Child molesters and other perpetrators in church?

Barring the man from church is not the only answer or necessarily the best answer. Although it is best for a molester not to attend the same church with his victim, it is almost impossible to mandate a church without a children's ministry or children.

The whole purpose is to prevent his molesting again without any margin of error. This can be done through accountability and supervision but, of course, this is what should have been in place, to a lesser degree, before the first incidence. A church can prevent molestation on its watch by good accountability and supervision policies. If a known sex offender attends, the accountability and supervision is increased to cover the possibilities even to 100% supervision by an accountable adult (e.g. deacon). He enters and leaves through a certain door. He sits in a visible place preferrable with the responsible party. Certain parts of the facility are off limits and he is monitored upon arrivial until he leaves. This is work but it's safe.

The real problem is not the known sex offender but it is the unknown opportunistic offender who takes advantage of the lack of vigilance. The church's best option is to be proactive. There is a window of opportunity for prevention before the incidence occurs. This is our failing. After the offense, it becomes a criminal matter for the criminal justice system.

I have been in church with a known and convicted child molester. He was never, never alone with children.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree :thumbs: with all that you have said.
Note: I assumed it would be christian counseling not secular counseling

 

I didn't deliberately drop two words. I quoted what you said. The "being there" part doesn't make it harassment, and you know that. And that doesn't change what you said.

There's nothing to forgive because I did nothing wrong. I did not deliberately want to misunderstand, and so you have falsely accused me.

When you say to tell the judge something that isn't true (that he is harassing by being there, even if he isn't ... or whatever you want to construe those words to mean this time), you are encouraging perjury, and it shameful for Christians to do such thing. The truth is you probably dont' have to say he is harassing. You can go to the judge and get a restraining order without that accusation.

 

With this I agree whole-heartidly!

As a youth pastor, I promoted vigilence and prevention... We had one that was accused, and we were very vigilant when he came to church.

Children are too precious for it to even happen the first time.
I'm one for cameras in classrooms. 2 or 3 adults per class, windows in every class. 2 adults on vans. Background checks, etc.

Let's prevent it while still ministering to sinners. It can be done, but it takes wisdom and work.

 

No we tell the truth, we be honest in our actions which includes reading every word in a post, not cut and pasting then conjuring up false accusations. It is shameful for christians to do such a thing

 

Kris,

your post definitely gave the impression to several of us that you were saying the church ought to SAY the guy is harrassing people even if he isn't. Just being at the church is not enough to say he is harrassing........especially if the victim is no longer at the church. HOWEVER, if that is not what you meant to say then fine....Im glad you would not suggest lying to a judge, and that you did not mean you have judges who go along with your church in these sorts of things. For the most part I do not think there would ever be a need for a church as a whole to seek a restraining order against an individual. The one who was victimized can do so, and that should be sufficient. Beyond that, if an individual has been asked not to attend services there, and still insists on showing up, I believe the pastor has the right to call the police and claim trespass.

No one falsely accused you. Perhaps it would be best if you clarified yourself a bit more, that's all.

 

Untrue. I have continued to attempt to clarify myself as this thread has only grown and grown. There isn't much more I can do.
The church can say legally under certain situations, that just being on the premesis is harasment. You need to look up the legal definition of harrasment, (however it's spelled ) as just being present on church premesis in certain situation IS harassment. It makes no difference what our opinions of the definition is. It would take too long to type out every scinereo, and I am at home working. Maybe in certain situations as you mentioned it is trespassing also.
I am glad you finally admitted to this outrageous story :laugh: raise:
It speaks for itself.

 

Dear me, there was no outrageous story.



Where's the duct tape for my skull?

 

Good question. lol

 

El_Guero, agree with your position on this issue.

BTW, if anyone wants to look up registered sex offenders and see if any live around you or your church, here's the site:

http://www.familywatchdog.us/

Don't know if anyone has mentioned this or not, but I believe if there is a registered sex offender attending or who has membership in a church, the membership should be informed and be made aware.

The church should not be a safe haven for child sex abusers. No matter what. Also, if preachers would stand up in the pulpit and preach about pornography, including child pornography, there would probably be a lot of toes stepped on. Pornography and pedophilia seem to go together more often than not.

 

On what biblical grounds would you do this?

 

How about the grounds of common decency for the church? How about complying with civil law? Doesn't convicted child molesters have to register with the law enforcement community when they relocate to another area? I don't think convicted child molesters are allowed within so many feet of a church or playground or school etc. around here. Maybe I'm wrong. IF so... would't the pastor be obeying the civil law? I hope this never happens to a member of anyone else's family, but if it did, I think you would have a completely different opinion.

