Welcoming a convicted sex offender into the church
Foolish Hoon
Shipmate Posts: 27
in Purgatory
For my sins, I am in charge of safeguarding at my church.
I have been contacted by the probation service, to say that a man with a past conviction wants to join our congregation on Sundays.
Initially, I thought "well, God welcomes sinners, so we should too" but then I googled this man and his crimes are sickening. He was sentenced to 16 years in prison (is on probation after serving half his sentence). One of my children fits the profile of his victim.
So now I am realising that it is all well and good believing that we should welcome the lost and marginalised, but a very different thing to actually do it.
Is the sex offender the modern-day equivalent of the tax collector (ie those seen by the majority as being beyond the pale, and definitely not the sort that God wants anything to do with, so exactly the sort of people Jesus is (and therefore we should be) interested in)? Or is this a completely different type of scenario where the idea of him ever expecting to fit into any community where there are vulnerable people is completely unrealistic?
Obviously, if he came, there would be some sort of agreement in place whereby he was not permitted to interact with certain categories of vulnerable people, but even the thought of him being there, looking, and wondering what thoughts are going through his mind, makes me want to leave the church and never go back. I honestly don't know if I could worship alongside this man, knowing what he has done, and never really knowing whether he is sorry for it. How would we even go about assessing whether this man is genuinely repentant / reformed, so as not to put anyone else in danger?
I am inclined to say we simply cannot accommodate him - the easy option from my perspective. But how can people like him ever be saved if a church will not take them in?
Does anyone on the Ship have experience of this, or any wisdom to share?
I have been contacted by the probation service, to say that a man with a past conviction wants to join our congregation on Sundays.
Initially, I thought "well, God welcomes sinners, so we should too" but then I googled this man and his crimes are sickening. He was sentenced to 16 years in prison (is on probation after serving half his sentence). One of my children fits the profile of his victim.
So now I am realising that it is all well and good believing that we should welcome the lost and marginalised, but a very different thing to actually do it.
Is the sex offender the modern-day equivalent of the tax collector (ie those seen by the majority as being beyond the pale, and definitely not the sort that God wants anything to do with, so exactly the sort of people Jesus is (and therefore we should be) interested in)? Or is this a completely different type of scenario where the idea of him ever expecting to fit into any community where there are vulnerable people is completely unrealistic?
Obviously, if he came, there would be some sort of agreement in place whereby he was not permitted to interact with certain categories of vulnerable people, but even the thought of him being there, looking, and wondering what thoughts are going through his mind, makes me want to leave the church and never go back. I honestly don't know if I could worship alongside this man, knowing what he has done, and never really knowing whether he is sorry for it. How would we even go about assessing whether this man is genuinely repentant / reformed, so as not to put anyone else in danger?
I am inclined to say we simply cannot accommodate him - the easy option from my perspective. But how can people like him ever be saved if a church will not take them in?
Does anyone on the Ship have experience of this, or any wisdom to share?
Comments
But, I think the first piece of advice is don't take on the burden alone. Talk to the minister and elders (or equivalents in your tradition). If the decision is to accommodate him then this will be a significant amount of work for the whole church, or at least those in some position of authority who will actually need to set any requirements for him and confirm they're followed. Though, of course, there'll also be requirements to maintain anonymity for the man should he come ... which presents even more work, especially if the congregation is one that will welcome him, make not coming through for coffee after the service an impossibility and generally interacting with him in a way that may not be wise.
I'd also note that on several occasions I've preached on the subject of love as being something that involves risk and potential for harm. The Good Samaritan stopped on a clearly dangerous road (the evidence of the dangers is lying in the ditch, in the form of a man beaten to near death), gets down on his knees and gives his attention to the injured man thus exposing himself to attack, and puts him on his donkey to slowly travel to the inn staying on the dangerous road for longer. But, also that's preaching from the position of not being faced with the realities of the risk of loving others - much as you relate facing actually doing it.
I'm glad I'm not in that position. You have my prayers as you struggle with a real dilemma.
What did cause a problem was that he wasn't merely local but had been a member of our Boys' Brigade years before. He was recognised by a number of older church members who were very wary of him and said, "If news of this gets out, our church's reputation will be mud". However I was able to alleviate their fears by explaining that we were well aware of who he was and that we had taken the appropriate measures. In fact when, later on, the man was dying in hospital (nothing to do with STDs etc) they visited him several times and then came to his funeral.
