of people to whom Jesus deliberately went. Force people who are going to reject the gospel to reject it for themselves. Never reject the gospel on behalf of anyone else by proxy.
- It leads Christians to doubt the wrong people (and trust the wrong people). The most dangerous people in your congregation are not the convicted sex offenders you know about; they’re the undiscovered sex offenders you don’t know about. Yes, half of those ex-con sex offenders are going to be arrested again in the future (most of them within the first year of their release), but you know how to keep them out of children’s ministries and it’s going to be hard for them to sneak up on people who already know their past crimes. And statistically speaking, you’ve a greater risk that the ex-con embezzler will steal from your church’s retirees than that the ex-con sex offender will molest your church’s children.
- It leads Christians to support injustices in our criminal justice system. I think that the sex offender registry is a good thing when it alerts us to the forty-year-old man who has been convicted twice for stalking and molesting little boys. I think it is a bad thing when it makes people in a community lump that man into the same category as a twenty-year-old man who slept with his seventeen-year-old girlfriend and was convicted of statutory rape. That’s an injustice to the twenty-year-old, and few are the people willing to plead for him.
Conclusion
Many of the people who have been convicted of offenses like these are not monsters (which does not in the least deny that what they did was monstrous). Can you take a moment to consider that although what you know about the victims of sexual abuse is correct (how badly they’ve been traumatized, how much they need justice, how wrong it is to cover up what has been done to them or to blame them at all for the way that they were assaulted) what you think you know about the perpetrator (that he has a sickness from which he can never be set free, will definitely do something like this again, and must never be allowed to move past his offenses) might be incorrect? Most of these offenders will get out of prison and will stay out of trouble for the rest of their lives. Some of them will be driven out of town after town by people unwilling to look beyond their past crimes and try to find out who they are today.
Be vigilant about protecting your flock from predators. We are. I am. That’s our duty. No one who has been convicted of a crime against children or a sex-based offense is going to be ministering to minors at FBC Farmersville.
But also be vigilant about finding those whom the world has written off as pariahs and untouchables and sharing with them the good news of a God who can change anyone. That’s our duty, too, you know.
To your broader point: During my first round of seminary, I pastored a small country church for three years. They had some beliefs I disagreed with (they were a non-denominational ex-Methodist church who started hiring baptistic pastors after pulling out of the UMC, so… You can imagine). While I was there, I preached the word and loved the people. The church grew and people (slowly) were transforming spiritually.
When I graduated and left, I helped them find another student. He had been in one of the churches that had a lot of students and several seminary profs in leadership.
After a few months he butted heads pretty well with one particular strong-willed lady and sought advice from his former church’s elders about what to do. He told me they encouraged him to resign because “people like that never change.”
Made me wonder what happened to the power of the gospel and the Spirit…
Precisely. And although I’ve highlighted sex offenders as our most egregious failure in this regard, the broader idea is the point of the post.
I’m with you in “such were some of you” and “a new creation” in Christ, a true believer in the reality of being changed in Christ.
Since you return to sex offenders often in your article, I make the presumption that such is the catalyst for your writing this. I offer a few observations and I’d be genuinely interested in your opinion:
1. Crime statistics are fuzzy things that depend on definitions and reporting and such. I don’t think that it is disputed that sex abuse (particularly abuse of minors) is vastly underreported and the great majority of cases involve acquaintances and family which often leads to private resolution rather than prosecution. Add to that the delay, often years, between the offense and the reporting. I don’t know the value of touting sex abuse offenders as less likely to be convicted of a repeat offense and wouldn’t take data that to mean that once one of these abusers has been convicted there should be offered a greater level of trust.
2. Pedophilia is a recognized psychiatric diagnosis. Considerable research has been done on individuals who have a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Can such individuals be lifted out of their attraction to children through Christ? I don’t know. It might be that the change may be in controlling deep seated urges and action on those, not instant and permanent removal of the attraction. To presume otherwise would be irresponsible. Your use of “who they are today” may be under-informed or just an incomplete conveyance of your thinking. Who they are today is an individual with a history of child sex abuse who has been saved. Both parts of that should inform us.
3. I join you in deploring the state of sex offender registries. In my state there is a wide range of offenses that put’s one on the list. The residency prohibitions serve to concentrate offenders or cause them to abscond. There should be a registry. The devil is in the details.
4. Everyone I have ever heard who works in this area of child sex offenses – law enforcement, probation supervisors, prosecutors, etc. – has said that pedophiles are attracted to churches because they are easy targets – rich in potential victims, lax in vigilance, quickly forgiving of past reports and offenses.
5. You state that in your church no one “convicted” is allowed to work with children. Do you have written or unwritten policies that consider and act upon credible reports as well as convictions?
I think that you and I would be saying about the same things on this. As I have followed the matter of child sex abuse in churches (couple of decades now) it’s hard to feel good about how we’ve handled such things.
When men (especially SBC clergy) discuss sex abuse the conversation tends to focus on forgiveness, false reporting, protecting reputation, etc. Let a female have a say and you get something different, and valuable.
1. Although sex crimes are underreported, when they are reported, there’s little trouble identifying and locating the perpetrator. People always report a bank robbery, but the police don’t always get their man. Also, although sex crimes are underreported for first-offenders, I don’t find that people are reluctant to report people with prior convictions for sex crimes. When the registered sex offender hangs out for too long in the parking lot for Chuck E Cheese, somebody calls the police. So, although I would place very little confidence in FIRST arrest statistics for sex offenses (because of the underreporting), I’m comfortable hanging my hat on RE-arrest statistics for sex offenses.
2. I agree. It is part of a pastor’s job not to lead his church members into temptation. If a person has a pathological attraction to underaged children, a good pastor takes note of that (if he knows about it) and helps that person to establish and maintain appropriate boundaries. But the person who establishes and maintains those boundaries ought to be able to be befriended, ought to be able to be loved, ought to be able to be discipled.
3. Amen. I agree 100%. And part of the problem is that a significant number of these offenses are NOT covered under your point #2. Some of these offenses are related to psychological problems. But the twenty-one-year-old who is attracted to a seventeen-year-old (let’s say she has a fake ID and looks nineteen) is not sick. He’s normal. It’s still wrong. I’m OK with it’s being illegal. I’m just not OK with it’s being an event that ejects someone from society forever.
4. This is a deplorable, and often true, situation. I’ll take a bit of pride in saying that FBC Farmersville has ferreted out some situations like this, and I can put you in communication with those (presently residing in prison) who will attest to our vigilance. We’re not only serious about preventing it at church, but we’re also finding it where it occurs outside the church facilities and activities in the lives of the people whom we encounter.
5. If I encounter a credible report, I do what I can do to turn it into a conviction. But yes, let’s presume that there’s someone who was arrested and tried but acquitted on a technicality. That’s someone who is not going to work with minors here.
Finally, let me offer this in clarification for your closing paragraphs: The person who abused a position of authority (pastor, dad, teacher, etc.) even by doing things that are NOT illegal (e.g., the pastor who had an affair with the pianist) is not going to have any position of authority here. Period. So, you’re often, in many contexts, going to hear me saying something far different than protecting reputation, false reporting, or forgiveness.
What bothers me is not that crimes are reported, not that government punishes those who are convicted, not that we keep people from serving minors who have histories of misconduct with minors, and not that we restrict areas of service based upon people’s histories of misconduct even if it was legal and with adults. I’m cool with all of that.
What bothers me is the way that we treat people who commit certain sins as though they have an untreatable, unforgivable damnable condition that is more powerful than the gospel, such that we would rather they weren’t in church, weren’t trying to associate with us, weren’t trying to befriend us, etc.
“What bothers me is the way that we treat people who commit certain sins as though they have an untreatable, unforgivable damnable condition that is more powerful than the gospel, such that we would rather they weren’t in church, weren’t trying to associate with us, weren’t trying to befriend us, etc.”
Absolutely. Amen. Well said. Bingo.
What bothers me is when we so flippantly speak of God’s forgiveness that we treat all sins the same — as if the sin of sexual abuse is of no greater consequence than any other sin
Are you making some accusation against Bart?
I thought his post made an important point about the gospel. No post can speak all truth, but are you accusing Bart if something in this post?
No, I am making a general statement about how we speak of the sin of sexual abuse. Most of the articles I have read this week give a nod to the heinousness of sexual sin and then move very quickly to the “but God forgives” theme.
Then perhaps you ought to write an article that makes the points you feel are valuable.
This one, to me, makes a valuable, biblical, and necessary contribution to the discussion which in no way belittles the victims of abuse.
My problem with Bart is that he’s right about our duty to preach grace to abusers — my own experience with the devastating effects of this sin make it difficult for me to have anything but contempt for sexual predators.
Todd,
Both are true. Sexual abuse is a terrible sin. AND, God does forgive. Shouldn’t both be talked about? And, should we leave the sinners, out there, in the land of guilt and shame with no hope?
Bart’s point is that many in our society think that people can’t change….once a drug addict, always a drug addict….once a sex offender, always a sex offender….once a thief, always a thief. But, this denies the power of the Gospel. I agree with Bart, which strangely, I often do find myself agreeing with Bart…not on everything, but on a lot of things.
David
But in the light of the Duggar case we are only talking about the one and not the other.
Sexual abuse is not just a sin, Todd; it’s a crime. It ought to be a crime. It ought to bring down upon the perpetrator the punishment that it warrants.
But nobody is beyond the grace of God, and no sin is unconquerable.
You know, Todd, having looked back over your comments, it seems to me that they deal more with the question of justice than the question of recidivism. In other words, there’s an open question as to whether the criminal has really paid the debt of justice that he owed from the initial crime. I don’t read you’re saying that you know for certain that this person will offend again; you’re saying that you know for certain that this person has already offended and you seem not to be certain that justice has yet been served upon him.
That’s an open question and I’m not addressing it in this post. Some have called for the death penalty for, for example, genuine pedophiles who, as adults, sexually molest prepubescent children. Although I respectfully listen to those who claim that such a penalty would further suppress the reporting of familial abusers, I could be persuaded that a death sentence serves the cause of justice in such cases.
The question I’m addressing is a different one: Once justice has been served upon a person (whatever that means), should we presume that this person will offend again? On that question I’m taking a position in this post.
One final thing: A lot of people have brought up Josh Duggar, and I freely admit that the prominence of that story in the news has influenced the timing of this post. The situation I’m positing, however, is NOT the Duggar situation. He was never prosecuted criminally. He never paid any debt to society. I’m talking about the people who did their time.
“What bothers me is the way that we treat people who commit certain sins as though they have an untreatable, unforgivable damnable condition that is more powerful than the gospel, such that we would rather they weren’t in church, weren’t trying to associate with us, weren’t trying to befriend us, etc.”
The absolute best way to test out the “repentent” child molester is to have him babysit your grandkids over a weekend while you are away.
Lydia,
We shouldn’t put people in places of great temptation. Just because people are saved and changed by the power of the Gospel doesn’t mean that they’re ABOVE temptation. It’s like putting a drunk in a bar by himself, for a weekend, after God saved him from a life of drunkenness. Or, putting a man, who was addicted to porno, in one of those sex shops we see while driving down the interstate. That’s just foolish.
