Are churches responsible for abusive ex-members?

[ken_sylvania]

I'm not sure what the intent of this is other than to be some kind of vague accusation or character assassination; however, questioning a statistic of 1 of 3 women in BMA or Keystone circles being a "victim of sexual abuse" does not make me "not a safe person to confide in" one way or the other.

The 1 in 3 statistic is obviously bogus and made up, and false information like this makes actually talking about abuse and dealing with it much harder. "Advocates" tend to do this, and reasonable people simply quit listening to them.

In the case of Keystone it is particularly absurd with the culture of mandatory reporting that exists there now. Every little thing that might be overheard in a school setting has to be handled formally. I don't have firsthand experience with this but I hear Easterns there are now the same way. If the rate really is 1 in 3, there is a vast conspiracy that includes government social services, the police, and the victims themselves to keep it such a well kept secret.

The Keystone churches you’re familiar with must be very different than the one I am familiar with. They weren’t interested in complying with the mandatory reporting and background checks that were required in the wake of Sandusky. I was assured by those in charge that they would report serious things, but the official document outlining the policy was incredibly wishy washy.

This was in 2016 or so. It was made very clear how important mandatory reporting was, a booklet published by the Easterns was distributed, and contact info for the plain people liaison within the state.

No background checks are “required” for church volunteers who eg sweep the floor or teach Sunday school class, though. Not sure where you got that idea from.

I happen to think background checks are near-worthless; someone who is smart enough to avoid indictment won’t get caught.

The current state in PA of mandating background checks for Sunday school coordinator, janitor, etc. is ridiculous.

Color me confused....

[Josh]

One interpretation of PA law is that a background check is required for virtually any person, right down to someone who holds the door open and passes out bulletins. There is about zero compliance with this.

None of this has ever gone to court so nobody even really knows what is lawful. No other states have done a law as egregious as PA’s, and more importantly, it wouldn’t stop and abuse anyway.

Personally I would be paranoid and order background checks in every single member and visitor if I ran a church in PA. At the same time, I would consider the demands to do so to be unlawful.

[steve-in-kville]

One interpretation of PA law is that a background check is required for virtually any person, right down to someone who holds the door open and passes out bulletins. There is about zero compliance with this.

None of this has ever gone to court so nobody even really knows what is lawful. No other states have done a law as egregious as PA’s, and more importantly, it wouldn’t stop and abuse anyway.

Personally I would be paranoid and order background checks in every single member and visitor if I ran a church in PA. At the same time, I would consider the demands to do so to be unlawful.

I kinda think our church requires children's Sunday School teachers to have their checks. And even above that, we have a list of policies they must abide by, such as classroom doors must have windows in them and so on.