Intellectuelle

That sounds like a pretty tough situation. It makes me wonder how the church can best deal with sex offenders or the murkier areas of accusation and denial. Obviously protecting vulnerable children and adults is vital. But there has to be somewhere people can go to be saved and changed. It's the problem of nimby-ism (Not In My Back Yard).

Our church has strict guidelines and security of the Children's building. Background checks for any workers in the building, and passes to get to where the classrooms are. It's not perfect, and I don't know how to make it that way myself, but they are trying. It's not the same world as it was when we were growing up, is it? Or... it is, but people are just more aware.

Stuff like this gives me chills. Dealing with the close proximity of perverts to my children is one of my chief fears. I constantly check the sex offender registry for my area, and have been relieved so far that I only find three or four people listed in my small town, all of them under charges unrelated to pedophilia.

denial is a chief characteristic of pedophiles.

Maybe so, but it is also the chief characteristic of the innocent.
I have a schoolteacher friend who was falsely accused by a junior high student of "something." The charge changed over time, depending on how seriously the authorities decided to take it. It didn't matter that she had no proof, that her story kept changing, and that her mother was notorious in the school and with the police for filing false claims. My friend eventually accepted a plea bargain because he couldn't afford a good lawyer and the one given him told him facing a jury, given the sensational nature of the charge, was inadvisable.

So he pleaded to a lesser charge, something he was never accused of in the first place, in order to get on probation. It was bizarre. And his life has been basically ruined. He can't be alone with his own kids, he has to attend meetings with actual perverts, he can't keep a job, and everyone, from his probation officer to the man who gives him a lie detector test every month (all of which he passes, by the way) believes he is in denial.

He told me it is really frustrating because continuing to maintain his innocence is taken as a sign that he is not "rehabilitated." It's almost as if he has to admit to doing something he didn't do -- lie, basically -- in order to get some relief. But he won't do that, so they continue to think of him as a pervert in denial.

I will never, ever teach school. I will never, ever be a youth minister again. All it takes is one lie from a child.
As a parent, I offer no sympathy to molesters and other perverts.
But I also know that one lie can ruin an innocent man's life simply because parents like me (rightfully) place a high premium on our children's safety, oftentimes (wrongfully) to the tune of hysteria and dishonesty.

Just my 2 cents...

It's a lot harder when the offender won't admit any wrongdoing.

But...what if he really *didn't* do it. I don't know how the board here found out information, but the Megan's Law website doesn't give much information.

I would think that, rather than driving him (and his family) out - which is really what happened - there could have been arrangements made for accountability in the church - checking with a board member, etc.

In most churches to place a restriction that you cannot worship anywhere in the building if children are on the premises? Come on - you know that what is in their heart was - we don't want him here. Ever.

Pedophilia is serious - and most men who are open about what they've done and are repentant crave accountability - the relapse rate is huge. You have to protect the young.

On the other hand, driving the offender from church to church with restrictions that are unrealistic (when does your church ever worship without children present?) only drive him further away from God and further into hopelessness.

If someone had been in jail for being a pickpocket, would he not have been allowed in the sanctuary because women have their purses? Would a known serial adulterer not be allowed around the women?

To say this man could not even be *around* the children of the congregation is basically hysteria, and is certainly not the way God would have him be treated. If he is not in worship, he cannot take the sacraments, he cannot hear the word of God preached, both of which are means of grace to help us like holy lives.

Perhaps things like this make clear one of the bad consequences of "children's ministries" themselves; the idea that "someone else" is keeping an eye on your children. That is the job of parents. I would say that the people of the congregation should certainly *know* about the situation, and certainly, some would probably leave. But for the *church* to say that he cannot even worship with the saints does not show forth the forgiveness of God, or trust in the POWER of God to change the hearts of people and cause them to turn from their sin.

What Jarod says is also very important to remember. The Child Protective Services in this country are absolutely out of control, and an anonymous tip will bring them into your house, looking into your refrigerator, checking your child's naked body for injuries, etc. (and of course, you cannot face your accuser as per the bill of rights). I know this because it happened to me years ago.

http://www.allencowling.com/false12.htm

But I also know that one lie can ruin an innocent man's life simply because parents like me (rightfully) place a high premium on our children's safety, oftentimes (wrongfully) to the tune of hysteria and dishonesty.

There is also a very sick mentality out there that I can only describe as the "look at me" syndrome.

You could almost call it "emotional munchausens by proxy". Just think of all the sympathy a mother can garner by accusing a bystander of some sort (any sort) of abuse.

Excellent post, I'm forwarding your story along to our church elders and deacons so they can have this as food for thought.

Russell

The circumstances around my friend's trouble really highlights how out of hand these sort of accusations can get.
At first, the girl said he only said inappropriate things to her. When this failed to make sufficient waves, she changed her story to say he had "propositioned" her. After that, she decided he had actually touched her. The thing started snowballing, and even though the school administration had a history with this girl's mother as a known liar and troublemaker, fearing lawsuits they had to let him go and contact the authorities.

The CPS thing was the worst. Aside from saying he couldn't be alone with his kids, they would come by when he wasn't home and harass his wife. He had some guy following him around wherever he went. They even suggested he be subjected to some sort of "test" wherein his genitals were attached to a monitor and he was shown child p()rnography! That blew me away.