What was worse was a young man who insinuated himself into our choir and close to some people. Fortunately we got a phone call from another church warning us about him and, as he wasn't bright enough to disguise his name, a casual internet searched revealed his murky past. As soon as we raised questions with him, he scarpered - but we were lucky.
I understand your revulsion; do these comments help at all? FWIW I understand that the Probation Service are keen to get these offenders into appropriate social situations as being alone increases the risk of them reoffending.
Our Place (some years ago) had a member of the congregation who was convicted of a sex offence (not against anyone underage). He wasn't jailed, but he was fined, and put on the sex offenders register for five years.
He continued to worship with us on Sundays and some weekdays, BUT under the sort of agreement to which you refer, worked out by the Parochial Church Council and priest-in-charge (we're C of E), in consultation with our Diocesan Safeguarding Team - who were very helpful indeed.
It's a hard thing to have to deal with (I was Parish Reader, and on the PCC, at the time - as well as giving some moral support to the man concerned, a personal friend, at his various court appearances), so I sympathise with your feelings, given that your example is so much worse. Don't get me wrong - ANY sex offence is bad, and immensely harmful.
Without going into any details of the case you're faced with, I assume that your incumbent/minister/PCC/equivalent are involved in working out what to do about the man? In other words, the final decision as to what to do is possibly not yours alone?
(Note to Hosts & Admins - is this thread perhaps better in Epiphanies?)
Mrs CD, together with the Safeguarding Officer, the Church Wardens and other ministers arranged that the young man would sit with his family during services (something he did prior to his conviction) and that at least one us would spend time talking to him during the post service coffee session. He also had to sign an agreement regarding his conduct at church, i.e. avoiding contact with young children and teenagers etc.
This worked quite well and was still in effect when Mrs CD and I moved on to retirement.
I understand why you would say that but it seems to me to place too much trust in an overstretched probation system. There's also the matter of facilitating attendance at church in a way that is compatible with any limitations placed on the offender by the probation service.
Some time ago, our parish had an occasional attender who was arrested for a child sex offence. His wife and child were regulars; he was probably there once a month or so.
When he was charged with this offence, the priest had a conversation with him, and told him:
1. He was obviously required to abide by any legal restrictions placed on him, and we needed to know what those were.
2. He was required to attend the earlier service on a Sunday, that mostly attracts older people, rather than the later service that has most of the families.
3. He was expected to keep his distance from the children at church: don't sit near children in church, don't talk to children during coffee, and so on.
His arrest was public knowledge, and so the priest addressed the congregation on the topic, discussing both the arrangements that were made for him to continue to be able to attend church whilst restricting his contact with children, and reminding the congregation not to spread gossip, particularly in regard to any members of the local press that might come around asking questions.
Anyone with a conviction for a child sex offense is going to fail the background check that we do on anyone that wants to volunteer to work with children in any way. That is precisely a "limitation that we place on an individual who has served their sentence".
In my post, I was referring to limitations that would be placed in conjunction with the probation service. It has been made clear that the probation service will be involved in the way in which the man is integrated into the congregation, and the limitations will likely match those that he is under in his daily life.
Working with serious offenders of any kind is emotionally demanding. But once you get to know a person it is somewhat easier, because you cease to see just the offence you see a whole person, however damaged.
In terms of ethics, we know if people are appropriately reintegrated into the community - there is a lower chance of them reoffending. It may help to know, that trying to do this safely is helping to prevent future victims.
The big difference here is that the risk @Foolish Hoon is being asked to manage is not primarily to himself but to others. We'd have a very different impression of the Good Risk Averse Samaritan if he sent others to aid the man in the parable. Risking harm to others is a very different proposition than risking harm to yourself.
There are two great lies. I didn't mean it and I'm not that person now.
Is it within your gift to state categorically that these are lies? It may well be so in some cases, I agree...
Basically, there is no community that has no vulnerable members.
That is probably known and knowable only to God.
Probation do formal assessments of recidivism risk, which is not in and of itself necessarily related to repentance. If you know about someone, and the circumstances of their offending, you can work out in what scenarios they are most at risk of reoffending. Some factors may be environmental - like being employed as a teacher (so you bar them from that), and some maybe personal such as - if this person starts using heroin again, or has a relationship breakup etc.