David
If you guys are going to preach about the power of the Gospel for personal transformation then walk the talk or get into the details of safety with those you are speaking to.
Did it occur to you that parents might be a bit uncomfortable with someone in their midst who might be looking at their little children with lust and as objects for satisfaction? That is why most pastors protect the privacy of molesters. They know how it would play out.
Lydia,
So, your answer to sinners is to cast them out, forever? To tell them that there’s no hope for you? To tell them that God has no place for you at the table? to tell them that they’re too bad for God and God’s people?
David
“So, your answer to sinners is to cast them out, forever? To tell them that there’s no hope for you? To tell them that God has no place for you at the table? to tell them that they’re too bad for God and God’s people?
I did not realize that the local institutional Church where there are many little innocent temptations is the only place where they can receive God’s grace.
do you have any idea the amount of con that goes into being a pedophile?
Lydia,
1. Not all convicted sex offenders are pedophiles.
2. The New Testament knows nothing of an unchurched Christian.
3. It is possible to receive someone as a brother or sister in Christ without inviting them to care for minors. There are tons of people in churches who’ve never been convicted of anything who still ought not to be caring for minors.
There is a difference between forgiveness and stupidity. Displaying grace to a thief does not mean you make him church treasurer. An alcoholic needs to be careful where he goes.
Are you saying, Lydia, that the sex offender is beyond Christ’s grace and ought to be excluded from the church and treated as an untouchable,
Is that your solution?
“Are you saying, Lydia, that the sex offender is beyond Christ’s grace and ought to be excluded from the church and treated as an untouchable”
I am saying you do not have the insight or power to declare whether or not they are totally transformed. Neither do I. Better to err on the side of protecting the innocent.
Shall I tell you why I ceased from folly?
Why I turned away from sin?
’Twas because the love of my Redeemer
Fully won my heart to Him.
This is why I love my Savior,
Why I love to follow Him;
For He died my soul to ransom,
And He washed me from my sin.
Do you ask me why I seek no pleasure
In the things I once did love?
’Tis because I’ve tasted life’s pure river,
Flowing from the throne above.
Would you bid me give to all a reason
Of the hope I now possess?
It is Christ in me the hope of glory,
And His perfect holiness.
Though all men may look on me with wonder,
At the change that’s taken place;
I will walk the downward road no longer,
Bless the Lord for saving grace.
A hymn by Daniel Warner
“Better to err on the side of protecting the innocent.”
How exactly Lydia in the context of church life do you protect the innocent when there is a person with a past such as described in this post and professes Christ and repentance? How specifically?
I do not think we are able to be faithful to God and to tell a sinner that they are beyond God’s grace or unwelcome in the church.
To tell an offender that he is welcome under conditions that protect children? Amen. We ought to do that.
In a previous church, we had a stalker who was attending our church. I invited him to attend elsewhere. I arranged with deacons to escort him from the front door any and everywhere he went to make sure he did not harass the young lady.
He didn’t show.
But when the church begins to tell certain sinners that they are unwelcome, we have made a decision that is contrary to the gospel and the work of Christ.
I do not share your antipathy toward the church, Lydia. Yes, many churches (and pastors) have failed. Terrible things have been done. But I think churches can put in place protections for children while also living out the gospel to sinners – even the worst of sinners.
And, I would say it is better not to err.
Let’s not give in to sin and failure. Let’s try to get it right before we accept that we are going err one way or the other.
The high profile failures of several churches cannot be taken as absolute indication that there is no possibility of doing it right. Why say, “We are going to err, let’s err this way.” Why not try to get it right? Why not try to both protect children and minister to the worst of sinners?
“1. Not all convicted sex offenders are pedophiles”
Understood. It is just that predators have become a problem in evangelicalism in case you have not been paying attention.
“2. The New Testament knows nothing of an unchurched Christian.”
We would probably not agree in totality of what constitutes the Body of Christ because you make your living in the institutional church. That is ok. I am not really interested in going there.
“3. It is possible to receive someone as a brother or sister in Christ without inviting them to care for minors. There are tons of people in churches who’ve never been convicted of anything who still ought not to be caring for minors.”
When someone they won’t be allowed to “care for minors” I realize they don’t really have an understanding of the grooming process. How do you explain to a child that Mr. Bob is not safe in church or outside church?
Umm ” I’m comfortable hanging my hat on RE-arrest statistics for sex offenses.” I feel like I have dropped into the twilight zone reading this article. Perhaps Mr. Barber, I wonder how “comfortable” you would be speaking to “victims” who never had the satisfaction or Justice afforded to them by seeing an “arrest” come to fruition for their abuse? How about plea deals Mr. Barber? Do they give you a warm and fuzzy feeling when the judicial sets up deals for lesser charges, due to the age of the victim? In 2012 the The American Psychiatric Association expanded its definition of pedophiles and now many registrants who were not previously defined as such are now included. You may or may have not heard of the Group Nambla. You may want to “hang your hat” on the fact it is alive and well and thriving with more members than ever. They amuse themselves when persons as yourself who propagate the “low offense rate” for offenders. Then go on to brag how many “victims” they have under their belts and where the best places to Hunt for them are. Churches rank high due to the naivety and trusting nature of the congregation. They seem to be particularly fond of the “illegal immigrant populations” and “single mothers rate high on the list. Mr. Barber, you have a higher obligation to the public than to “hang your hat” on an issue you know NOTHING about. I suggest rather than taking my word for it, you use your “google alerts” to set up notifications of “repeat sex offender arrested” or any combination of words to “alert” you of these crimes on a daily basis. Then I issue you a challenge to come back here and write the same article.
What bothers me is the presumption you and other “men of faith” think they have the “capacity and education” to deal with offenders and then presume to expose their congregations to these disturbed individuals. One can compare it to a thousand mile journey across the ocean. Would I want to depend on a person who has never been on a boat to be responsible for the “pre-check” of the equipment prior to launching by “praying over it” . Considering even the so-called Experts admit we are still in the stone age when understanding the mindsets of these particular criminals. I highly doubt a pastor, priest, rabbi etc. can or should “make the call” that redemption will be achieved on their watch.
One thing you might want to consider or ask about concerning recidivism rates for sexual predators of children is for how long do they gather stats? For example, one sociologist said that often those stats only reflect the first 3 years after being released from prison.
Just something to consider when looking at these sorts of stats. I was very involved in workforce development for years and know the unemployment stats are a joke because of what they count and how they count it.
One thing that may help explain the lower repeat rate for sex offenders is the fact…and it IS a fact…that a MUCH closer watch is kept on them than any other kind of criminal. I mean, does your city, or any website you know of, tell you how many burglars, car thieves, or even bank robbers live near you? Or make them register so the law can keep track of them? No, after a set period of parole, no one keeps track because these types of criminals do not pose the kind of danger to women and children that sex offenders do, and they are not driven by the same kind of perversion. That said, I whole-heartedly agree that the grace of God can make “a new creature” out of anyone, but from what I’ve seen in over 60 years of ministry to all kinds of us sinners, the true sex offender has a special kind of problem that is seldom overcome by anything short of the grace of God.
Good point on the close supervision.
I’m not sure what you mean by this: “the true sex offender has a special kind of problem that is seldom overcome by anything short of the grace of God.”
Good insights.
And, I think it tells us something if it is true that oversight and encouragement makes a difference. Aren’t those things, ideally, aspects of Christian discipleship?
Here’s a conversation I once held with someone in my office:
“You’re going to prison. We’ve already spoken with the authorities, and it’s clear that you are guilty. When you get out, you’re going to find somewhere to live other than here, because you don’t need to live near your victims. When that day comes, I’m going to go with you to a local church in that area and together we’re going to approach the pastor for a meeting. I’m going to tell him, ‘I want to introduce you to —-. He has a problem with being attracted to teenaged boys. He needs some people around him to make sure that he stays out of situations that are too much of a temptation for him.'”
I think that a good church can help somebody like this to keep his nose clean. He never enters the youth ministry or children’s ministry areas. He never gets a position of authority in the church. But he can be a part of the church family. And in a small town, he’s not going to be able to do much without somebody from the church finding out about it. Let’s see the parole office match the average Baptist church when it comes to knowing about somebody’s business. 🙂
Bart, did you actually do this? How did it work out? Do you really believe he was “changed?” If so, why no opportunity to have a position of authority?
I think you plan has great merit, but I also think it is much harder than you post implies–that is, to actually pull it off.
I am speaking from having a similar experience of accepting a convicted sex offender into our congregation. I have to admit, it did not have a happy ending.
You sight the statistic that “over half of the sex offenders do not face further charges.” That is not the same as saying “over half the sex offenders have been changed.”
They may simply offend without getting caught–as many molestations never lead to a conviction, or even a suspect. Also, even if half were changed, half were not. How do you determine who is in what half.
Comparing a thief to a sex offender is not really that helpful. In the former case, someone loses some stuff. In the latter, someone loses a part of oneself.
I am not against your proposal. I think it is a biblical one, and a practical one. I, personally, shudder at what might happen if I were do again seek to be involved in the plan you have outlined.
I remember one of the weapons at our disposal on a submarine. It was very powerful in destroying the enemy. It had one drawback . . . the sub firing it could easily be destroyed as well.
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I think it is a godly approach to a very thorny and ungodly issue. It is challenging to me personally.
Jack,
I had the conversation. He’s still in the slammer. We’ll see how it goes.
God bless. I pray God will give you an extra measure of insight.
Again, thanks for taking time to post on this important matter.
What I am hearing is a lot of fear and suspicion based mostly on ignorance. This conversation of half were cured, but half were not is bogus. Go back and re-read the original comment. It stated that almost half of those originally convicted of a sex related crime committed “some other” crime within a specified period of release.
Department of Justice statistics, as well as, most other studies of recidivism of sex offenders find that only 1-3% commit a sex related crime. There is a lot of supposition as to why other crimes (non-sexual – that lead to the 1/2 statistic) are committed, but one of the most prevalent is that the manner in which society continues to condemn these particular former offenders – job restrictions, home restrictions, etc. – deteriorates their life choices and funnels them into anti-social behavior.
Over 96% of all arrests for sexual offenses are first time offenders, and most are known to the victim. The boogeyman lurking in dark corners waiting to snatch your child and do unthinkable things to them is more myth than reality. Does it happen.. yes, and it is terrible each and every time. But seeing danger at every turn is fear mongering.
Not all sex offenders are pedophiles. This is a misconception generated by the media and your politicians for their own benefit. Stop and look at what constitutes being put on the offender registry in your state… you might be surprised (and offended) by the number and degree of offenses that lead to being listed. There are states that require anyone convicted of urinating in public to be on the list. Not that I advocate public urination, but it is far from luring children into unwanted sexual encounters.
A few years ago I was compiling information for one state and its offender registry. At that time the list had about 18,000 individuals listed. Of that amount, it was estimated that about 250 were “at risk” of reoffending. So… taxpayer resources are being expended to keep tabs on 18K people, when it is known that only a few hundred are likely to be a problem?? And do you know the crime of the largest number of new entrants to that system? Teenagers “sexting” each other photos.