Things have gotten better over the last few months, from my understanding. Apparently this girl has gotten in more and more trouble since the accusation, and this has caused my friend's previously mean probation officer to actually look into his case and see that it wasn't exactly substantial.

That blew me away too. After about four years, his officer was just now looking into his case?!

He has to go to these monthly meetings with real pedophiles and it freaks him out. It sickens him, and it continues to distress him that the assumption is that he is just like them, and his continued maintaining of his innocence only makes them more distrustful of him.

It's a scary, scary world, and not just because there are freaks out there preying on kids.

Oh, forgot to mention: The final charge he eventually pleaded to was "showing inappropriate materials to a minor," something he was never accused of in the first (or second or third) place. But the D.A. knew there was no real proof for the accusations, and so they "made up" this lesser, probation-only charge to get him to plea to it.

Of course, now he wishes he'd never pleaded guilty to anything.
But at the same time, you never know how a jury will act. He's not a celebrity who can afford high-powered lawyers. At the time this was going on, those reality trial shows were on TV and he told me he watched those and saw how emotionally the juries were acting, how illogical. It scared him.

You put an unknown man with a lousy lawyer in a courtroom and have a young girl make outrageous charges -- before I knew about this situation, even I would have naturally taken the girl's side. My friend would have too!

I put this clarification into the original post:

My husband has corrected some parts of the story since he has spoken personally with our pastor. The restrictions were supposed to be a temporary means of transitioning him back into the church. He was to attend the men's Bible study and/or another home group in order to get grafted back into the body (so he could kmow and be known--i.e. build trust and get help recovering from his experience and re-acclimating to life in outside prison). But he chose not to participate in those groups and then ended up exploding in rage at my pastor because of the restrictions.

I am currently being accused of not providing a "least restrictive environment" for an impaired student. This is a totally bogus charge - I'm not the one responsible for providing a least restrictiven environment. I don't write lesson plans, I don't choose rooms or school settings, I'm not the certified teacher and I'm not an administrator.

The mother doesn't like me and the charge brought (not doing somebody else's job) shows the weakness of her case. If there were a real concern, there would be a real charge.

My supervisor has told me that I can stay and fight - but it will be "h*ll". Knowing this mother and previous accusations she has made - my supervisor is right.

I could stay and prove innocence, or I can transfer quietly and let this mother win (and keep my sanity).

Sometimes accusations are made falsely and sometimes "copping" is easier (and safer) than fighting.

It doesn't matter if I am innocent - all that matters is this charge is being brought.

Remember Clarance Thomas? It was not whether he was guilty or innocent, the mere fact that the accusation was made was enough.

Wow. Marla, your story (and Jared, your friend's) should provoke some very serious thinking in the Church; thanks for sharing.

The difference between the scenarios here and the one in my church is that it goes beyond mere accusation. It went to court, evidence was put forth, he was convicted of a haenous crime ( for which there was physical evidence--I don't want to be graphic, but it goes way above the level of the situations raised here--it wasn't petty theft or innuendo or even a gesture--it was even more perverted and violent than rape) and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Despite the fact that his family attended our church all this time, they never confided in the leadership of the church about his situation, and no one in our church knows him at all, even though he attended before his incarceration.

Yes, it's still possible he's innocent but our pastor kept emphasizing the fact that because we can't know, we have to accept the verdict that the law handed down. That is the Biblical imperative. I may not always agree with that conclusion, but in this case, with the severity of the crime and the risk factors in involved, I believe it was right.

I guess it also helps that I know our pastor well (I knew him and his wife long before we began attending the church) as well as the associate pastors--they are a very balanced leadership team, so I trust that they did the best they could with the situation. I think it's wrong for others to make a blanket judgement that their actions were out of line based merely on what I've recounted here. However, if you'd like to put forth alternate solutions for a scenario like this, go for it...

I gave an alternate scenario ;-)

"I would say that the people of the congregation should certainly *know* about the situation, and certainly, some would probably leave."

How could there be any scenario besides that one? How can it be appropriate for a church *not* to welcome a repentant sinner; a criminal, yes, but one who has paid the penalty. (Interestingly, in Biblical times, the man would have been charged with rape, probably, and executed. That would have solved the problem, because he would not have been there to attend the worship!)

Marla, I didn't mean to question the guilt of the man at your church, OR your church's means of handling the situation. Were I a parent at your church, I might be all in favor of the restrictions established.

I was only responding to your statement "Denial is a chief characteristic of pedophiles." Yes, I went overboard in telling my friend's story, incongruent to the thrust of your post, but it's because I've seen the real weight of the notion that denial indicates guilt. False accusations can devastate an innocent suspect's family just like actual abuse can devastate a victim's.

I don't know the situation of this man's case, but given the facts you've provided, it certainly seems as if a jury was right to convict him and your church was right to be concerned. Sorry for not affirming that previously.

Samantha, the dilemma is that either he was innocent or that he was guilty, but dishonest about it and is unrepentant (even though he served the prison term), so the scenario you present doesn't fit as neatly, in my opinion, but in other cases, I would usually agree with that. Rehabilitation is also different than punishment.

Jared, I totally understand your reaction in light of your friend's situation and I probably should have qualified that statement. Thanks for being sensitive though :)

I'm sorry, Marla... I didn't quite get it from your entry that he wasn't repentant. I agree that those in church leadership should have been told the details of his circumstances, but I think it is at least a possibility that he and his family were reluctant to be open about this because they feared the exact kind of response they got. Of course, I don't know that for a fact, but there was a long time when I did not tell people that I had smoked a LOT of pot in my life, or that I had been a tax protestor and we hadn't paid our taxes for 7 years.