What a church can primarily do is manage the environment - so can’t come to family and child events, can’t do children’s work etc.
Beyond that, I’ll simply note one part of your post that caught my attention: This is a legitimate question, and I think it perhaps raises a parallel question, along the lines of “How can the church be faithful to Christ if a church will not take them in?”
To be clear, I don’t mean to assume that question (or a similar question) hasn’t been asked. And I definitely don’t mean to suggest that not taking someone like the person you’re talking about in means a church is being unfaithful. The church must also care for the people already there, especially children, not to mention those who may have been abused themselves. (And church leaders may have no idea who those people are, but it’s not unreasonable to assume they’re there; as @Doublethink says, the likelihood of no vulnerable people already in the church is pretty much nil.)
I simply mean to suggest that situations like this don’t only raise questions about the person on the sex offender registry, they also raise questions about how the church can be faithful, and I think any decision has consequences for a church.
I doubt there are ever easy answers; frankly I’d be pretty skeptical of easy answers. But I think there are hard questions worth wrestling with.
The latter always is. Though we add to the story with new experience and edit it constantly. So we're denying an aging edit every time. And the edits, the takes, are always in our favour.
This is really basic stuff.
And the former always is too.
Never give yourself the benefit of the doubt.
The heart is deceitful above all things...
Apologies to @Foolish Hoon for perhaps straying from the case in point.
This is amazing! Thank you for sharing it with us.
This is nothing to do with someone being repentant or reformed. All of the published research into people who commit offences of this kind shows that the chances of permanent behavioural modification are small.
In one of my previous jobs, I taught a fellow who was a convicted sex offender who abused children. In the context of our school, this was not a risk factor. I did not know this about his past until, one day, he pulled me aside before the day's classes were to begin, told me a bit about his background, and said that he didn't feel safe that day. He didn't want to be in the class with anyone and he was also afraid that me might just leave school to find a child. He and I agreed that he would park himself in my office (which I could see from the classroom); we would get in touch with his support worker; and he would not go anywhere until he had seen her.
He absolutely did not want to reoffend. He was grateful for the meds that helped him manage his impulse. He showed me that a sex offender can be a broken and contrite human being. And, at the same time, the larger community needs to be protected, because in spite of all his best desires, he, alone, could not protect those around him.
I tell this story because this was a person who truly wanted to change, was grateful for the tools that could help him, and still was, in many ways, powerless. He was also self-aware enough to ask for help. The larger community had to protect both him and that larger community from himself. He changed my attitude about sex offenders. I can no longer paint all of them as evil devils. Are some of them? Yes, probably many are. However, not all.
AND we need to be vigilant because even those who want to change their behaviour are, as @TheOrganist says, extremely unlikely to be able to do so.
I certainly would not take the decision alone and, whilst we don't have a diocese or other higher authority than our own trustees/leadership team, we do take advice from thirtyone-eight (formerly the Churches Child Protection Advisory Service, which in my view was a better name as at least it contained a clue about what they do, although it missed out other vulnerable groups. I digress).
The Exeter Diocese pdf linked above is very good as a framework, I think.
Based on that, I need to speak with the probation officer to find out what measures the man needs to have in place, then consider with other leaders in the church and the safeguarding experts whether we can reliably put those measures in place.
And I agree with @Martin54 who has clarified the "test" (if there could ever be such a thing) for repentance: if he doesn't own his crimes but tries to wave them off as "in the past / different times / I was under a lot of strain at the time" - anything other than "Lord have mercy on me, a sinner", I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
If he doesn't trust himself, as per @questioning 's student, that would be a "good" sign.