I am in full support of the registry… but it needs to be modified if it is going to serve society. First, trim away the crimes, that even though they may be related to sex (sexting, public urination, consensual sex between partners where the age difference is slight, etc.), really don’t pose much of a future danger to general society. The registry’s purpose is to warn the public of a potential danger, but when you offer up 18,000 warning signs, when a focus on 250 is all that is warranted, you are hiding the real danger.
One other comment about recidivism and why sex offenders have a lower rate than any other is the prevalence of behavioral counseling given to convicted offenders. It is highly likely that if one is attracted to children, that they are not going to be re-trained to not have the desire. But they can be trained to modify their behavior and how they participate in society.
How many of you church going, pious men out there haven’t admired another female church goer? Or even a non-church goer? Because you found them attractive, did you automatically break the commandment of adultery? Why not? Because you have been trained that such behavior is unacceptable and has consequences. Should the congregation shun you because you even looked at woman not your wife? Of course not… unless you act on your feelings, they aren’t relevant.
Before you condemn every former sex offender, I suggest that you meet and get to know many of them. There are terrible, terribly evil people amongst offenders… but they are the exception, not the rule. What they did in their past was a sin. Per Jesus, all sins can be forgiven. The greatest sin is in not loving your fellow man and believing his sin is greater than yours.
After reading that? All I can hear is a “dinner bell” ringing. With all due respect many Churches have encountered this problem. The offenders don’t target their victims in the church chapel, the church nursery or some darkened hallway. Some members of the “congregation” are asked to help the offender with a job, a task, an employment position. These are the places of “opportunity” the offender will seek to re-offend. Certainly not in full view at Sunday services. In the last 5 years that I have had a view of this topic, many Churches have had to close their doors due to the liability suits. I would seek another church if my pastor had the audacity to make such a call.
Is your name really Red Berry? If it is, that is awesome!
David
“Red” is a nickname. Got it legitimately…had flaming red hair….until it turned gray. At least it didn’t turn loose!
“One thing that may help explain the lower repeat rate for sex offenders is the fact…and it IS a fact…that a MUCH closer watch is kept on them than any other kind of criminal. ”
Many moons ago, I was asked to accompany staff of a non profit abuse center where i was a board member to a prison to record interviews with pedophiles. It was a shock. Did you know the average is 100 victims before they are caught and convicted?
And was back in the late ninety’s before internet child pornography. do you all have any idea whata child must go through before that heinous crime is even seen on a screen by the perverts?
68% of those actually convicted of child porn have had a Live victim.
78% use Child porn as an exhilarant Prior to committing a “live crime”, during a Live crime and or to relive the experience of a Live crime.
Kudos in the original intent of your posting but there is so much miss information and myths floating around in the conversation that I had to throw in my two cents.
Study after study have been conducted on the registry and residency restrictions looking at the information both before and after the crack down on sex offenders and the creation of the registry. And what have they found? There is absolutely no significant change in recidivism rates for sex offenders either before or after the law changed.
Why can’t we as a society allow sex offenders a fair second chance? Sex offenders are the only group that we continue to punish after they have served their jail time. And if you do not think the registry is a punishment, try walking in their shoes. I am not saying that we should open our doors warmly and invite every one of them into our homes, but with diligence and caution we can discover some very special individuals. Please also remember that the term Sex Offender covers many more types of crimes than just child predatory crimes so do not judge someone simply by the label that society has put upon them.
We feed the poor…
Offer drink to the thirsty…
Clothe the naked…
House the homeless…
Visit the sick…
yet we have such a hard time with visiting the imprisoned and offering forgives willingly.
I was not aware that the teachings of the Bible were a salad bar that we could pick and choose what to strive for. As for me, I will leave judgement of my fellow man in the hands of someone far greater and wiser than myself.
Kate: Thank you so much for your input. I truly think your analogy “I was not aware that the teachings of the Bible were a salad bar that we could pick and choose what to strive for.” is right on the mark. I have asked many times….when does redemption begin?
Society could lock up every one of the 819,218 men, women and children registrants across the nation and it would not stop child sexual abuse. The best chance we have to begin eradicating it is education and training. We teach our children to be polite, do as they are told and respect their elders….perfect breeding ground, right?
One a side note…we are known as the “incarceration nation” because the U.S. has 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s incarcerated….
Vicki Henry, Women Against Registry
It may be prudent Vicki to expand on ALL of your family members who have offended and I doubt it would Hurt if you included the “ages” of the assaulted also. Your “just say no” educational policy doesn’t have a high success rate when dealing with toddlers and very young children. These small children cant wrap their heads around what is being done to them. Not to mention a healthy society does not use their young people as sexual toilets. There are just some crimes that should never be forgiven. I find it presumptuous that the act of “forgiveness” is designated to anyone other than a “victim”.
“Why can’t we as a society allow sex offenders a fair second chance?”
You could role model that for us by hiring one to babysit for you.
Lydia,
There’s a huge difference in allowing a ex-sex offender to come to the worship service of your Church, and hiring him to be a baby sitter. C’mon, now. Let’s be reasonable. NO ONE is saying to be a convicted, sex offender around children. NO ONE is saying to let him work in VBS. NO ONE.
David
David, I see many people saying they would have some supervised arrangement with a confessedly repentant pedophile. There are 52 Sundays every year. Your supervision system has to fail only once for a recidivist pedophile to be successful.
That’s why if I were to try this route everyone in the church would know and the abuser’s photo would be available so he would be recognized.
Imagine if you had a guy you only informed deacons or staff about and not parents or grandparents. You’d be fired or lose a lot of members who lost confidence in your judgment.
So you are advocating that a church issue its own sex offender registry for its members? As if the local listings – always on the internet – are not sufficient. Let’s bludgeon the congregation with derogatory information about each other for the “greater good”. But lets not stop at sex offenders… I want to know who are the drug dealers and users, spousal abusers, alcoholics, ones with violent pasts, etc. Let’s identify all the adulterers… shoot, I don’t want my wife around someone like that.
If you can’t accept the responsibility for your children’s well being in a worship service, then maybe you shouldn’t be a parent. What do you think is going to happen? While your head is bent in prayer, that nasty former offender is going to reach for your child? Get real and take some personal responsibility. No one is advocating that the prior offense of the offender be totally ignored and they have complete access to all facets of a church’s activities…. but your comments were addressed to the worship service…somewhere where you would be expected to be there to oversee your children.
Roughly 3 out of 100 former offenders will reoffend… but that means 97% will not. When there is an offense that occurs, there is a 96% chance that it is someone who has never been convicted before. Do the math… sitting your child next to an offender is statistically safer. Not that I advocate it… but what I would advocate is that you accept parental responsibility and keep an eye on your children yourself instead of relying on everyone else to do your job. Trying to establish concrete rules against a potential danger is just a means of escaping your own responsibilities.
Our friends in the law enforcement fields as well as in the prison wards have a much harder time with “such were some of you.”
The ones I know are often to jaded and calloused to the evil in humanity.
They have seen “conversions” and they have seen real transformations by God. The disparity between the former and later is great.
These law enforcement professionals often become much more like the wives, mothers, sisters and daughters William spoke of in their attitudes. And perhaps more like the male victims of sexual abuse. Trust in true remorse, repentance and full rehabilitation will likely never happen for most of these victims. Recidivism is always a possibility.
We can all recognize that the crime of sexual offence stands out from the rest because it violates the very core of the person. The healing of both perpetrator and victim is to be life-long. The word forgiveness, in the early days, is added to the mountain of impossible feelings and emotions the victim lives with.
Also, who made up the people of whom Paul spoke, “such were some of you.”? Was their society any worse or entrenched than ours?
In my experience, many of our friends in law enforcement feel the same way about drug offenders, DWI folks, etc.
Bart, thanks for writing this. It was thought-provoking, so I’ll share a thought it provoked.
It seems to me that individuals and societies have a tendency to assuage the guilt over their own sins by singling out a special class of sinners to receive exceptional scorn and punishment. This strategy works best when the scapegoat class is guilty of a sin that the majority feels assured they will never commit. For example, for a long time in our country homosexuals were such a class. Now that we’ve accepted homosexuality and so many other sins as normal, pedophiles and those who commit crimes against children are one of the last remaining groups of untouchables.
So we double down on punishment, alienation, and ridicule when it comes to them. Identifying pedophiles and child molesters as a group that can never change provides an additional justification for such treatment, and it further serves to set them apart as people who are somehow “other” than us. After all, if someone can change FROM being a pedophile or child molester, it highlights the possibility that someone can change TO being a pedophile or child molester, which is a scary prospect.
Of course, abusing a child is an exceptionally heinous sin. There is a sense in which this sin deserves its own category. We should certainly take exceptional measures to prevent it from happening in the first instance and from reoccurring where it has already happened. But we also need the ability to use reason and grace when addressing these issues, and we can’t do that when we operate under a scapegoat mentality.
Jeff,
William Thornton had this right.
Perhaps let your wife (a female) read the blog and your response.
Such illumination might be interesting.
I have met with too many who were on the abused side of this story not to lean in their direction when applying grace and believing God for the miracle trans-formative power He offers.
Wisdom also tells me to trust God fully and trust the offender (any on Bart’s list of unchangeable’s) slowly.
So if my wife agrees with Bart’s post and my comment, will that convince you that we’re right? 🙂
This isn’t about taking sides. Restoration is not a zero-sum game in which we must choose between helping the victim or the abuser.
Absolutely.
Bingo.
Bart,
Your comment…..”I’m a believer in “such were some of you;” is spot on. I always cringe when I hear people make some of the statements you mentioned above; about people not ever changing and staying that way for the rest of their lives. And, I hear things like this said, a lot…in real life and on TV. And yet, this is a direct contradiction to what the Bible teaches. God can change people’s lives, and He does change people’s lives. If it’s not true that God makes us into a new creation in Christ, then we’re all in a big mess. We’ve ALL got major troubles. And really, the Gospel is not very powerful, if it can’t change the human heart.
I just want to shout “Glory! Hallelujah!” Jesus changed a low down, good for nothing, sin loving, hedonistic, despicable sinner like me! He saved me, forgave me, and changed me.
Also, I think about my Uncle Phil. He got bit by the rattlesnake of alcohol. He got addicted to booze, bad. He lost his marriage, his farm, many trucks(wrecks), and even threatened to shoot and kill his own brother. We sent him to dry out and rehab places, several times, but as a dog returning to his own vomit, my Uncle Phil returned to booze. But then, at another rehab place, a retired missionary led my Uncle to Christ. And, God absolutely changed him! God set him free from the hold that booze had on him! And, he got back into farming; remarried his wife; and became a very active member of a Baptist Church….he is still married, today, and he is still active in a Baptist Church, today…and, he loves the Lord!
Hallelujah! There is power in the name of Jesus! The Gospel can change the most vile sinner.
David
Another factor in considering recidivism rates is that “sexual offenders” is such a broad category that it includes everything from public exposure to sex between a young adult and a teenager to forcible rape to pedophile serial child molesters. Here is a DOJ article that helps unpack the numbers you cited: http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html
Further, I contend we must more fully consider the damage and long term impact of sexual abuse on its victims. We should pay as much or, IMO, exceedingly more attention to ministering hope and healing to the brokenhearted as we do restoration and forgiveness for the abuser.