This doesn't mean that being secretive is *good*, but it can be understandable, especially when by experience we often know that even Christians, the forgiven ones, are less than forgiving themselves.

Of course, welcoming this man into the body of Christ does not mean that he should be given a position working with children. Forgiveness does not mean that you throw caution to the wind or that you can automatically expect that there will be no lasting consequences to sin.

It's a difficult world.

On the other side of the issue...what a bummer to have to educate our children about inappropriate touching because of the real threat that knows few boundaries.

Personally, we use the term "private parts" and tell them there's a reason their called private.

I hate that we have to educate them about that and about possible abduction. At the right time and right age we talk about various aspects of these things.

As much as I dislike it, I can't ignore the real threat.
I equate it to people in other times or locations warning their children of the wolves or bears in the woods and teaching them how to avoid them.

Reminds me to not only pray over my kiddos, but to also pray for the church.

There is one perspective that has not been presented. The man who spent time in prison is probably guilty. It seems unlikely that he would have been convicted if he was totally innocent. Very few people in prison are innocent bystanders who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Many people in prison claim to be innocent because they have been unable to face their own crimes. This is particularly true of child molesters. They rarely acknowlege the crime and rarely seek help for their problems. I don't see this as only a sin issue. A person who molests children was more than likely molested themselves and never received help for their emotional issues.

Their families may also find it difficult to face the truth and end up enabling that person to continue acting out. The support that this man received from his family probably hurt him more than it helped him. That kind of situation is very hard to face. It is too bad they were not able to acknowledge the truth and ask for help. A common problem in Christian families.

In this case, the pastors made the only decision they could. They had to choose between enabling this family to live in a lie or protecting the children of the church. What other choice could they have made? Any other decision would have been very risky.

I am so grateful that some leaders are not afraid to take the unpopular position and stand on the side of truth. This whole situation could have been a terrible nightmare if it had not been handled correctly.

Recently a reverend here, also a police prosecutor and the leader of a Christian political party, pleaded guilty to several charges of sexual offences against young girls, including rape, and was sentenced to 9 years. His rape victim was 5 years old when he started abusing her. His offending took place over several years.

He was an active pedophile for several years while posing not only as a sincere Christian but as a spokesman for moral causes. I do not believe that a person can be in relationship with Jesus Christ and sexually assaulting girls, including raping them, on a regular basis. They are in depravity and their conscience is seared (the abusers).

There are cases of false accusations - I think we all know that. But there are also too many cases where churches do not know how to deal with these issues.

Repentance means a change of direction. it means being willing to face the consequence and keep the boundaries necessary not to repeat the crime. It is more than saying "Sorry". Pedophiles have an inner compulsion which they repeatedly act on. It requires overriding their conscience - which is why in so many cases it is found that the offender used drugs or alcohol to try and lower his own moral perception of what he was going to do. Commonly minimisation and denial are used, as well as justification. In the case I refer to above the reverend said the the rape of the girl was "consensual". He emailed this to his Christian supporters - most of whom realised when they received the email that he was not repentant or truthful and one forwarded the email to the prosecution for his case. The media then discovered it.

I know of more than one church person (I question whether the word "Christian" truly applies as they are mixing in a social group but not living the Christian life) who has sexually offended against children here. The prominent leader of a well-known national organisation which helped young people at risk sexually offended against young boys in his care for 12 years before being exposed.
12 years of continual pedophilic crimes while he was speaking at Christian meeting and lauded as a Christian of good example. That's 12 years of not being in right relationship with Jesus Christ - because if he was he would have had inner conviction of his sin, confessed it and taken steps to do something about it. Stepping down from his position would have been the starter. He didn't and lived a lie.

My advice is - without being paranoid your kids safety comes first. If you aren't comfortable with some-one, don't leave your kids with them.

These sort of offenders are not Christians who missed it a bit. Jesus is not allied with contiued sexual abuse of children. It is damaging to the core for a child to be sexually abused - and it is a double damage when the offender is a "Christian" and the child's perception of a loving God also suffers. These offenders are needing true conversion to Christ. They are hypocrites in the true meaning of the word - those who wear a mask.

There are programs available - but it is surprising how many of these men will not undertake treatment. True conversion to Christ will be evidenced by their desire not to ever harm a child again. They would front up to their family. Rather than having to try and impose limits upon them they would not only be willing to have them set but would suggest ways themselves in which they will not be near children (their trigger) and be honest about any triggers in a social situation (including church) that they should abstain from.

If the offender is truly turing away from such insidious behaviour, they will be willing to do the time for the crime, willing to have treatment, willing to keep boundaries. They can still have a life, but it will have limits.

Everyone has certain limits. Some Christians will not watch certain movies, read certain books, go to certain places. They know their weakness and don't tempt God. That is what is required of the offender. Not "these are my rights!" but "these are things I need to do and things I need to stay away from because I have seriously wounded others and have a weakness which is too damaging to play around with.

Good post Marla - glad you posted it.

I am horrified by how your church reacted to this situation. Since when is the Bible's way of dealing with past sins not relevant? Since when is emotionalism to be the deciding factor in church conduct? How horrid!

The Bible tells us about the process of restoration. No where does it say, hold the sin over their head forever, go crazy, let the emotions flow. Nowhere does it say to kick the bum out (which you practically did).

