Church attendance by offenders

[Judas Maccabeus]

I read this blog post.

Does anyone here expect someone to be banned from even attending because they are on an offender’s list? We really don’t check out everyone who walks through the door.

We do have rules as to close contact with children. But just attending ?

[barnhart]

I read this blog post.

Does anyone here expect someone to be banned from even attending because they are on an offender’s list? We really don’t check out everyone who walks through the door.

We do have rules as to close contact with children. But just attending ?

We have asked someone to leave and guarded the door against his return, who has not yet legally committed a crime but repeatedly follows young women to their homes. I think there is a time and place for it.

This may be good analogy for more active or violent types of assault, when the perpetrator repeatedly gets the benefit of the doubt, the victims and potential victims get the message they are less important. When I realized this I had to repent and track down several young women, one who left partly for that reason, to apologize and affirm they were right.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I read this blog post.

Does anyone here expect someone to be banned from even attending because they are on an offender’s list? We really don’t check out everyone who walks through the door.

We do have rules as to close contact with children. But just attending ?

We have asked someone to leave and guarded the door against his return, who has not yet legally committed a crime but repeatedly follows young women to their homes. I think there is a time and place for it.

This may be good analogy for more active or violent types of assault, when the perpetrator repeatedly gets the benefit of the doubt, the victims and potential victims get the message they are less important. When I realized this I had to repent and track down several young women, one who left partly for that reason, to apologize and affirm they were right.

Yes, I would agree with that approach, in that circumstance. The person you reference is actually causing a problem, and clearly you need to address the situation. I was thinking more of a person who is not misbehaving, just coming for the service. Do you ban him simply because he is on the list because of deeds in the past. Certainly I would oppose such in ministry or leadership, but simply coming for the services? I struggle with where to draw the line.

[Sliceitup]

I read this blog post.

Does anyone here expect someone to be banned from even attending because they are on an offender’s list? We really don’t check out everyone who walks through the door.

We do have rules as to close contact with children. But just attending ?

If someone is on a registered offenders list then I think it’s reasonable that they not be allowed to attend.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I read this blog post.

Does anyone here expect someone to be banned from even attending because they are on an offender’s list? We really don’t check out everyone who walks through the door.

We do have rules as to close contact with children. But just attending ?

If someone is on a registered offenders list then I think it’s reasonable that they not be allowed to attend.

Guardrails and limits need be put in place. But I am not willing to prescribe a lifetime ban. Each case would need be evaluated carefully on its own. People almost certainly would need be informed.

However, it is not the registered offender that everyone knows about that is most likely to commit such an act. It is one of the relatives or a close friend of the family, statistically most abuse is within people who know each other.

[JohnH]

Someone on a registered offenders' list should be guided to find a church home that is a good fit for them. (You could talk to the folks at Chambersburg Christian Fellowship about this, who have good experience with this matter.)

Someone who has offended against a child who attends church somewhere, etc., should really not expect to attend that church for a very long time, if ever, and I would consider them choosing not to do so to be a sign of repentance. If they keep showing up anyway, or else the leadership won't do something to prevent this, then the family of the abused person should pack up and go elsewhere.

It is completely unreasonable to expect someone to attend the same congregation as their abuser, particularly if their abuser is not particularly repentant.

However, it is not the registered offender that everyone knows about that is most likely to commit such an act. It is one of the relatives or a close friend of the family, statistically most abuse is within people who know each other.

In plain circles, that is often exactly who a registered offender is. In some plain circles (not all), there has been a poor history of expecting victims to continue to attend the same congregation as someone who has been duly convicted at law (and is now a registered offender), with criticism levelled at them for being "unforgiving" if they aren't willing to do so.

To give an example of how absurd this is, I once learned there was an expectation to keep it "private" when someone had been caught by the police in a prostitition sting, complete with showing up in the police blotter in a local newspaper.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Someone on a registered offenders' list should be guided to find a church home that is a good fit for them. (You could talk to the folks at Chambersburg Christian Fellowship about this, who have good experience with this matter.)

Absolutely. We should NEVER let a perpetrator attend the same church as their victim. In our area, a group called "Sovereign Grace" had a practice of this, and even coerced very young victims to meet with the perpetrator to receive his apology and offer forgiveness. THIS WAS INSANE. The group has since fractured in multiple ways.

We have connections at Chambersburg, and their pattern is a working model. We have not had this problem (yet), but many strangers come to our services, events, and other activities. We just put rules in place that limit access to only those we know and trust.

We will have our first service in our new building, which we just bought from the Roman Catholic Church this week. This is going to present multiple challenges. For me, the first challange will be leading singing. This week is my week in the rotation. That place is X3 the size of our current building.

[barnhart]

I affirm this discussion. I think we often confuse forgiveness with consequences. The former is good and right but some consequences always remain even after the best efforts at restoration, especially in cases of sex related power abuse. To deny this is to put the burden back on the victim.

[temporal1]

For many years, i’ve had queasy thoughts about wondering what might be on any stranger’s (and known folk’s) minds AND PHONES.
Because, years ago, it was so regularly reported, offenders OFTEN have thousands+thousands of porn images+videos IN THEIR POCKETS, on busses, in offices, sitting in church pews.

Not to mention what has not been found (by law enforcement). IN POCKETS. a child can have it.

i don’t know what is legal or not, there is a lot of graphic imagery that’s in open public. including schools+libraries.

But i wonder specifically about what’s on phones in pockets everywhere.
While casually sitting and interacting with children.

This consciousness is what’s hurting innocent boys, teens, adults. (As Neto described elsewhere.)
And as i’ve witnessed happening with young men in my real life. The innocent are harmed - and they don’t like it!

i believe some laws require some offenders not be anywhere near children.
how churches comply, is quite a challenge. again, the innocent are burdened due to SIN of others.
it IS a burden. it changes community dynamics.

SIN has a high price.

[temporal1]

I affirm this discussion. I think we often confuse forgiveness with consequences. The former is good and right but some consequences always remain even after the best efforts at restoration, especially in cases of sex related power abuse. To deny this is to put the burden back on the victim.

yes. my takeaway from every MD-MN discussion on this has been, this is the consensus.
i’m remembering appleman and others firmly describing their fellowship rules+methods.