Very true, Todd, but ministering to one does not require ignoring the other.
And the point that I think is driving the article is the idea that I’ve heard repeatedly – that people who commit this sin can’t change.
They can change, but often don’t. Treating all sexual offenses as one category in the stats leads to the erroneous conclusion that child molesters have a low recidivism rate and that simply is not true.
Todd,
So, what would you tell a sex offender? I mean, a bad one…that molested several, little boys? If you were witnessing to him…
David
Depends? Are they under genuine conviction? If not, I have no problem preaching God’s judgment. If so, I’d probably send them to you or Bart.
I do understand I have a problem similar to Jonah in this regard.
Todd,
I’ve been preaching thru Jonah, interestingly enough.
David
1. That the category is overly broad is part of my critique. I entirely agree.
2. That we must minister to victims is also a matter upon which we agree.
You and I are in agreement, Bart. I’m really having an emotional reaction to my own experiences with the devastation of sexual abuse.
That emotional reaction is well-earned. I don’t begrudge you your reaction.
On a related note, churches should consider having a policy to address sex offenders. Our church is crafting such a policy right now. We already have child-protection policies that require (among other things) the church to do background checks for all persons working with minors and to report any suspected abuse to the relevant authorities. This new policy addition would require a convicted sex offender who wants to attend or join our church to sign an agreement that (1) he will not have access to children or children’s areas and (2) he must be accompanied by a designated chaperone at all times when he is on church property or during a church event. This is for the protection of church members and to keep the individual from false accusations.
Jeff, would you be willing to forward me this document once your church agrees on it. We were doing some work on this awhile back as well. Interested to see what you came up with.
What do your lawyers and insurance companies require as a document?
I don’t believe there is anything on what to do when a sex offender wants to become a member. That is the part where we were working on to make more explicit.
Our policy was made with the oversight of a lawyer who was acting in an advisory capacity. What they need is a reasonable procedure that is spelled out in advance and is followed in practice.
In some areas, there is defined legal wording (at will employment, non-discrimination, etc) that needs to be incorporated, but in others, its just a matter of spelling out reasonable policies and taking reasonable steps to protect children.
Then, when a problem comes, you follow the steps and do the right thing.
Call the authorities.
Act in the best interests of the abused.
Provide counseling for those injured.
And, pray it never happens at your church! (This is the voice of experience!)
Mike,
I’ll be glad to forward you a copy of our policy once it is completed, as well as the template policy provided by our state convention.
A church that doesn’t have clear child protection policies and procedures is walking in folly.
I would love to turn the discussion back to Bart’s post.
Some of the commenters seem offended by Bart’s contention that sex offenders are within the reach of grace.
Why does that offend? Why does that bother anyone?
Does saying that a homosexual is within the reach of God’s grace mean that we are “soft on homosexuality?” Must we maintain that all homosexuals are bound for hell to say we are against homosexuality?
Does saying that an abuser can be saved, forgiven and TRANSFORMED in any way belittle the suffering of the abused? It seems that this is the argument that some are making – if we talk about the potential of grace and transformation for the abuser we are belittling the suffering of the abused. Is that a necessary conclusion?
By definition, a blogpost cannot deal with all truth, or even all aspects of a topic. I know – I’ve tried and posted articles here that were 3500 words (and no one read them).
Bart wrote what to me is a biblically cogent post on one aspect of this story – the tendency of many to act as if sex abusers are outside the boundaries of God’s grace. Some have reacted viscerally to this as if it is an insult the the abused. I think that is an unfair reaction.
Can we not talk about God’s grace to the abused AND to the abuser?
As to the “we’ve only talked about the abuser” accusation – well, that’s all that has been in the news. And, frankly, it is NOT true. There have been several articles around about the suffering of the 5 girls. I’ve seen them. So, the accusation is false. But the press has focused its guns on Josh Duggar, so a post on whether Josh Duggar must be regarded as unforgiven and unforgiveable, forever stained by the sin he committed as a 14 year old – that seems to me to WHOLLY appropriate.
Frankly, I’m surprised that people who believe in God’s grace get so upset by a post that proclaims that grace.
I am not often on the receiving end of admonishment from Dave, so when I am, I take note. It’s probably deserved.
As it stands, I really have no issue with Bart’s post save the usefulness of the statistics for the reasons I’ve stated above. As for his statements about the gospel, I am in whole agreement.
Bart is completely right on his theology here — there is hope and forgiveness to even the worst of sinners.
My frustrations are really aimed at the blogosphere generally and its nature as a reactive rather than proactive medium for theological discussion. The majority of posts from evangelicals have, at their root, a reaction to the media’s desire to crucify Josh Duggar. I don’t think we really have enough information to make specific judgments in this case and I have not done so. What I have noticed, though, is that because we are RE-acting, we are focusing primarily on the God’s grace to abusers (including Duggar) and not God’s hope for the abused.
Further, when it comes to who is actually in front of us, there are far more in our midst dealing with the trauma of sexual abuse and who need the hope of the gospel and caring, patient ministry of the body of Christ. Many churches are unprepared and ill-equipped for such ministry. We know how to communicate “repent and believe” to the abuser — are we equally equipped to communicate hope, to minister to the deep hurts and spiritual needs of the abused and to come along side them on the long road of healing?
One of the best articles I’ve read (and I’ve read few – not being a Duggar fan, the whole story doesn’t excite me) was one written about how the whole story abuses the poor girls who were abused – 12 (?) years ago.
By putting this back in the news, they’ve slammed this back in these girls faces. I don’t know what kind of counseling or help they received (possibly bad). But I’m guessing that this whole furor has caused them to relive the pain.
I wasn’t kidding when I said that an article by you, Todd, on how to minister to victims, would be well received.
History has told us that those kinds of articles (your “How to help a Cancer Patient” is still one of our most-shared) are your wheel house.
I’d like to read that article, too.
Dave, could you provide a link to that article? I think thats a great point.
I found this article, which I thought was the original (this is a comment edit) but it is the article below by Christy Lee Parker that is the original.
http://joemiller.us/2015/05/duggar-girls-victimized-and-it-wasnt-over-10-years-ago-like-youve-heard/
Here’s another that says the same thing.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2113884/re-victimization-of-the-duggar-girls-why-the-duggars-should-be-granted-privacy-to-heal/
Check that, this is the first article I read, by someone named Christy Lee Parker.
http://madworldnews.com/duggar-girls-victimized/
I know nothing about her either, or the places any of these were posted. But the article made sense.
Warning – the ads on this site and the others are not exactly edifying.
Was already working on it before reading Bart’s piece — but how to condense volumes of info into a 1000 word article?!?
That was one of my points with Bart’s article. No article can contain all truth. Just part of it.
“How should a church minister to victims of sexual abuse?” If it needs to be more than one post, I’m willing.
Since this will get deleted to, God help you!
That should be too. Not to.
This is always an intersting discussion.
Having followed child sex abuse cases in SBC churches for some years I cannot say that the biggest problem is the lack of grace extended to the abusers. Ignoring or disbelieving accusers, siding with beloved church staff or members who are accused of abuse, and failure to involve law enforcement are all problems of greater frequency. One need not choose among them but do all.
When we say that abusers (especially pedophiles) “can change” I don’t know what that means. Elimination of sexual desire for prepubscent children? Power to supress such desires?
Should child sex abusers who have been saved have more lenient policies in the church than those who have not?
Does the lower recidivism rate (if one accepts the statistics offered) have application in a given church or with a given offender? Surely, we would all say ‘no’ to this.
Relative to a comment Dave made about causing pain to victims, I’m sure he is aware that this is a favored argument used by abusers to keep victims quiet. Church leaders, having been given credible accounts of abuse in the church family or by staff, have often employed it as well. Since it is a crime in many jurisdictions not to report accusations of abuse, I am hopeful that this is less prevalent that before.
I draw no conclusion about the current celeb case other than to agree that we don’t know enough.
I’ve read enough of Bart B on this to have confidence in him in this area were he my pastor, Dave M. as well. Can’t say that of all but there is a slow education process at work among us. “Churches are just stupid” is the statement made by a guy whose company does a good bit of the sex offender counseling required by our state.
I certainly wouldn’t assert that a lack of grace to abusers is the major problem in churches right now. I’d put it this way, I think:
1. If there is a person in a church who is well-liked, connected with a multi-generational influential family in the church, serving on the staff, or prominent in the community, it is all-too-often the case that a church will bury evidence of the crime and will put pressure on the offenders not to say anything.
2. If there is a person in a community who is a registered sex offender but who does not belong to one of the groups mentioned above, ti is all-too-often the case that a church will treat that person as an untouchable who is presumably beyond the grace of God.
3. If, after having belonged to category #1, a person is caught and convicted of a sex offense to the public embarrassment of the church, he might find himself out of category #1 and into category #2 in a hurry, unless he still has something that the church needs with the appropriate level of desperation.
BUT, there are churches doing the right thing in this area. And, furthermore, what we do with regard to someone who is guilty of an offense right now is a question that we may differentiate from the question of what we should do with the person who was caught, convicted, punished, and released. Such a person has paid his debt to society. What then? At that point, the question ceases to be about the severity of the crime he committed once upon a time. At that point, the question has to do with how likely we think it is that this person will do the same thing again. For my part, I think:
1. You do things not to subject that person to the same temptation again, and…
2. You treat such a one as a fellow brother or sister in Christ if the other evidence in that person’s life leads you to do so, and…
3. There is neither theological nor criminological (statistical) reason for presuming that such a person will inexorably commit a sex crime again in the future.
And thanks for the vote of pastoral confidence!
William, that may well be true, but after 12 years I wonder if the 5 girls were thrilled to have this trumpeted. I don’t know. Not one of them has spoken out, to my knowledge. Is that because of the climate of fear in their culture? Again, I don’t know.
I think that the articles I mentioned had a valid point. In their haste to stick it to the Duggars (and let’s at least admit that a LOT of people – both Christian and not – want to do that) the press has exposed this incident without much regard to whether it was helpful to the victims.
When faced with a circumstance like this, you are in a maelstrom of hellish decisions. Among the toughest is “what exactly do we tell the church?” You balance being honest and protecting the victims. It is a tough decision and no matter what you do you will always wonder if you did the right thing.
You ALWAYS protect the helpless, but exactly how to do that is not always clear.
You ALWAYS act legally, but even the legal community can’t always decide what is required.
It is ugly. It then gets uglier. Then it gets a little uglier.
Then, hopefully, Jesus brings healing! That takes a lot of time.
Write policies. Clear ones. Follow them. But realize that there are still going to moral ambiguities and tough decisions by the hundreds when a situation like this hits your church. Your policies are never going to make the situation easy.
I am so glad we had policies in place in my church. they are a blessing.
I am thankful to have had good people (especially a good lawyer who was also a good friend) to talk to in a time I needed him.
I am thankful that our church is a place of trust and goodwill.
But no matter what, when that day hits your church, it’s going to be one of the worst days of your life.
Yep.
I asked an ‘expert’ once what a pastor should do if abuse that occured 10-15 years ago. He said call your lawyer and insurer. There are a lot of complexities in old cases. Georgia just changed laws in this regard.