Touching a child is a wicked thing to do, incredibly sick. But is there no place for GOD in this situation?

It may have taken a great deal of personal effort, creativity and group patience to restore this man to the church body. And the Bible. It may have taken a Biblical plan for restoration, as Carl said, ALONG WITH a safety plan for children. In this man's case, if he exploded at restrictions, he may not have been ready for it, but . . . .

What if several deacons had offered to mentor the man, including accompanying him to any church event? What if a retired couple had offered to sit with this family in church, and accompany them to, e.g., the church picnic? What if the men's ministry "adopted" this man? What if the church had offered a rehabilitation program on its campus, with this man in attendance? Lots of possibilities here, lots of bases to be covered; commitment, vigilence, and a strong leader would be key.

Even all this may have involved too much risk for the congregation to handle. Just as much grace and patience is needed to deal with a fearful congregation as is needed to deal with this man.

IMO, this is the effect we have wrought by abandoning Matthew 18 accountability in churches. No matter how repugnant the sin (I'm using shorthand here; don't want to start a debate on degrees of sinfulness), we are out of the habit of accountability, have no structure to deal with it, and have set a strong precedent of ignoring it or overreacting. Both unhelpful at best, damaging at worst.

Marla, I'm interested in whether this church hs kept the same plan for future use, or has rethought it?

Carl and Gray...did you either of read the part of the this post that says he claims to be innocent? How can a non-repentant person be rehabilitated? Please go back through and read ALL the comments. Gray, your ideas are great but they don't work with someone who won't admit having a problem. And Carl, speaking of emotionalism, try reserving judgement until you get the facts straight. And btw, his crime went way beyond "touching" a child.

As I said before, the dilemma here was his having been convicted of a haenous crime for which he served 12 years in prison and him still claming his innocence? It amounted to either the church taking his word against the established authorities or believing his did what he was convicted of and having to deal with someone who was unrepentant and could commit the crime again.

Thanks, Catez, for providing that info and for your support of this post.

I never thought so many Christians would side with a convicted child molester over pastors of a church--and not just any church--the one I belong to, and I wouldn't just belong to any old church. If people knew my pastor and the rest of the leadership team, they would never see this as emotionalism or some kind of witchhunt. They contacted law enforcement and other area churches, researching the best ways to handle this, as well as putting in much prayer and meeting repeatedly with the man in question.

I think part of the problem here is that people don't know what it's like to be a Christian in the San Francisco Bay Area. They don't understand the culture here at all and how that affects this situation, but that's beside the point...

If there is no repentance, they shouldn't have bothered trying to set up parameters for his inclusion in the fellowship to any extent. He should have been excommunicated until such time as repentance could be demonstrated.

Given the horrific nature of his crime, if he's still maintaining his innocence, I wouldn't have even bothered trying to figure out how to "restore" him. That's too much trouble for someone who doesn't belong in the congregation anyway.

And if we're going to talk about what the Bible says about how to treat sins like this, perhaps the death penalties prescribed in the OT should be as valid a guide as the truth-in-love "commandments" of the NT. Not that the man needs to be executed, but that the biblical norm for an unrepentant pervert is not only not inclusion, it's radical exclusion.

Btw, I don't see "so many" people defending a child molester. I see one or two who didn't read the post carefully enough.

Marla,

Hold up, I'm not suggesting that the church take his word, or that the church did wrong or didn't try.

I understood that the guy protested his innocence, but (1) the church reasonably chose to accept the sentence and all it implied(guilt); and (2) in fact, the man's protestations were not credible in light of the evidence and verdict. In acting on these assumptions, wouldn't it be consistent for a church to intially try to lead the guy to repentence through some restoration process? (Maybe they did?). I don't think that's taking his side or being against the pastors, it's almost like Biblically calling the guy's bluff on his claim of sincerity and his professed desire to fellowship with your church.

Anyway, he did get a chance, which he blew. He can't reasonably expect an entire congregation to take his word, require nothing, instantly accept him, and take no precautions. Esp. if he indeed is a sex offender, that's not love.

The point I was trying to make -- maybe not well -- was about grace all around. Tough grace for the guy (which is why I don't agree with Carl) with a GOAL of repentence andf restoration; compassionate grace for the congregation who are trying to be good Christians AND responsible caregivers. The tough grace is the tricky part.

Marla, this is a tough one -- made moreso by his pleas of innocence and his family concurrance with the denial. But I have three thoughts:

1.) It's often possible to discern the proverbial "slam dunk" cases of guilt from the "accusation = conviction" verdicts. Some crimes are so horrible, the jury is so shocked, the story so heart-wrenching that the defense has a near impossible time actually trying to get the jury to believe that the prosecutor and victim are wrong. But when forensics comes in (e.g., DNA match, video, etc.) things sometimes get easier to decide. My point is this: Yes, it's possible to set aside a "legal" decision wherein all evidence seems to point otherwise. It's fair statement to say that molestation cases are stacked against the defendent from the beginning. To actually havea a fair molestation trial, one has to get 12 people to consider the unthinkable possibilty that a young person is, well, lying. (McMartin case anyone?) Did you hear all the evidence the jury heard? No, and that's actually to your advantage. Remember, what a jury hears is limited in accordance with the rules of admitting evidence and judicial discretion. Outside the courtroom we often see/hear far more. How many times do we see cases where a jury says post-trial, "If I had heard what you're telling me now, I would never have voted for conviction." If this man's case was really a slam dunk, then OK. Also, his entire family's support of his innocence is very significant; they just might know things you don't. I hope the church did due diligence before taking on the role of eccesiastical parole officers.

