Anabaptist Sex Offender Watch List

[steve-in-kville]

I am not crazy about this idea either. It gets into witch hunt territory really quick. And old fashioned McCarthyism.

I'm on the same boat. This is why Megan's List exists. Let it wind its way through the court system. We already use the Child Protection System as a weapon, we don't need our own self-regulated list.

[Grace]

Will a person who did something minor in his young years, repented and never engaged in appropriate behavior for 20 years, be put on the list? So many questions.

For the record, I do not agree with this watch list concept as it currently stands at all. I do feel certain recent events have made some people feel like it is necessary.

However, I don't see why someone who did something minor in his young years, repented, and never offended again should be ashamed for that fact to be public. Don't all of us have a Christian testimony?

My testimony is that I used to live a life of drunkenness and fornication when I was 32. Whilst those aren't crimes, they are grievous sins in the eyes of God. I was born again when I was 32. I fell back into sin a month later. I confessed it and was not private at all about my failings. Through God's grace and through the power of "confess your sins one to another that ye may be healed", I have not fallen into fornication since.

Instead of trying to cover up the past or pretend it never happened, we should claim 1 Corinthians 6 - "and such were some of you, but now ye are washed". And if we were open about our past "moral failings", then there wouldn't be a need for a watch list. I would not be offended at all if, for example, someone felt I wasn't a good fit for a missionary position because of my past. And I would not be secretive about someone considering me for a missionary position trying to find out about my past activities.

There is a difference between being secretive or just not talking about past sins. As a young person, a woman from our church committed adultery. She confessed, repented and never did it again, but went on to be a Godly woman, wife and mother. We know this happened, but no one talks about it, including her. Is she being secretive, absolutely not. If someone has truly repented, and no longer is committing sins, there is no need to talk about it, and neither does it make it a secret.

[Grace]

I am not crazy about this idea either. It gets into witch hunt territory really quick. And old fashioned McCarthyism.

I'm on the same boat. This is why Megan's List exists. Let it wind its way through the court system. We already use the Child Protection System as a weapon, we don't need our own self-regulated list.

"Self regulated". Not sure it would even be that?

[Ken]

This is the kind of thing that will inevitably happen when the authorities (church and secular) do NOT take adequate action to protect children and others who are vulnerable.

CAM and the Churches and other similar organizations who work with children should look to what the public schools do. Public schools do not keep some "watch list" of potentially problematic teachers whom they are going to "keep an eye on". They work with the authorities to investigate and remove any individuals who engage in any kind of abusive behavior, whether mild or severe. Are there those who slip through the cracks? Of course. But rarely with the knowledge of the authorities. And in cases where there may be rumors that are difficult to substantiate a teacher might simply be asked to leave. And while instances of sex abuse do still crop up in the public schools, they are remarkably rare compared to say the Catholic Church. And generally speaking, parents tend to have confidence that it will be dealt with and rooted out.

Schools are becoming increasingly aggressive and sophisticated about teaching this topic during both teacher and administrator training. And, within the schools they are becoming increasingly sophisticated about teaching children how to identify and report dangerous activity. Is it perfect? No. But they are moving in the right direction. And consequently you don't ever hear about parents taking it on themselves to create ad-hoc watch lists of problematic teachers or school employees.

Sex offender registries are those who have actually been convicted of felony sex abuse, assault, or rape of some kind. You do not get "put on" such lists based on rumor. It is simply a condition of being convicted of a sex offense. Even those are sometimes problematic and overreaching and sometimes apply when they shouldn't. For example, a 17 year old boy with a 16 year old girlfriend might be guilty of statutory rape the day he turns 18. Or a girl who texts explicit photos to her boyfriend could be guilty of distributing child pornography. Kids caught up in those sorts of situations and convicted by aggressive DAs have found themselves on sex offender registries for life when no one thinks they pose any type of danger to society.

We already have mechanisms for this sort of thing. There are statutes of limitations for various crimes. Report them to the correct authorities. Don't expect church authorities who are unequipped to deal with these crimes to be able to deal with them. They have neither the training, the authority, or the tools. And if the local laws or local authorities are inadequate to the task? Work to improve them. Your children's lives depend on it.

[Ken]

Will a person who did something minor in his young years, repented and never engaged in appropriate behavior for 20 years, be put on the list? So many questions.

For the record, I do not agree with this watch list concept as it currently stands at all. I do feel certain recent events have made some people feel like it is necessary.

However, I don't see why someone who did something minor in his young years, repented, and never offended again should be ashamed for that fact to be public. Don't all of us have a Christian testimony?

My testimony is that I used to live a life of drunkenness and fornication when I was 32. Whilst those aren't crimes, they are grievous sins in the eyes of God. I was born again when I was 32. I fell back into sin a month later. I confessed it and was not private at all about my failings. Through God's grace and through the power of "confess your sins one to another that ye may be healed", I have not fallen into fornication since.

Instead of trying to cover up the past or pretend it never happened, we should claim 1 Corinthians 6 - "and such were some of you, but now ye are washed". And if we were open about our past "moral failings", then there wouldn't be a need for a watch list. I would not be offended at all if, for example, someone felt I wasn't a good fit for a missionary position because of my past. And I would not be secretive about someone considering me for a missionary position trying to find out about my past activities.

There is a difference between being secretive or just not talking about past sins. As a young person, a woman from our church committed adultery. She confessed, repented and never did it again, but went on to be a Godly woman, wife and mother. We know this happened, but no one talks about it, including her. Is she being secretive, absolutely not. If someone has truly repented, and no longer is committing sins, there is no need to talk about it, and neither does it make it a secret.

And there is a difference between sin and crime. And a difference between respecting privacy and covering up crime. In your example, the young woman committed no crime, she endangered no children, and she posed no future risk of endangering children or any other victims in the future. Church members who respect her privacy aren't covering up a crime or protecting a predator or placing anyone else at risk.

[Grace]

[Josh]

I don’t think adultery is a sin that needs kept secret, though. There are some things that a former chronic adulterer, now repentant, simply shouldn’t do.

If things are secret we have no idea who is chronic. If I had committed adultery in the past I would not hide it - it would be part of my testimony of how Jesus changed and washed me.

[Grace]

And there is a difference between sin and crime. And a difference between respecting privacy and covering up crime. In your example, the young woman committed no crime, she endangered no children, and she posed no future risk of endangering children or any other victims in the future. Church members who respect her privacy aren't covering up or protecting a predator or placing anyone else at risk.

Thanks Ken. I was referring to Josh's past sins, that weren't a crime. You are right that sins that are also crimes need to be exposed and revealed.

[RZehr]

I think a watch list based on anything short of conviction is a ridiculous idea on multiple levels, one very simple one being that lawsuits would shut it right down.

[Ken]

I think a watch list based on anything short of conviction is a ridiculous idea on multiple levels, one very simple one being that lawsuits would shut it right down.

Anyone wrongly accused would have a very good case of libel. And damages if the false information affected their career or life in any way.