There are good reasons that abusers (and their enablers) tell victims to keep quiet or they will suffer more. It’s often true.
I’ve said very little about the current case.
But there are many other reasons to not bring up something from the past than the motivation to shield the perpetrator.
Bart, granted your conclusion that sexual offenders can change by the power of the gospel, I still think it is dangerous to rely on recidivism rates to make your case. Further, I don’t think that you can separate the justice issue from the point about recidivism. My justice issue is not that current sentencing is insufficient but that sexual offenders, and particularly child molesters, are rarely brought to justice at all.
Consider that 90+% of sexual crimes go unreported and many of those that do, do so after the statue of limitations has run out. Unlike any other category of crime, sexual offenders are much more likely to get away with their crime. My own personal experience with the foster care system bears this out. Children are often sexually abused but claims remain “unsubstantiated” for any number of reasons, even though statistics show that less than 10% of child sexual abuse claims turn out to be false and that only a fraction of false claims originate with the child. If children are removed from the home, parental rights may not be terminated or they are done so on non-sexual charges like “neglect.” Perpetrators go on living their lives while the child spends years overcoming the devastating effects of their crime/sin. In none of the cases in which I have been involved has the offender been brought to justice.
The same DOJ from whom you got your stats issued an independent report on child molestation. The report notes that “Sexual offenses apparently are more likely than other types of criminal conduct to elude the criminal justice system. This inference is supported by the reports of both sex offenders and sexually abused children. Offenders report vastly more victim involved incidents than those for which they were convicted” (“Child Sexual Molestation: Research Issues,” National Institute of Justice, USDOJ). The report contends that it is “impossible to draw any reliable conclusions about reoffense among child molesters as a group” and that “there is no reliable body of empirically derived data that can inform and guide decision making about reoffense risk” (p.9). Now, the report goes on to suggest that recidivism rates may be reduced through mental health treatment. So it does make the point that people can change, but not because, as you have suggested the recidivism rates are naturally lower than all other categories.
Now, again, I agree that the gospel can reach even the worst of sinners. My issue is not on the power of the gospel to change lives specifically, or that sexual offenders cannot change generally. My issue is using recidivism rates to make the case.
Todd,
I see your point, but I wonder, if not recidivism rates, with what are we left? The fear of recidivism (presumably based upon some idea what the recidivism rates are) is a major motivation behind the entire idea of registering sex offenders (which I support in the case of pedophiles, among others). And there’s going to need to be some objective basis for our doing something that runs so contrary to our basic ideas concerning justice—punishing people not for the crimes that they have already committed but for the crimes that we think they might someday commit. If we can learn nothing from recidivism rates, then upon what basis do we justify the existence of such a thing as a “registered sex offender”?
I do not think we can tolerate the kind of special pleading that says, “Recidivism rates are unreliable to establish that many sex offenders will not re-offend, but they are reliable to establish that many will do so.”
So, I support the registration of sex offenders such as pedophiles because of recidivism rates coupled with the enhanced vulnerabilities inherent to a pathology that targets minors. To do so does not require that I assert recidivism rates as an entirely comprehensive indicator encompassing the entire reality around us. No, rather, we can acknowledge that all of the statistics in all of the categories are flawed and imperfect, but that they still, nonetheless, correspond in some imperfect way to the reality around us. All of the statistics come with a margin of error. That fact doesn’t render the statistics useless.
A document you cited earlier in the thread tells us that the range of values given in various studies for incest offenders is between 4 and 10 percent, for example. If you asserted to me, “I think the true rate is probably up around 15%,” then I think that would be an assertion worthy of serious discussion. If instead you asserted to me, “I think the true rate is up around 95%,” then I think Elvis has left the building. I’d be comfortable taking data which, compiled over multiple studies over a period of time, present a 4%-10% recidivism rate and concluding from it that the majority of incest offenders never re-offend.
Here is that stat along with the other ranges of recidivism rates offered in the source that you submitted to us:
1. Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent.
2. Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent.
3. Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent.
4. Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent.
5. Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71 percent.
Recidivism is not the only factor to consider. An exhibitionist, in my opinion, does not do the damage that a rapist does. The severity of the crime is a factor. Also, an exhibitionist does not target the same victim base as does the child molester. The vulnerability of the victim population is a factor. But recidivism rates most certainly have been a factor dictating our policy of treating sexual crimes differently from all other crimes with regard to our treatment of those who have completed their sentences and are living among us.
If you manage to convince me that recidivism rates are utterly unreliable, therefore, I will be forced no longer to support the registration of sex offenders. I could not, in good conscience, support such an extreme measure based merely upon anecdote and emotion. Sounder reasoning should guide our application of justice and our curtailing of liberties. As things stand, I think that recidivism rates, although they come with a margin of error as do all statistical analyses, serve us well as an objective source of information to guide our thinking about criminal offenders in all of the categories of crime—sexual crimes, property crimes, public order crimes, etc.
I would not argue that recidivism rates have no value, but that the specific factors related to sexual assault statistics limit their value for certain kinds of analysis.
We have sufficient evidence to suggest that general recidivism numbers are unreliable because of differences in the ways such data is gathered and who is included in the statistics making different reports vary widely in their reporting. More narrow studies that focus on particular groups, such as child molesters, are more reliable. Yet, because sexual assault crimes are significantly underreported and have low prosecution rates, the usefulness of the data is further limited and comparisons between sexual assault recidivism and other crimes is not useful. The claim that somehow sexual predators are less likely to be repeat offenders than other types of criminals cannot be substantiated by the data.
On the other hand, there is value in using the recidivism rate in isolation or its change over time. For one, the rate, even if assumed accurate, is sufficiently high to warrant concern about recurrent offenses. The actual number can rightly be assumed to be higher, likely significantly higher and virtually no chance that the actual number is lower. Thus, even if current research models are not capable of determining the actual number of reoffenses, they can (and do, imo) show that recidivism is significantly high to warrant further preventive action.
The recidivism numbers can also be useful when used in comparison with themselves over time. Thus, we can fairly confidently measure the overall progress made in preventing recurrence of sexual abuse generally or measure the efficacy of particular actions (psychotherapy, sex-offender registries, rehabilitation programs, religious conversion, etc) in reducing recidivism among sexual offenders.
So, to summarize: (1) I do believe that there is ample evidence to assume that the re-offense rate for sexual offenders is significantly higher than the data show but how much higher cannot be determined using current research models. (2) I do not believe that comparisons between sexual offenders and other types of crime is accurate or helpful. (3) I believe that recidivism statistics should be utilized to help measure the effectiveness of efforts to reduce recurrence and we should take every reasonable means at our disposal to reduce the recurrence of sexual abuse.
I think what has not been shown that would need to be shown in order to devalue entirely any comparisons would be the margin of error in the recidivism rate of other crimes. To demonstrate that there is underreporting and under-prosecution of sex crimes is insufficient—one must also show that other categories of crime are not underreported and are not under-prosecuted or that the rates for other crimes is far, far lower. This is evidence that has not been presented in this argument.
1. On average, how many occasions does a drunk-driver drive under the influence before being caught and arrested? Unlike a registered sex offender, the DWI offender does not have to register and experience the same kind of community supervision that a sex offender has to experience. Are we to assume that these crimes are NOT underreported? That they are NOT under-prosecuted? That the rates of underreporting and non-prosecution are substantially lower than those of sex crimes? My experience is that people drive drunk a high number of times before they are caught.
2. Most burglaries are reported, no doubt. When people are missing their stuff, they call the police pretty much without fail. But how many times do police know who committed the crime? With a sex offense, the charge, when filed, generally comes complete with a suspect. Not so with many property crimes. And thus, nearly four times as high a percentage of forcible rape cases are closed with an arrest than burglary or theft-of-a-motor-vehicle cases.
3. What about the use of illegal drugs? On average, out of a hundred times that a person uses an illegal drug, how many times will that person be arrested? Because I think the case is made in other areas, and because I don’t have time to research it right now, I’ll just rely on anecdotal evidence and suggest that drug crime is also massively underreported and under-prosecuted.
So, here’s where we are (these aren’t direct quotes from you; they represent dialogue between points I think you are making and my responses)…
“Sexual offenses are massively underreported.”
I agree.
“Too many reports of sexual offenses do not result in a conviction”
I agree.
“This is bad.”
I agree.
“This is different from other categories of crime to which you are making comparisons of the recidivism rate.”
I do not think that case has been made well—certainly not in this thread. I haven’t seen any numbers backing up this claim. Specifically, what is missing is data about underreporting and non-prosecution of other criminal acts that are available for comparison among the categories of crime so that we might be able to see whether underreporting is so different for sex crimes as to make recidivism rates useless as a basis for comparison.
None of which at all undermines the fact that it is a shame how many sex crimes go unreported and go unpunished.
I read these comments with a great deal of interest. Namely, that some of these assertions greatly argue against the registry.
If, in fact, most perpetrators of sex crimes go unreported and therefore unconvicted, the registry is reporting the few that weren’t sly enough to avoid capture. Thus, listing them on a registry is discriminatory since they are in the minority and not the ones you should be concerned with.
As much as some may wish that the recidivism rate information was inconclusive, study after study underscores that sex offenders are at or near the lowest classification of criminals to re-offend. This counters the myths that the media and politicians use to focus their public policy over. Study after study shows offenders to reoffend at a 1-3% rate. Compare that to the reoffense rate of 69% for drug dealers. Where is the outcry to register these dangerous offenders? How many “victims” do you think they had before being caught?
As my pastor teaches, “Love the sinner, hate the sin”. No one should condone, excuse or ignore behavior that is illegal, disrespectful or infringing on another. But once society has determined apt punishment and the perpetrator has complied with their sentence, to have the church continue to persecute them for their crime in any manner is a breach of its spiritual duty. That doesn’t mean that you totally ignore the risk… you don’t put them into a den of temptation either. Realistically, someone who has “learned their lesson” would avoid any situation where they could be suspected of any type of accusation. Active participation in a church does not require assimilation with minors… and it would be advisable for all parties to adhere to such a practice.
Ignore recidivism statistics all you want. However, keep in mind, statistically, your real danger is the individual who does not have a record of a sexual offense. Policies addressing known offenders are well and good, but won’t accomplish their mission if your concentration is so focused that you don’t see the forest surrounding the tree.
Bart, Vol, Red; I’m now sorry that I was on the road 1,000 miles yesterday and missed the comments. If Tracy did not notice this; I will add that Red Berry is a well loved name from our past (quite a while past). Great to hear from you. Dale
Somehow I missed your comment until Tracy pointed it out to me last night. Yesterday was pretty full.
“How exactly Lydia in the context of church life do you protect the innocent when there is a person with a past such as described in this post and professes Christ and repentance? How specifically?”
You can’t. Most have no clue what a long calculated con a molester has lived. They are expert cons. And church is the perfect place for the “repentant pervert” to hide out and be accepted at the same time. you could have them escorted everywhere they go in the church but is that realistic?. if parents know, then they are going to be uncomfortable with the perv even looking at their children. and of course you don’t want your children to be rude to them.
Would a truly repentant child molester want to put people in that position? it is such a heinous crime is there no realization that there can’t be a totally normal life?
(in a strong Seinfeld Soup-Nazi accent) “NO GRACE FOR YOU!!”