2.) "so many Christians would side with a convicted [crime]... "
Be careful, Marla. As persecution of the Christian lifestyle increases, we're going to be up against this more and more. Christians who spank, do home schooling and other things have been brought up on charges from minor to felonies with lengthy prison sentences and post-release life restrictions. Notorious abuses by CPS alone have spawned countless legal aid, support, and adovcacy organizations. As it is, we have numerous situations of "convicted" Christians who proclaim innocence, and this will surely continue: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." Hey, it happens.

3.) I wasn't there at the meeting, but I hope they spoke to both sides of the coin -- both the horrid nature of violating children, as well as admonition for people to keep humble hearts. It's a hard message to be sure, but those how have been touched by sexual abuse should use this situation to examine themselves and their own hearts about the issue as well as any bitterness or pride they may harbor. This is not to ignore the convicted molester, but we cannot ignore the risk of sitting in church thinking, "God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this...child molester" [ref. Luke 18:11]

Jared, Gray and Phil, I see the validity in the comments all of you have just made. It was a very difficult situation and I think it was a mistake for me to post about it the way that I did. It would have been better to describe the dilemma and not describe how my church handled it until AFTER people commented. And then only very carefully and thoroughly. My motive was to help other churches prepare for similar situations as well as put child safety precautions in place. This case may not have been the best to use because it was complicated by the fact that he claimed to be innocent, his family had been part of the church for 15 years (our pastor came on board just after that) and wouldn't abide by the limitations that (I believe) needed to be temporarily imposed.

I am glad you posted it; real life is complicated. If I impugned your church in anyway, I apologize; I did not mean to.

BTW, our church's children's director instigated safety precautions because she thought it was wise, not for any particular situation. You should have heard the outcry! You would have thought we turned the nursery into a federal prison!

I don't think anyone is "defending" a convicted child molester, where the operative term is not only convicted, but also sentenced, with the sentence having been carried out. Does that not count for anything?

Regarding his family protesting his innocence, there are only two options there 1) that he is guilty and they are lying and/or deluded (which is possible) or that 2) he is innocent and was wrongly convicted (which is also possible). What the truth is cannot really be known. Just because someone is convicted of a crime, does not mean that they are guilty (many Christians throughout time have been convicted for "crimes" and executed), and just because they are exonerated does not mean they are innocent.

What is happening here is this man and/or his family is protesting his innocence (which may be a lie, certainly) but his very protestation of innocence is seen as *evidence* of his guilt.

All it takes is a google search to find lots of examples of false child abuse allegations. That does not mean that the allegations against this man are false, but it does mean that people can and do lie about child abuse, and children are sometimes led by social workers being asked leading questions, or determination of abuse is made based on how a child plays with an anatomically correct doll. Don't you think it is possible that many, if not most children, if faced with a doll with a male organ, would play with it? I"m not saying at all that there are not children being sexually abused, but it is a VERY difficult kind of case, especially when the children involved are young, because they do not have the mental capacities to participate in a trial, and may not, depending on the child, be able to fully differentiate between what is a real memory and one which is actually something they have been told, or led to believe.

So, what the church should do about this man and others like him is still open for debate, as the varied comments here suggest! But it is important to remember that the church is a place of forgiveness and reconciliation, and also important to remember that we all have sins and even crimes we have committed that no one knows about. There may be adulterers, theives, people who have been involved in homosexual activities, embezzlers, etc. reading this very board.

We have to take precautions, certainly, to see that people who have been involved in certain sins and/or crimes are not tempted to that behaviour again (and I think the point made above is a valid one, that most of us are not used to having real church accountability in place these days) but I still think that the restrictions placed on this man were excessive, and left out of the equation the place of parents to protect their own children.

What is happening here is this man and/or his family is protesting his innocence (which may be a lie, certainly) but his very protestation of innocence is seen as *evidence* of his guilt.

How many women here would "stand by there man" for 15 years (!!!) with him in prison for something like this - if they didn't truly believe in his innocence?

They have been together since high school. They raised two daughters. How many women who have been married to someone so long (for better or worse) would be able to face it if their husband/father of their children was a pedophile?

(btw, it was a 12 year prison term. 15 years was how long his wife and children had been at our church, but it seemed like people hardly knew them, which I think ought to be considered as well)

My mom lived in a figurative abusive prison with my stepdad for 25 years and it took his death for her to be liberated. Co-dependents abound. I'm not saying she is one, but there are other factors about their family that I don't feel right sharing that lead to me to believe it is quite possible.

His protestation is not the only evidence of guilt--whatever evidence was put forth 12 years ago that the jury found persuasive enough to lock him up for so long is more compelling, which included physical evidence of...okay, I'll say it: penetration with a foreign object.

Either he was innocent (which isn't likely in a case like this--I'm tempted to link to his profile on Megan's Law but I won't) or he was guilty and in total denial, thereby quite likely to act out again. The church needed time and safety nets to get to know him in order to see whether he likely was truly innocent or if he would eventually become humbled and healed. He wouldn't allow that (the men's Bible study, btw, is an intimate group and led by our pastor so that would have been the perfect starting point).