Never. You have got to be joking. Yes, people develop, become self-knowing, self-understanding; extremely rare pearls form on grit. Such would be the first to say that they should forever bear the mark of Cain. The guy who rings me up is not among them. I know a probation officer who refused to let our church accept a probationer from attending at all, under any circumstances, up against clerical naivete. There was no doubt to benefit. We work as a single immune system with regard to safeguarding in all situations. My cleaner used to bring her little boy, he tried playing in my office, would shut the door, hide under tables. All very cute. I locked him out. I am very old school when it's just me and any woman in the office. Which creates conflict! : ) My two day a week female colleague (the child worker!) insists on closing the door to keep the heat in! And the noise (from the playschool in the next room!) out. I know from that and other indicators that she feels completely safe with me. Even so I feel exposed in some situations. I am male and a potential risk, end of. I'm known to be very helpful (<<< modest virtue signalling...) beyond the church estate to the widows and others. Known is the word. Everything must be done in plain sight, with witnesses, if it can't be, it must be reported. I've had interactions with young women coming to me and always report that. It's great that they feel safe, but they must actually be safe. I'd make a great Val McDermid monster. I've been working on a novel based on church experience for years, as the longest serving 'soup kitchen' (two for a period) volunteer in one overlapping with this. Which includes a subtle safeguarding failure.
You . cannot . be . too . collectively . careful .
I prefer to think the best of people, but sometimes that's naive. Giving an offender the benefit of doubt could be unfair to them as well in that they could be put in a position where they were more likely to be unsafe.
(Sorry, I'm not sure I've expressed what I'm trying to say very clearly, having been on the receiving end of questionable behaviour I find this topic vitally important, and very difficult).
Yes, I second what @BroJames says, having been on *thirty-one eight* courses in my Diocese. They are experienced and very helpful.
Well, I take your point, and will change tack so as to agree (albeit very reluctantly) with you and @Martin54 .
I haven't been through the experiences that you have both had, so I admit that I was probably speaking out of turn, as it were.
If the person is allowed to participate in church, it cannot be with the freedom other congregants experience. And the responsibility of maintaining the safety of the worshipers should not rest on one or only a few volunteers or staff.
This is why the Church of England, at least, has such a comprehensive (though never 100% foolproof) safeguarding system.
I was involved in another safeguarding issue, dating back many years, which I placed before our then newly-licensed priest-in-charge. He then took it upstairs, so to speak, to the Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser, and we proceeded from there. As it happens, it didn't progress very far, as the person affected eventually said that they didn't want to rake over old coals, and that decision had to be honoured.
I completely agree with you @Kendel.
The balance between keeping everyone safe and protecting privacy is sometimes fine.
Should the whole church, or everyone with a young daughter or just a select group be made aware of the situation?
I can foresee that if people aren't generally made aware, if they subsequently find out, it could break down trust as people might feel they have been put at risk.
I recall a situation when I was growing up where a man who had used prostitutes was in our church. I didn't know this about him, but my Dad did and on noticing how the guy liked to work as a greeter, and kiss all the young ladies as they arrived, Dad very sternly warned me to come in through the side door and avoid him. I didn't know why, but I trusted my Dad - but of course this was in the days before the concept of safeguarding was widely applied, so I guess Dad felt he'd done his job. (I found out the truth many years later when the man had died.)
And in an attempt to be welcoming, churchgoers can be open to deception.
I know there are many safeguards in place, but anyone who is inclined to deviant behaviour in its various forms would probably be able to find ample opportunity.
At least a known offender on Probation would have his/ her card marked and conditions put in place and strictly monitored. But the risk is high.
This. In our case we were told that it was a strictly "need to know" basis.
I think “thinking the best of other people” probably isn’t the bast framing here. Wanting the best for them, perhaps? Being honest—with them and ourselves—about what they’ve done and what we know that too often means for future behavior, yet wanting to support them, which can include being someone who’ll hold them accountable for present behavior? And being vigilant with regard to everyone.
Much like what @questioning described.
In the case I mentioned earlier, the chap concerned was featured in the local paper (complete with photograph) after his conviction. Whilst he was making court appearances etc., it was all sub judice, although the priest-in-charge knew that the man had been arrested and charged
I told the priest-in-charge (the egregious Father F***wit, sometimes mentioned on these boards) what had happened as soon as I got home from the final court hearing. This was on a Monday, but the churchwardens (who surely of all people had a right to know) only found out when they read the newspaper on the following Friday. Father F had not only failed to tell them, but had also failed to contact the Diocesan Safeguarding Team.
In my innocence, I assumed that he would immediately tell those who needed to know, so the trust and confidence lost by many people on this occasion was trust and confidence in the priest-in-charge. The offender stuck to the conditions we laid down for him, although he left the area a year or so later - we had had no trouble with him in the meantime.
As long as no one in a target group or responsible for a vulnerable person in one, in any service or church activity, is unknowingly in the presence of a dangerous predator.