“(in a strong Seinfeld Soup-Nazi accent) “NO GRACE FOR YOU!!””
I agree. Especially for the innocent “temptations” at church.
Pedophiles, probably especially publicly penitent ones, deserve special attention in churches, for good reason (I affirm the point made above that not all sex abusers are pedophiles).
Many of the scenarios and not a few sad cases:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/03/06/psa-penitent-pedophiles-and-crossway-community-church-sgm-graphic/
“You are about to board an airplane which has recently been repaired after a serious engine malfunction. As you board the plane, the pilot announces that all is well. The mechanics have assured him that there is now only a 40% chance of an engine failure while in flight. Would you board the plane?”
Recidivism is irrelevant when talking to a parent. Such rates have their place, but probably not in formulating church policy relative to sex abusers. Let the legislators and judges sift the evidence and use it for statutes and sentences.
Lydia was asked what she would do to keep kids safe (she said that “you can’t”). That is a question that every pastor should be asked by parents in their church. Pastors should be prepared to answer.
I wish someone would answer the question I asked a couple of times relative to the sex abuser who has been saved and changed: “What do you mean by change?”
Sometimes in this thread I think we wind up talking past one another. I”m going to try to connect us up here:
1. If you have ever been convicted of any (a) sexually based offense, (b) violent crime, or (c) crime against children at any point in your life, no matter how long ago it was nor what you’ve done in the interim, you are not going to serve in any capacity in this church that puts you into ministerial contact with minors, gives you access to those parts of the campus set aside for minors, or otherwise connects you with minors or minors with you.
2. No matter what you have done in your past, you can be a member at FBC Farmersville, attend worship services, sing in the choir, attend an adult Sunday School class, etc.
3. I am not going to presume that you are doomed to repeat your dismal past.
4. I believe that someday your testimony can be a powerful one of redemption from a horrific past to a vibrant present and gracious hope for the future.
Bart wins the thread!
This is exactly what we are talking about Lydia and Debbie –
Yall are arguing against comments and sentiments not expressed.
Your outrage is noted – as is your disgust for the grace, word and forgiveness of God – such has so tainted you against holding any reasonable discussion.
How does Lydia show disgust for the grace, word and forgiveness of God? Does that mean you approve of child molesters?
Bart, how closely have you worked with victims of sexual abuse? Specifically children victims and incest? I’m a cradle SBCer and I still attend and am active in an SBC church. So my comments come from a place of love and genuineness. I love and appreciate my church heritage and want to see my brothers and sisters in Christ succeed in evangelizing the world.
I’ve seen a lot of comments and opinions from pastors on this topic in the recent weeks and I must say it is frightening, but sadly not surprising. My first job out of college was working with child abuse victims and perpetrators. Sexual abuse against children is rampant. I remember thinking at times, “has anyone NOT been sexually abused”? Very eye opening for someone from a sheltered background. It was also eye opening to see the naivete of pastors. In all the articles, comments and dealing with pastors I see a common theme of acknowledgement that they don’t understand child sexual abuse, but somehow they have the answers and feel equipped handling it. I beg you this is not a time to have pride. Love the Lord with all your heart, soul and MIND. Please try to truly understand the nature and gravity of this problem. Get to know your local law enforcement officers, child welfare workers and those that deal with sexual predators. Genuinely and humbly listen to them. Several times I’ve seen Lydia’s insightful comments dismissed. Please don’t have a dismissive attitude if you truly want to learn. Admit you don’t know and don’t have the answers and ask God to help you and guide you. It’s also a great time to minister to these forgotten people. You have NO idea what they see and deal with on a daily basis. It’s dark and demonic. That’s not a hyperbolic statement. I truly believe that satan uses child sexual abuse as a weapon. Research how it hinders child development in literally every aspect. You can imagine how hardened a child’s heart is at such a young age when something like that happens, often times resulting in behavior problems, poor decision making and you can see how the cycle continues. The problem is, people agree that it’s awful yet they trivialize, minimize or ignore it, perhaps because it is so awful. It’s the perfect tool for satan to use. It has life long lasting impacts and it gets ignored. It continues to get worse. About seven years ago at a training, someone very seasoned in dealing with child sexual abuse mentioned how much worse it is getting. Especially with the internet, sexual deviance is on the rise.
Just a side note…sometimes an expression of that much anger indicates the suppression of their own sexual abuse as a child. Just an observation from years of advocacy…
The key point is that one need not have a soft view of the horrors of pedophilia or child abuse to also say that we ought to minister to sinners who have committed the most heinous of sins.
if we say that there are sinners beyond the reach of God’s grace or beyond the fellowship of the Body of Christ, we have said something horrific.
Right. That. Exactly that.
“I wish someone would answer the question I asked a couple of times relative to the sex abuser who has been saved and changed: “What do you mean by change?”
In a small enclave near where I live is a pedophile who served his time but is on the national register. He lives near a neighborhood park with swimming pool, tennis courts, and playground. He is not allowed near them because he was walking there and watching the kids play. Parents were outraged and it was made official he was not allowed near it.
Had he known all he had to do is say “I repent” to a pastor he could find kids to watch play on the playground at church.
The question is, would a repentant child molester even want to make people uncomfortable? There are faith based groups for all sorts of ex cons, etc. There are still earthly consequences for such a heinous crime whether we like it or not.
Lydia, please stop being absurd. No one is talking about giving unfettered access to children to a pedophile just because he says “I repent.”
Everyone on here that has advocated grace has done so reasonably – and so your absurdities are unfair.
A truly redeemed and repentant sinner does want and need one thing – fellowship with the Body of Christ. That is a necessary and important part of sanctification.
Dave,
Of course I am absurb to you all.
Lydia
I did not say YOU were absurd. I said you were being absurd – taking our words in their most absurd manner.
You did it again.
http://cryingoutforjustice.com/2015/05/29/do-not-pity-the-wicked-abusers-use-pity-as-a-snare/
Jeff Crippen. You have no idea if you are being conned by a repentent sexual predator or not. Their lives have been one of total deception. I think it is better to err on the side of grace for the most vulnerable and innocent of our society. You have no idea if they will start grooming again since the “temptations” are all around them at church. Children see them as any accepted adult at church over a long period then see them at the park. Get educated on how it works.
There are men only groups for those who are in have committed such such crimes. If not, start one. It is a crime that follows one all their lives. That is just how it is. If you won’t do that, then have the integrity to tell the entire congregation about the person’s crime. Just stop protecting predators out of some sense of cheap grace you have for them but not real grace for the innocents.
Should we announce the names of all men who have affairs with coworkers are someone under their employee and announce to the church their name their family members names – and then just tell everyone to look out because he just might try to take your wife too?
How about a person who embezzles – should we announce to the church his name and all of his family members names so that people can be aware and watch their wallets when he’s around?
My point is where does the shaming end?
Surely, we’re not going to let an unrepentant adulterer teach a marriage enrichment class – surely we are not going to let a thief the air church treasurer – or Usher – or offering counter –
Just as we would not let and unrepentant sex crime offender around those whom he/she has demonstrated a proclivity to abuse – but I’m not sure that the public announcing is the route we want to go –
Like volt fan said – no one is saying that we should let child molesters teach Sunday school or working VBS or escort children to children’s church or work in children’s church – no one is saying that no one has said that – in fact I Know I have not – and not sure anyone else has, as William asserted, anyone has said that they could even have “supervised” interaction with those whom they have demonstrated a proclivity to abuse.
Should we create special classes for all sinners by category of sin – and keep them in groups?
Lydia, you ask a perceptive question of “What do you mean by change?”, yet I wonder what answer will satisfy you.
You give the example of the local pedophile watching neighborhood children as a testament of horror. Parents were outraged and action was taken against him. Possibly that was a needed requirement and a fantastic solution for all.
But what was in his heart and mind when he viewed those children? Was it continuing lust? Or could it have been pangs of remorse for the actions he committed against other children. A means of constant self-punishment and condemnation. We don’t know, but all just ASSUMED him to be guilty.
Your sarcastic “I repent” comment is just as demeaning. It underscores a holier than thou attitude that the sins you are guilty of are less of affront to God then anyone else’s. Per scripture all sins are equal and all are to be forgiven. Please remember to pull the log out of your eye first.
As to earthly consequences… that is called a sentence, and the discussion is about those that have completed theirs. However, when you are broaching repentance, you are now into the spiritual realm… an entirely different spectrum.
If we were truly convinced that we should bar all people from the doors who might one day hurt another believer, or make them feel less about themselves, then every pew would stand empty.
Not at all. Just thinking of children who cannot protect themselves or stand up for themselves. It is especially bad when the leaders do not understand the grooming process.
I understand the grooming process – and that’s why I would not support – and again I don’t think anyone else here has supported – any interaction whatsoever under the auspices of the church by sex offenders among those with whom they have demonstrated a proclivity to abuse.
The fact they are at church lends credibility to them as a trustworthy adult to a child. They have no filters for such things. That same child would see that person in public and think of them as safe.
And we all know that as time marches on people become somewhat lax because they think all is well. They do not understand the grooming process. None are as patient as child predators. It is part of their thrill.
There are deviants out there that prey on children… no doubt about it. However, even among sex offenders they are a minority. You are painting all former offenders with the same brush. Further, you have bought into the misinformation that they will likely re-offend. Statistically, you are proven wrong.
But the grossest part of your position is that you want to make the church the babysitter and eliminate the parent as having any responsibility over their charges. The church should forbid entry to these “sinners” because their sin is more than yours. Are you really that much of a hypocrite?
You talk about the grooming involved by the predator without thinking about why such a come on would attract a child. Except in the case of kidnapping (which would not involve grooming), the attraction of a child would be what this predator is offering them. As a parent, are you that blind as to who your child is spending time with? Not meeting their needs in some way as to make them vulnerable to his approaches? Not teaching your child the dangers that might befall them? Where are you, the parent? These things don’t happen in a vacuum. It is ultimately the parent’s responsibility, not the church’s or the community’s responsibility to monitor your child.
I am not defending molestors in any way. But they are as deserving of God’s grace as everyone… and maybe the more a community of followers shows them acceptance, the more their behavior will be kept in check. You show disdain and rancor at someone’s past in a manner that is abusive and yet you think yourself to be a good Christian? Jesus, himself, preferred to minister to the worst of the worst rather than seek out the “perfect” ones.
Great article Bart. Some more thoughts about the Duggar case . . .
https://changeworthmaking.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/dealing-with-the-duggers-how-to-respond-to-josh-and-his-repentance/
This horse is dead…however:
Few women seem to comment on male-dominated blogs populated by SBC folks but when they do on this subject it looks to me like there is a difference in perspective and approach. This is consistent here and in other places.
I said I would trust two people here, Barber and Miller, as pastor to protect my grandchildren from abusers because they show a grasp of the issues involved. I may do a couple of things differently than they do.
It’s refreshing to see the subject of sex offenders discussed in a mostly rational light. It’s unfortunate that this subject is often so laden with emotion and fear that even when clarifications are made multiple times that not all sex offenders are pedophiles, and not all sex offenders molest or have molested children, it’s nearly impossible for the discussion to not turn into “sex offender = pedophile”
(Incidentally, there are many pedophiles who are aware of their condition and never molest children. And there are pedophiles, also, who have, and who, through cognitive therapy intervention never do so again.)