Thanks, Gray for your sensitivity (I know I say that a lot around here, but it always means a lot to me).

Samantha, we'll just have to agree to disagree :)

Of course, Marla! I really do understand that this issue is very upsetting, and I am not doubting at all that you know some grisly details about this case.

I am going to write a bit about my experience with the CPS for my entry tomorrow, to give another perspective on this issue (that experience of mine being the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back and sent me hurtling into libertarianism)

I've been following this discussion with interested and with fatigue. I'm going to be a coward and just put my word in last ;) I agree with what Marla wrote and from what I understand, I agree with the steps that Marla's church took.

When i was in elementary school, an elder in my father's church kissed me on the cheek at a church picnic in front of a lot of people. I didn't like it, didn't like him, and I avoided him carefully because he gave me a weird feeling. When I was sixteen, this man (no longer an elder) was arrested and sent to prison for statuatory rape of a minor, and it came out that his adult daughter (who also attended our church) had been molested by him as a child,

There was no false accusations involved here. The evidence was overwhelming and he confessed to everything with many tears. Unfortunately, as time progressed it became clear to the leadership (and even to me) that this man was not repentant. He wanted to be immediately restored to full leadership privledges. He undercut the leadership's authority by gossiping behind their back and trying to get people to his side. He accused people of trying to harm him and not forgiving him as they should etc.

He ended up causing several families to leave the church before he finally went away too. The whole situation was digusting. He admitted to his crime, but he thought saying "Sorry" was enough. He fought hard against the prosecution by trying to justify what he did. He divided the church by his gossiping and slander.

in the case Marla mentioned, even if the man were innocent and by some bizarre chance, a jury of 12 wrongly convicted him and sent him to prison, he still should submit to the restrictions placed on him by the church and meekly seek to regain their trust. Would that be difficult and humiliating? Sure. But if this man truly is interested in protecting the weakest members of the church instead of claiming his own rights, he would do it.

Why? Because the duty to protect the rights of the weakest members of the church should come first.

I don't think anyone is "defending" a convicted child molester, where the operative term is not only convicted, but also sentenced, with the sentence having been carried out. Does that not count for anything?

Not really. It means he couldn't harm any children for 12 years. The length of time is no indicator of change or repentance. He was unrepentant even after 12 years. If sentences were about changed people coming out of prison there wouldn't be any recidivism. It's well known that child sex offenders carry their predisposition for that weakness for the rest of their lives and can never be over-confident about their rehabilitation. Can they stop? Yes they can. But a prison term is no indicator of heart condition. Being willing to avoid triggers, accept limits, confess where necessary - those are outward signs perhaps. And then again some newly released offenders are simply externally compliant for a while. They learn to be externally compliant in jail.

in the case Marla mentioned, even if the man were innocent and by some bizarre chance, a jury of 12 wrongly convicted him and sent him to prison, he still should submit to the restrictions placed on him by the church and meekly seek to regain their trust. Would that be difficult and humiliating?

The only problem that I had with the restrictions (and Marla didn't say if it were all the restrictions, or if this one was the last straw) - effectively the man was told that he couldn't even come to church on Sunday to worship with his family. Well, ok, he could, but only if no children happened to show up that Sunday morning.

And I don't know what the attitude of the church was - if the man had been willing to replay the entire trial for the benefit of the board?

The church depends on the world too much - In Jewish law, no charges could be brought unless there were 2 witnesses (today I'd count DNA, etc as witnesses).

If the board was convinced of his guilt and he is unrepentant, then they should have disfellowshipped Him according to the Bible.

If they were not convinced, the restriction that he couldn't come to church with his family should have been different (such as he could come to worship, but the family would have sat next to an elder's family) - accountability is very Biblical.

As it is, he would have been in limbo and that's not Biblical.

Hannah, the situation you're talking about is a little different, in that the man never maintained his innocence - and he wanted right back into leadership. There was a man in our old church that commited a crime (financial, not sexual) and went to prison for a time. He repented before he left, made reparations where he could. The church helped his wife financially while he was gone - but when he got out he was not able to get into leadership, even to lead a Bible study, until he had met the Biblical conditions for leadership in Timothy. That is Biblical.

It sounds like the man in Marla's church didn't want to be in leadership - he just wanted to worship with his family.

I understand that prison does not mean anything about being truly "rehabilitated". It has been said that prison is a good place to learn to be a better criminal! What I meant was, is no one able, in the church, to get away from being *known* by their past, especially when they have "served their time"?

I am a former pot smoker. A former tax protestor, and you know, I can't say I have totally lost the desire to do either of those things. I understand that neither of them are in the category of harming others in the same way we are discussing, but I am sure that some people might have a hard time getting past the fact that I "did drugs" or was "anti-government".

I think the point has been made well that if the man was determined to be unrepentant, what should have happened to him was to be excommunicated, but sadly, in our day, being excommunicated in one church does not prevent you walking a few blocks and joining another.

Hubby does prison ministry with an amazing couple who do it full time. I told the wife about this story. Turns out a still jailed convicted sex offender contacts them regulary.
An idea she had about what to do if he wanted to come to our church would be to have someone be with him at all times when he was on the grounds. (We didn't talk in depth about it, so there might be more than that.)

I think the staff and others lay leaders in the church would also be informed so they could protect children on off site events as well.

Our church runs background checks on all people who want to serve with the children. We also have training throughout the year that reminds people how to keep themselves above reproach.