 

I think the pastor and deacons ought to be made aware, and there should be some sort of accountability happening. If the case is ongoing.......as in the man is under investigation and is being disciplined by the church than by all means the membership ought to know. Otherwise, as in after the man has been released and IF the person is repentant, and IF the person is going to be allowed to become a member of the church than the pastor and deacons are the only ones who ought to know. This is along with the understanding that he will be supervised at all times he is on church property.

Think about it, do we inform the entire membership when a convicted murderer joins our church? Do we tell everyone that a person is a known gossip? These are also listed as sins which God hates.....so I do not think Im minimizing the heinous sin of abuse against children.

 

Most states have a law that child molesters have to register with the local law enforcement agency. That is public information. Most states prohibit child molesters from being within so much of a distance from a church or school, playground etc. That law would prohibit them from attending a church where children were present. I think there is a difference here Bapt. Mom. If the law of the land can see where this is a necessity, and have made it law.... we are required to obey the authorities. Again, you are speaking as one who has not had to walk in the shoes of the family of the victim.

 

Acts 20: [28] Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

[29] For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

An underShepherd would watch out for the flock, especially the little lambs, to keep them from the company of wolves.

Accountability to the pastor and deacons is great, but the pastor and deacons can't be in all places at all times. Pity the unsuspecting, uninformed parent who lets their precious one alone for even an instant with a child molester who is a trusted member of the unaware congregation. The more of the membership who know, the safer the little souls will be from predators, is my point.

So you don't let the membership know. Is the church or are the pastor/deacons then ready to handle the potential outcome of having victim(s) should that happen? Ready to handle the lawsuits for not letting the membership know, should the unmentionable happen under your watch? The media, the ruined testimony of the local fellowship? Or the loss of your building and any assets due to a civil suit?

Some states do have laws that prohibit convicted sex offenders from being around schools and churches.

Also, what Baptist churches does anyone know of which do background checks on SS teachers, Awana leaders, VBS teachers, youth pastors, assistant pastors, even pastors, day care workers - anyone working with our precious children? Most times, a lot of these are "voluntary" positions. What if a registered sex offender is already a member, and no one knows about it? What if the pastor and deacons don't know? Most members are accepted into Baptist churches and extended the right hand of fellowship either by baptism, a "statement of faith," or a letter from a previous church. Does anyone check backgrounds? No, of course not. The sheep oftentimes are typically dumb and unaware of the wolves creeping in amongst us. And there are plenty.

Yes, the pastor (underShepherd) in today's world has a lot on his plate. Communities need to know where the registered sex offenders are and local churches need to know if there are any among them. It's not a matter of forgiveness. It's a matter of stewardship.

 

LadyEagle,

all the pastors and all the deacons would not have to be in all places at once. As I said, the offender would have to be supervised at all times he was on the property. I do not think that is leaving the wolf free in the sheepfold. WHen I say supervised I mean one specific person of authority is assigned by the pastor to be WITH the person at all times.....even in the bathroom.

Yes, too often our pastors are just assuming the person is being supervised........but that is an area I think we need to work on. That is why I specified what I did.


reformed....forgive me, I don't mean this in a rude or condescending way.....but you don't actually know what Ive experienced. As Ive said before, I do not stand up for predators. Im talking about people who are trying to be forgiven and people who want to prove that they have overcome this and repented of it. If a person objects to the sort of supervision Ive mentioned than I think they ought to be ostracized from the church....they aren't willing to do what it takes to get right and to stay right.

and reformed, I had not even remembered that part about state law prohibiting offenders from being in a church where kids are.......I remember it applying to schools, but does it also apply to church? If so then our whole discussion here is moot. I suppose an offender with a good record with his PO could ask for permission to attend church, but then the church would have to provide accurate supervision as Ive already suggested they do.

In my state they have approved chaperones........people who agree to be with the offender on any outing he might make. Anyone can apply for this, so I suppose the pastor could and should get a member of his church approved as a chaperone for when this person attends services. It could also be that he is limited to one or two services during the week, and not allowed to just hang out at the church.

 

LadyEagle,

let me say too, I agree that its unconsionable for one church to let an offender go to another church and not tell that pastor who he is and what he has done. Once the pastor knows though, it is up to that pastor to police the offender.....to be sure that he is not alone on the property, ever. Im not saying the pastor must be the chaperone, but that he must delegate that responsibility to someone he trusts, if not doing it himself.

My whole point is that if the offender is properly supervised than there is no need for the entire church to know his past. Enough will know already, most likely. Also, with this sort of supervision if the supervisor sees any problem starting with the reoffender then he can and must immediately go to the pastor and inform him and the offender has to stay home.

btw, I do know of churches that do background checks on those they are considering for teaching positions.