There’s a lot of talk about statistics and recidivism rates. The problem with these statistics is that all “sex offenders” are all lumped into one pot. The boy who went on the sex offender registry as a six-year-old is counted along side the 69-year-old man who molested young boys. In this day and age, every year adds more and more offenses to the list of sex crimes. There are over 800,000 men, women, and children on sex offender lists inside this country. For most of them it is a one-way trip with no way back, even if thirty years have passed offense free.
As more and more people are added to this list, and more crimes become sex crimes, old re-offense statistics have no bearing on the current discussion. More recent studies show that the re-offense rate is not in the 40-50% range as this discussion would lead us to believe. For high risk offenders, the rate is below 30%. For low risk offenders, the rate is less than 2%. Compounding this is that the rules a registrant has to follow are so complex, that many re-arrests by former sex offenders are due to technicalities, not due to new sex offenses.
http://www.corrections.com/articles/24500-facts-and-fiction-about-sex-offenders
http://www.cce.csus.edu/portal/admin/handouts/CASOMB_End_of_Year_Report_to_Legislature_2014.pdf
Yet this does not focus on a much deeper issue. So much focus is made over those who have been caught and convicted for sex crimes. Those on the registry (regardless of how old they were when placed on the registry, regardless of the circumstances that put them there) are shunned like pariahs, and the discussion goes round and round as to whether or not they will re-offend and YET: 95% of all new sex crimes are committed by someone not already on a sex offender registry.
While it’s easy to look at someone who carries the scarlet letter and take up torches and pitchforks against them, the chances of someone being harmed by someone not wearing that mark of shame are astronomically higher than being victimized by one who is. It’s not the registrants to worry about, but those who haven’t yet been caught.
I thank God that men of wisdom like Bart Barber exist as leaders in our communities. This messages of grace, redemption, and second chances is spot on. God bless.
I have read most of your comments after reading the article. I was saved in a Baptist church at the age of 11 as a result of being invited by an awesome Christian neighbor. My Mom had left and it was my Dad and I and this lady probably felt a certain amount of pity. That was 55 years ago. I was very active in church and brought my two boys up to be fine Christian men. One son was in the military when someone saw child pornography on his laptop. The gunny seargent called him and asked about it. My son said he had a problem with it and needed help. The gunny, cited a bit of profanity saying, “Get the f*** out of here and I don’t want to hear about it anymore. We will get you help when we get back stateside!” My son learned the hard way that the only “help” he would be allowed would be AFTER he was court-martialed, stripped of everything and sent to the brig for 4 years. Prior to the court hearing our attorney forced the military to have a forensic psychologist evaluate my son where it was uncovered he was abused by his biological father during weekend and summer visits and had looked at the child pornography trying to figure out why it happened to him and as some of you are aware children do not tell anyone for several reasons. She said he was not a danger to society, wanted normal adult relationships and in spite of public perception this is not a precursor to taking an action. Fast forward eight years. My son has to register every 90 days for the rest of his life. His father was never prosecuted as my son just wanted to forget about it and move on. I have separated from an active Christian life due to the way our registrant families are treated, some being asked to leave the church. I am now the President of Women Against Registry, a grassroots organization that advocates against a public sex offender registry because it was designed as a law enforcement only tool to track and monitor violent repeat offenders and because it puts all family members living at that address in danger of vigilante actions. On a side note, my sister was molested by our uncle when she went to visit them during the summer. Never prosecuted and my sister is a 79 year old survivor who is a devout Pentecostal lady. I will not state here my thoughts when I pass a church….
Please consider this….Ariel Castro (Ohio), Jerry Sandusky (PA) and many others we hear and read about were NOT on any public registry and that is EXACTLY THE POINT. The public has been groomed to believe all they have to do is check a registry and be aware of “those on it” and their family will be safe. The truth of the matter is that according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics and other credible studies the recidivism rate for another “sexual” offense is 3.5 % and those who are beginning to educate families are advising the other 93-95% of sexual offenses come from within the victim’s family, friends and those having access to the children and NEVER get reported. Question is….do we want to be reactive or proactive?
According to the NCMEC map, there are over 819,218 men, women and children (as young as 6, 8 and 10 in some states) required to register and the “crimes” range from urinating in public (indecent exposure), sexting, incest, mooning, exposure, false accusations by a soon-to-be ex-wife, angry girlfriend, or spiteful student, viewing abusive OR suggestive images of anyone18 years old or younger, playing doctor, prostitution, solicitation, Romeo and Juliet consensual sexual dating relationships, rape, endangering the welfare of a child and many others.
If you multiply the number on the registry by 2 or 3 family members you can clearly see there are well over 3 million wives, children, moms, aunts, girlfriends, grandmothers and other family members who experience the collateral damage of being harassed, threatened, children beaten, have signs placed in their yards, homes set on fire, vehicles damaged, asked to leave their churches and other organizations, children passed over for educational opportunities, have flyers distributed around their neighborhood, wives lose their jobs when someone learns they are married to a registrant….all these things occur when these people try to hold their family together and provide the three things that professionals state are needed for successful re-integration; a job, a place to live and a good support system.
Please pass laws that actually WILL help protect children, teens and the public. …We need Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Training Programs with state funding to empower kids and teens to protect themselves as much as possible at age appropriate levels and to speak up if someone makes them uncomfortable or oversteps their bounds. Also, to teach parents how to begin the dialog with their children about their own sexuality.
Vicki Henry, Women Against Registry
I appreciate the comment. I think both Bart barber and I have expressed concern about the broad sweep of laws that require registry for a broad range of offenses.
Tarheel asked a good question about making public in church attendees who are adulterers or embezzlers, etc.
I have never sought to inform the congregation of specific attendees who have criminal convictions. Adulterers don’t get prosecuted but church folks generally know who they are.
But I’d ask tarheel to answer this question: You are a church staff member. A convicted pedophile begins attending your church. You are aware of this individual but no one else. You call him in and place restrictions on his activity while on church property. Who else do you inform in the congregation?
Our church policy would not allow him to work with children – anyone under the age of 18 – whether this is discovered just somehow “only buy me” or is discovered as a result of the background checks that we perform on all volunteers who work with children – all ministry leaders would be informed that this individual is prohibited from working in anyway with children – perform on all volunteers who work with children – all ministry leaders would be informed that this individual is prohibited from working in anyway with children – other pastoral staff will also be notified and expected to pay attention as well. Our vacation Bible school coordinator/Sunday school teacher recruiter/other children’s ministry directors – Our vacation Bible school coordinator/Sunday school teacher recruiter/other children’s ministry directors – are by policy required to inquire about every person that they have working with children as to whether or not a criminal background check has been conducted or if the pastoral staff has any reason that they should not be working with children – are by policy required to inquire about every person that they have working with children as to whether or not a criminal background check has been conducted or if the pastoral staff has any reason that they should not be working with children –our Pastors who may know of another reason (other than pedophilia) that they should not be teaching and therefore would tell the director not to enlist that particular volunteer.
Our Awahna leaders wear a uniform and a name tag – which they do not get until they have satisfactorily past screening – our VBS teachers/helpers are given shirts to wear to delineate them as and approve leader – and all vonteer and paid staff are asked to Report any person who is in the proximity of children are wondering around in the proximity of children without proper visible “credentials” to their ministry director and/or a pastor immediately.
To their ministry director and/or a pastor immediately. We also have a safety team who is tasked with this duty as well – in addition to peeking in the windows of all classrooms regularly – and ensuring all doors to rooms not being used are either locked or standing open.
We have multiple people on “bathroom duty” assignments as well.
These are just a few of our precautions.
Wow – i’m not sure for the reason of the double posting of so much that I just posted – I am using the speak feature of my iPhone – I’m going to try that again.
Our church policy would not allow him to work with children – anyone under the age of 18 – whether this is discovered just somehow “only by me” or is discovered as a result of the background checks that we perform on all volunteers who work with children – all ministry leaders would be informed that this individual is prohibited from working in any way with children – perform on all volunteers who work with children – other pastoral staff will also be notified and expected to pay attention as well. Our vacation Bible school coordinator/Sunday school teacher recruiter/Awana/other children’s ministry directors are by policy required to inquire with the church office about every person that they have (or Intend to have) working with children as to whether or not a criminal background check has been conducted or if the pastoral staff has any reason that the perspective volunteer need not work with children.
Pastors who may know of another reason (other than pedophilia) that the person should not be teaching or interacting with children woukd therefore would tell the director not to enlist that particular volunteer.
Our Awana leaders wear a uniform and a name tag – which they do not get those until they have satisfactorily past screening and training – our VBS teachers/helpers are given shirts to wear to delineate them as an approved leader – all volunteer and paid staff are asked to Report any person who is in the proximity of children are wondering around in the proximity of children without proper visible “credentials” to their ministry director and/or a pastor immediately.
We also have a safety team who is tasked with these duties as well – in addition to peeking in the windows of all classrooms regularly – and ensuring all doors to rooms not being used are either locked or standing open.
We have multiple people on “bathroom duty” assignments as well.
These are just a few of our precautions.
I like that your church has extensive child safety policies.
But in the case of a pedophile, you do not think parents should be informed that such an individual will be attending services under your child protection policies? The church decision makers feel that it is sufficient that staff and leadership know the identity but unnecessary and/or harmful to the individual for the church to be informed?
I don’t wish to put words in your mouth…so how would you explain the case to a parent?
I don’t think it is unprofitable to explore these hypotheticals.
We hope to, by our policies and diligence, provide parents with a reasonable degree of confidence that we are doing all we can to provide a safe environment for thier children.
We do not customarily announce people’s sins to the church body. I’m sure there could likely be an hypothetical exception to that though.
It seems to me, Tarheel, that it would be irresponsible in a church of, say, 500 in average attendance NOT to inform the church of the regular presence of a repentant pedophile (and we’re talking of only a portion of convicted child abusers, pedophiles).
Seems to me that if such a person approached a staff member and wanted some pre-approval or some agreed supervision that keeping the matter hidden from the church would not be wise. I don’t customarily announce sins but would inform the individual that his record would be made known.
You might reconsider your use of vocabulary in this context. As a parent or grandparent, hearing my church staff say that they “hope” to provide “reasonable confidence” to parents in regard to child safety policies would not inspire confidence. The language is far too equivocal if we’re talking about my child or grandchild. Also, you are not “doing all we can” to provide a safe environment if you are deliberately witholding information many parents would believe to be relevant.
Of course we are deep into a hypothetical and you and your church are far more attuned to this stuff than the average church. Still, I’d bet if the hypothetical moves to an actual case you would reconsider.
Hope you had and are having a very nice Lord’s Day.
William,
I never said We would hide anything – I just didn’t answer your hypothetical.
Also, I did previously say that convicted child abusers are automatically disqualified from interaction with children – we don’t do any “supervised” interaction.
Maybe Boz will have some credibility here:
http://boz.religionnews.com/2015/05/15/a-grand-deception-the-successful-response-of-sex-offenders/?utm_content=buffer1732c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
I clicked from Boz’s site to the RFT article. I live in the STL area and don’t even remember reading about this. Actually a paragraph in the RFT article makes not of the lack of local press coverage.