Lexie,
Off topic, but I would love to know what training you have that "reminds people how to keep themselves above reproach." This sounds really good.

As a registered sex ofender he is not supposed to be around children by law. I am not sure about his probabtion requirements but I feel sure they deal with that. He can't live around a school, come within so many feet of a child, etc.

Also, pedophiles were sexually abused as children so they continue the cycle. I am not saying that is right, just the way it is. They will always have those "feelings" but dont always have to act on it. They were messed up as a kid so are in just as much pain. At the point they become a pedophile, they don't want help. Much like an addict will always be an addict but can remain sober. That is the way my father, who is a therapist, described it.

I have been on both sides, my adopted little brother was severely sexually abused and someone in my family is in prison for sexually molesting girls (He was a preacher). You can never be too careful. It is not being paranoid to keep your child away from a pedophile. All accusations must be investigated, even false ones because it does happen. I don't think anyone here would mind a couple of investigations if it meant that at least one was true.

Church leadership has to be incredibly careful working with a pedophile while not putting children in danger. A child will always be a temptation for a pedophile, whether they are repentant or not.

As a registered sex ofender he is not supposed to be around children by law.

So, realistically - he can't go grocery shopping, can't go go a national partk, can't go to the dentist's office if the dentist also has child patients - what if a child is in the office?

There is a difference between being in the same building as a child and working with children. One is planned, the other is unavoidable.

I certainly mind investigations that are based on anonymous tips and search houses and look at children's naked bodies.

Pedophelia is a terrible sin, but just as adulterers, fornicators, rapists, pornographers and other sexual deviants can repent and not engage in those activities anymore, the person who has abused children can also repent. That doesn't mean this particular pedophile did repent, but I think people are somehow assuming those who have committed this particular sin will *always* do so again if around children. This smacks of environmental determinism, which Christianity totally rejects.

I am sure that people here are familiar with the idea of homosexuals "changing" to become heterosexual. If one of these people were in a church, would it be continuously assumed that he was always secretly lusting after all the men, that every man would always be a temptation to him?

Church leadership has to be incredibly careful working with a pedophile while not putting children in danger.

I guess my concern is that we are careful to act in a Biblical way.

Careful is not making sure the offender can never attend church with his/her family.

Careful is filling the need to worship while making sure accountability is in place.

Protecting children is important (the second most important thing here). The first is serving God and all of His children.

I was a bit surprised to read how many people seemed to be all for welcoming a convicted pedophile back into the church fellowship. I'm glad that some pointed out that the law often has requirements that convicted pedophiles maintain a physical distance from children and, depending on that state's law, that might preclude being in the same church building.

Forgiveness is wonderful. But I think we are often too quick to forget and too willing to put others at risk.

The following situation comes to mind:

A man was discovered to have molested several girls. His wife divorced him as a result and took the children with him. This was years ago, and he was never brought to trial; thus, no conviction.

A few years went by, and he began dating a woman with two young daughters. He asked his Christian therapist, as well as some other Christian men, if he should tell her about his past pedophilia, and was assured that he was forgiven, etc., etc. and that his sins were no more.

He happily got married and, within a year or so, molested both girls. Repeatedly. For years. Until they finally were old enough to know they didn't have to put up with his abuse, and were no longer cowed by his threats.

He ended up in jail this time.

His daughters are are furious at the church for being, in their minds, accomplices in their ongoing sexual abuse.

I'd much rather go to Marla's church than to a church that would throw out the welcome mat to known, unrepentant pedophiles. Jesus did, after all, warn about millstones. He had some very harsh words for those who abuse children, words we had best begin taking far more seriously as a culture and as a church.

Samantha,
I did plenty of things in the past that I could be judged for. I think that isn't the issue here. The issue here is the safety of children. I don't see anything in Marla's post that suggests the church was being judgemental in the negative sense. They were being careful and having been made aware of a risk were obviously trying to be safe.

The point about the jail term is not that we keep holding it over some-one - but that it is no indicator in itself of rehabilitation. I think issues are getting confused here - you are talking about people who are repentant and living a new life in Christ. The man in Marla's post was not repentant.

To the person who said it seems like people think he will always be a pedophile - no-one has said that. The weakness is something he will always have to be aware of. As I pointed out earlier, we all have weaknesses and have different things we are careful about.

I am surprises no-one has mentioned the Corinthian example - where Paul advised a man be put out of the church and he was later restored after he was obviously repentant. It is an example of the church leaders acting on a matter which involved unrepented sexual sin by some-one in the church. It is biblical for church leaders to do so.

Re: the comment that these men have been abused as children - some have and some have not. And to add to that - plenty of people unfortunately are abused as children and they do not grow up and sexually offend against children. Previous childhood abuse is not an excuse. Pedophilia involves the offender actively overriding his conscience, until the repitition sears it.

Naive compassion is dangerous. Wisdom with compassion is required in these very difficult situations.

Samantha the parallel I see between your situation and the one in Marla's post is that in both cases a person shows up who has done something untrustworthy in the past. Both claim to be Christians. Both are unrepentant by their actions. One reports you to CPS, one won't accept limits. In both cases there is a risk from this person toward children - in your case an unnecessary and humiliating intrusion into your child's life.

I imagine that you would be very careful about allowing that person from the past near your children again. In Marla's church they are also being very careful about having some-one around children.