What a sad, sad episode. Lots of mistakes were made in that case for sure.
As to what to do, the actual practicality of how it works out if a known former convicted pedophile start attending your church would vary by congregation…that is, to whom and how it is made known, the fact is that the person should ever be nowhere near children/youth other than large group settings (corporate worship, etc.). Nevertheless, he/she should not be barred from worship.
“Should we announce the names of all men who have affairs with coworkers are someone under their employee and announce to the church their name their family members names – and then just tell everyone to look out because he just might try to take your wife too?”
No. Those are ADULTS. I am speaking strictly of sexual predators of children who are the most vulnerable and innocent of our society and only have adults to protect them.
So sexual crimes against adults are not “reportable”? Those are victims too. Shouldn’t people be warned??
Rapist of adults?
Business owner who sexually harrasses an employee under condition of employment? – shouldn’t we warn all husbands and wives that the dude is a potential threat to thier marriage?
I am specifically focusing on children who are the most vulnerable and innocent of our society and not able to report for themselves at all. Sorry if that was not clear.
It might help to really educate yourself on what goes into child porn so that you won’t blow off viewing it as somewhat benign. Children are tortured, raped, kidnapped, drugged and so on. It is a felony and considered predator behavior.
Um….I never said anything about child porn being benign – no porn is benign!
Please, stop assuming and then attacking the assumption. Thank you.
“Um….I never said anything about child porn being benign – no porn is benign! ”
But children have no choice. That is the difference we have to keep in mind.
Again. I agree with you regarding the sinfulness, and vileness of child porn! Where are you getting that I,or anyone else posting here, need to be lectured on that?!?!?!
I will Say that perhaps it is you who needs to be better informed on the dangers in the victimization of pornography in general because often adults are kidnapped and forced into it as well it’s not just children that often do not have a choice when it comes to the “sex slave” / porn market. Again. I despise ALL porn.
Lydia, just to be clear…if a registered sex offender for multiple/repeat crimes agains minors were to approach you privately about attending a church that you (hypothetically) pastor, would you welcome them, post it in the bulletin, ask the sinner to publicly acknowledge it at the next meeting or would you tell him to try the next church. Add he also “appears” sincerely broken about his past sin.
Adam, I think it would have to be announced to the church family. It is really only fair to children and parents. We cannot be more concerned about the “repentent” child predator. They have already lived a long con of deception and it can take many years before we have any idea there is real fruit of repentence.
And I would hope a truly repentent child sex offender would understand that need. This is how one church handles it that I read about. I cannot remember the guys name right now but he is one of the co authors of the Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse.
I have heard of some churches starting groups where they can worship without being around children.
A few things happen that are indirect but important when it is announced. The church is letting predators know they have zero tolerance and only serious repenters need apply. So if there are any predators in the church at the time, they will most likely go somewhere else if they are trying to groom. (long process btw) Of course, you won’t know that in order to protect society. They need access to groom even if they don’t abuse at church.
Silence and protection of the predator only brings more opportunity for any of that sort of thing. We are not dealing with your typical criminal here. We are reading more and more about them being on church staffs, too.
The point I am trying to make is if ONE child’s life is needlessly damaged because of our silence and some idea of cheap grace with words of repentance, it is too many.
One of the ways we combat this issue is by not having children’s age specific programs in our church on a regular basis… our kids sit with us in church and Sunday School, and when we do actually do children specifica activity it’s all together, with family participation. In fact, I cannot think of a time when our kids are ever alone with another adult besides their own parents.
Joel, that’s definitely an effective form of ministry and I’m glad that contextualization helps you be successful in fulfilling the great commission.
From age 3 and up, I sat on the front row while my mom played piano or organ. One eyebrow lifted from her was all I needed to know that I was squirming too much or making too much noise.
There was no such thing as fun kids church. :o)
This discussion reminds me of the old saw about the blind men examining the elephant. One grabs the tail and describes it as a snake. One grabs the leg and describes it as a tree, etc. Each takes a different piece and assumes that piece is the whole.
Christian truth is always multi-faceted.
Should a church seek to protect its children? Absolutely.
Must a church minister to and accept the worst of sinners who turn to Christ (including those who have done despicable things to the weak and helpless)? Yes, it must. The Church that treats anyone as beyond the boundaries of grace has erred. If Christ is not for the pedophile it is hubris to believe he is for me!!
Must we choose between these two? I don’t think so.
It has been presented as a false choice here – either you support ministry to pedophiles or you support protection of children. They are not mutually exclusive. Is it hard to do both? Yes. It is. But not impossible. A church can enact policies to protect children, stand with the victims, but still NOT treat offenders as untouchables.
That is a false choice. We need to stop assuming that one choice negates the other. Protecting children does not negate ministering to the worst of sinners. Ministering to the worst of sinners does not negate protecting children.
Let’s stop the merry-go-round.
Unless there’s something new to say, let’s stop saying the same things over and over.
“Unless there’s something new to say, let’s stop saying the same things over and over.”
Typical Dave. (wink)
I read the comment stream and the frankly I was saying NEW stuff that is uncomfortable to you. Christian Academy stopped renting facilities to SGM Louisville when the scandal became public because they MUST have the appearance of 100% protection of children. Zero Tolerance and 100% protection.
It is only fair to announce to the church a sexual predator who claims repentance is attending.
The only stuff you said that was uncomfortable to me was the stuff where you twisted what I said or someone else said into a convoluted and perverted version of what we actually said.
I don’t think there is a person here who is uncomfortable with the concept of protecting children or the need to do so. (I’m not sure about a couple of those folks that logged in from organizations that are against registries – don’t know them or their agendas.) I believe that every one of us here (so far, at least) believes 100% that a church ought to do all it can to do so.
Many of us simply refuse to accept the premise that you seem to be arguing (if I understand you), that protecting children requires banishing offenders from the fellowship of the church.
No one has advocated letting offenders be nursery workers.
No one has advocated (on this stream) an easy repentance that removes all consequences. Maybe there was a time that some did that (never in the churches I was a part of, or raised in). Maybe there are churches where that happens. No one here has advocated that.
No one has said that we should side with the victimizer and ignore the victim.
But I do believe that we can protect children without treating sinners like the untouchables or hanging an unwelcome sign on the door of the church.
That’s right.
Both/and not either/or
Wow! Thank you so much for this. You have no idea how heartening it is to hear your perspective.
I am the wife of a registered sex offender. There are more of us than you may think. The reality is that most registered sex offender are NOT child molesters or pedophiles: crimes against children 13 and under, forcible offenses against people of any age, and committing more than one offense of any type are things that only apply to a small minority of those in the registry. The vast majority of registered sex offenders are on the list for a single non-forcible statutory or victimless offense. And, many of these offenders were young men themselves when they committed their crimes. A registered sex offender is far more likely to be a man who, at 22, slept with a 15 year old girlfriend, than a man who, at 40, molested prepubescent children. And the church has to figure out how to deal with these men who sinned seriously and gravely in their late teens and twenties, with teen girls or teen girlfriends, but who have since shown a trajectory of maturity, repentance, and transformation.
My husband was arrested in an online sting operation that involved an undercover officer (in his 50s) going into an ADULT (18+) sex chat room and pretending to be a teen less than a year under the age of consent soliciting older guys for sex. If the men showed any potential interest, the officer continued to initiate contact for months, until they agreed to a meeting, at which point they were arrested. Most of the men arrested were 18-28. Were their actions okay? No. Was their arrest unjustified? No. But, these men were not predators–they were not seeking out children or teens, but were in a place where they expected to meet other adults–and they were not pedophiles–attraction to post-pubescent teens is not pathological. After a full psychiatric evaluation by two professionals, the judge determined that my husband, who was 25 at the time, was not a threat and should serve 2 years probation. However, under state law, he will be a registered sex offender for 25 years.
In the over-a-decade since his offense, my husband has become the father of four children. He has been a law-abiding citizen. He has supported his family. He has matured a lot. He should not be forever defined by the worst choice he ever made. I completely understand that he would not be qualified to serve in a children’s ministry or as a youth pastor, and frankly he’d have no interest in either. But, I think he should be able to worship with his family without fear or stigma. He should be able to drop his toddlers off at the nursery. He should be able to attend events where children are present. He should be allowed to use the church bathroom. He should not need to be under surveillance the entire time he is in church. He deserves to have his repentance accepted and to experience freedom in Christ in the church that he cannot experience outside of it because of the stigma of the label.
Can I guarantee you, 100%, that he would not prey on a child? Yes. Absolutely. I can guarantee that he would never take somebody’s 6 year old off to the bathroom and harm them. Nothing in his offense or history would make him more likely to do that than anybody in the congregation, and the fact that he has been evaluated and shown not to be a pedophile probably makes him SAFER around children than those who haven’t been “vetted.” Can I guarantee that if a teen girl in the church were to persistently flirt with him, he wouldn’t give in to temptation? I believe he has learned enough that he would not let it get that far and wouldn’t, but, no, I cannot 100% guarantee that if a 15 or 16 or 17 year old girl in the church (or, any woman in the church) were to pursue him sexually–the same situation as his arrest–he wouldn’t give in. However, I can’t guarantee that about ANY man in the church, so I don’t think he poses a unique threat in that regard. If anything, he knows more about his areas of temptation and weakness, and ways to deal with them, than most men who have not sought treatment for sexual addictions that he may in fact pose less threat than the average person.
The church cannot be a place where sex offenders who have served their time are excluded even more than they are in the world. That does not serve anybody. This is the first time I have seen anybody suggest that sex offenders be treated by Christians as equals and as humans. It made me cry, because I know that in many cases that is exactly what we need to do.
Just to clarify, lest I’m misunderstood, I did not mean to imply that my husband would be uniquely tempted by teen girls. He would not be. But, I can’t guarantee for him or any man that they would be more resistant to the advances of a 16 year old than to those of a 26 or 36 year old. However, there is a big difference between a man who is gives into temptation and has sexual contact with a willing post-pubescent teen (or an adult woman) and a man who would force sex on an unwilling child, teen, or adult. That difference matters. My husband–whose sexual addiction, other than his arrest (where it was an adult undercover officer pretending to be a teen), manifested itself entirely with adult women–would not pursue a teen, that much I could guarantee.
I also want to talk about Lydia’s point about forcing the ex-offender to address the congregation. Should we require that of all ex-offenders? Why just sex offenders? Wouldn’t you want to know if a person in your congregation has a DUI on their record before you let them drive your kid somewhere, for example? Wouldn’t you want to know if a person has a drug arrest before you let your child over their house? But, assuming you think it should apply to sex offenders, please do not assume that all SOs are single, isolated men. Many–especially those who committed victimless or statutory offenses as children, teens, or young men–have families. They have wives and children. And their wives and children are innocent victims in all of this.
My children range in age from 0-10 and do not know about their father’s offense. That will be shared with them when they are older. How humiliating would it be for my children to have their father publicly announce an 11-year-old crime in front of the congregation, one they have never heard about? What about the children of these men? Shouldn’t their well-being, and the well-being of their wives, matter?