And I don't know what the attitude of the church was - if the man had been willing to replay the entire trial for the benefit of the board?

That sounds very impractical. How would some-one do that? You would need witnesses again wouldn't you - and if the victim had given evidence then would you want her to front up 12 years later and be re-traumatised? If she or anyone else would even be willing to, which is doubtful. Why would they want to relive such an awful experience all over again? But to follow the hypothesis - suppose they did, and said he's guilty and he still protested his innocence - then what? Another church and another trial?

Why do we assume that no Christians may be involved in a court case? Do you know if the lawyers. forensic people, witnesses, the judge, were Christians? We are all in the world doing our jobs. And if they were not Christians it is not a reason to completely dismiss the findings. Sorry - I don't buy the link between a convicted child sex offender and persecution. A 12 year sentence obviously reflects a serious crime.

It is obvious from what Marla has shared in the post and in her comments that her church tried to deal with this wisely. They could have simply sent him away. They imposed limits as part of a transitional time - if he was repentant he would have co-operated. Obviously he wasn't.

It is not unusual for the spouses and families of such offenders to stick by them. In some cases they sincerely believe he is innocent, in others they know he isn't but do not want to lose the emotional investment they have.

It is not environmental determinism to say that one must always be aware of the risk such a person poses. It's well known that they have a compulsion which can be triggered and that they will always have a weakness. It's also quite biblical for a person to acknowledge a weakness and stay away from temptation.

Yes, God changes people - I know people with all sorts of backgrounds and have not always been a Christian myself either. And I know that we all have certain things we no longer engage with.

As some-one else said, I would rather be in a church like Marla's than one where they took him at his word and put everyone's children at a terrible risk.

I think some personal and obviously still unresolved issues have been brought into the discussion - and while they are important they do not diminish the gravity of this man's crime, the need for safety, and the fact that he was unrepentant.

That sounds very impractical. How would some-one do that? You would need witnesses again wouldn't you - and if the victim had given evidence then would you want her to front up 12 years later and be re-traumatised? If she or anyone else would even be willing to, which is doubtful. Why would they want to relive such an awful experience all over again? But to follow the hypothesis - suppose they did, and said he's guilty and he still protested his innocence - then what? Another church and another trial?

It also sounds Biblical.

I also said replay, not relive. False convictions are made - look it up. Children are made to fear people through "counseling," not offense - look it up.

If the man steadfastly protests his innocence, doesn't the church owe it to him to allow him to prove it to them?

I mean - geeze! Look at OJ - he lost in criminal court, yet a different jury came to a different conclusion in civil court.

And Michael Jackson - do you think *that* jury was right?

They were both juries that appeared to be swayed by emotions - and how emotional is a child abuse hearing?

Both of these cases were tried in a liberal state - the same state where Marla's church is. Do you *REALLY* trust the juries there? Or the judges?

Stop and think about it - this man and his family steadfastly proclaim innocence - and the one place where he should be able to go to get a Godly hearing - you're advocating that they not even let him go over the evidence with them?

What if the jury was like the one that listened to emotion, not evidence - or the one that was not allowed to see all the facts?

What if the man really is not guilty - and what if he was hoping that the church (at least) would listen?

Ellen I'm ok discussing this but not if you are going to take a rude tone.

I'd ask - how do you know they didn't look at his case?

I see no biblical basis for replaying a trial. The bible doesn't say that everyone who has been convicted of a criminal offence can have another trial at church. It says accusations against elders must have 2 or 3 witnesses, and also advises us to conduct ourselves in a godly manner in the world.

There are legal avenues - appeals for example.

I also see that Marla has some knowledge of what happened, but has spared us the details.

As I have mentioned, the church took a wise course of action. They could have simply not accepted him - they allowed for a transitional process. He was the one who didn't want that.

I think I'll leave it here. It has been a good discussion but I'm not going to keep going over the same ground.

I am so sorry, I didn't mean to sound rude.

Yes, it's still possible he's innocent but our pastor kept emphasizing the fact that because we can't know, we have to accept the verdict that the law handed down.
You're right...I thought that when Marla said, " that it sounded like no one at the church had taken a look at it, but had chosen to trust the court.

It just seems that there are better ways to bring a sick person into the church than by making sure that they cannot worship with their family in that church (which is still the only thing I find wrong with the restrictions)

Ellen

Thanks Ellen. Comment boxes can be a dificult place to discuss sometimes.

Re: worshipping with his family. Well it was a transitional restriction - so not necessarily forever. He didn't want the limits and wasn't willing for the transitional time.

Anyway - I might leave it there if I can as I need to do some blogging too! Hope you have a good Sunday (I'm assuming you are in the Northern Hemisphere).

Due to events that happened in my family, I'd be less afraid of the known pediophile than the unknown ones.

Churches need these rules. My husband and I attended an extremely informative seminar at Pine Rest Christian Hopsital in Grand Rapids about 10 years ago. Equally represented were both sides. How to best prevent false accusations, and how to best prevent abuse. I would highly recommend ALL churches attending an event like this. We learned so much we were able to bring back to our church and impliment.

But, the biggest thing I learned was that most abuse in the church happens in that 'in between' time when kids are running around unattended. Wherever you are, NEVER leave your child unattended! It's the one thing we are continually striving to remind people of in our church.
Parents can be unbelievably niave when it comes to letting kids run around wherever they want to in the church building. Do not allow that!

Marla, thanks for talking about an extremely difficult topic!