Open Discussion regarding Sex Offfenders and Church Attendence

[Danny J Goff]

I recently have reported to a local SDA church that a convicted sex offender has been attending their church for the last 15 years. . . .interesting experience. . .

In the course of working through the issue I wrote to the EG White Estate to ask what Mrs. White has said about sex offenders and church attendance. A friend also wrote asking basically the same question. Below are the questions and answers received with names deleted. I think this is a very important issue that our church as a whole needs to address. ALL churches whether ours or other congregations have or have had problems with sex offenders. In the past people somewhat ignored most cases. I think all would agree this is wrong. Things like this are more open in these times. I believe our churches should have a strong position on this issue with well though out policies and procedures for dealing with problems that arise. IT IS FAR BETTER to have a plan laid out and ready BEFORE issues come to the surface. . .doing so afterwards is not nearly as powerful for maintaining the integrity of our church. Churches can not longer ignore this issue. It is not morally or financially possible. The damage done to the victims, church family and public is tremendous.

When I reported the problem here locally I was not well received but I did contact the local conference and they have been VERY cooperative and are in the process of working through the problem as I write. I have every confidence they will handle it professionally. They have provided me with a Sex Offender Policy that is VERY comprehensive and well thought out.

I would like to start a discussion about how people feel we should deal with sex offenders within our church:

1) Church Attendance

2) Policy Thoughts

3) Prevention ideas

4) ????

Please do not bring up the recent issues at MBA or personal hurts (Not that they are not important!) but I would rather have an open discuss on HOW we should respond in general. Delving into rights and wrongs that have been done in the past would muddy the waters too much.

Please find the 2 letters I referred to above as a starting point for this discuss.

WHAT YE THINK ON THIS MATTER????

QUESTION

XXXXXXX and X are discussing how local churches are to relate to

convicted sex offenders and whether they should be allowed supervised

church attendance.

XXXXX thought XX read in the Spirit of Prophecy that some people will

have to be saved outside the church.

Are you aware of a statement like that? If there is, we'd like to

examine

the context.

Thank you very much,

XXXXXXXX

ANSWER

Dear XXXXXXX,

Thank you for contacting the Ellen G. White Estate. XXXXX may have

been referring to the following statement from 1T 215:

"I was shown that you had been wrong in sympathizing with E. The

course you have taken in regard to him has injured your influence, and

has greatly injured the cause of God. It is impossible for E to be

fellowshiped by the church of God. He has placed himself where he cannot

be helped by the church, where he can have no communion with nor voice

in the church. He has placed himself there in the face of light and

truth. He has stubbornly chosen his own course, and refused to listen to

reproof. He has followed the inclinations of his corrupt heart, has

violated the holy law of God, and has disgraced the cause of present

truth. If he repents ever so heartily, the church must let his case

alone. If he goes to heaven, it must be alone, without the fellowship of

the church. A standing rebuke from God and the church must ever rest

upon him, that the standard of morality be not lowered to the very dust.

The Lord is displeased with your course in these things. {1T 215.1}

The heart of this statement is included in the compilation Testimonies

on Sexual Behavior, Adultery, and Divorce. In that volume there is a

note connected to the statement. It reads, "The White Estate has no

firm documentation on the nature of E's transgression, but Arthur L.

White recalls hearing his father, W. C. White, refer to it as a

particularly revolting case of incest."

The question still remains what "fellowship of the church" means. I am

clear that her statement intends to bar the man from church membership,

certainly in the place where he lived and possibly anywhere else as

well. But this may not be exactly what you are discussing. Does the

statement rule out church attendance, without membership? Some may

indeed read it that way. Personally, I have a harder time going that

far, though perhaps I might come to the conclusion that this really is

what she meant. But in any event I do not claim to be an authoritative

interpreter of Mrs. White's writings.

If you are not already familiar with Testimonies on Sexual Behavior,

Adultery, and Divorce, I think you will want to get a copy. This

statement is in a section called "Counsels to Church Administrators."

Somehow one must find the right balance among several desirable goals:

1) Let the church be a place where sinners are welcomed and healed by

the power of the Lord Jesus Christ. 2) Maintain the reputation of the

church with the community. 3) Protect the vulnerable ones in the church

from those who might prey upon them. At the moment, I don't know

exactly where those three concerns intersect in just the right balance.

I hope this helps. Thank you for writing, and God bless!

AND ANOTHER QUESTION AND ANSWER:

QUESTION:

I have recently heard that Mrs White made a statement regarding

offenders (legal). . .that some of these "Should be saved outside the

church". . .interesting concept and maybe good counsel in the light

of person bent toward sexual offending tendencies.

Do you know where this reference is and what it is referring too?

Thanks for your help.

Sincerely,

XXXXXXXXX

ANSWER

Dear XXXXX,

Thank you for contacting the Ellen G. White Estate. I think you are

referring to this statement from Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1. I

will quote it here from the compilation Testimonies on Sexual Behavior,

Adultery, and Divorce, because of the note that comes with it there:

No Help for This Man. [THE WHITE ESTATE HAS NO FIRM DOCUMENTATION

ON THE NATURE OF E'S TRANSGRESSION, BUT ARTHUR L. WHITE RECALLS HEARING

HIS FATHER, W. C. WHITE, REFER TO IT AS A PARTICULARLY REVOLTING CASE OF

INCEST.] It is impossible for E to be fellowshiped by the church of God.

He has placed himself

250

where he cannot be helped by the church, where he can have no communion

with, nor voice in, the church. He has placed himself there in the face

of light and truth. He has stubbornly chosen his own course, and refused

to listen to reproof. He has followed the inclinations of his corrupt

heart, has violated the holy law of God, and has disgraced the cause of

present truth. {TSB 249.4}

If he repents ever so heartily, the church must let his case alone.

If he goes to heaven, it must be alone, without the fellowship of the

church. A standing rebuke from God and the church must ever rest upon

him that the standard of morality be not lowered to the very dust.--1T

215. {TSB 250.1}

I am not aware of another statement of this kind from Mrs. White. She

did not follow this course with every person who offended sexually, by

any means. But this was her counsel in this instance.

You may be interested to get the compilation I have quoted from here, as

it will bring together conveniently a wide range of statements from Mrs.

White applying to these troubling situations.

I hope this helps. Thank you for writing, and God bless!

Ellen G. White Estate

[:"blue"] [/] [:"blue"] [/] [:"blue"] [/] [:"blue"] [/]

[Bravus]

Moderator's Note: We already know this is an issue about which people feel *very* strongly, which is unsurprising. A thread on a related topic caused significant problems here not long ago. I'm not saying don't discuss the issue, but I am saying discuss it carefully, and that I'll be keeping a close eye on this thread.

[Gregory Matthews]

I am personally aquainted with a local SDA Church that has a convicted sex offender attending, and taking an active part in the leadership of the congregation.

Here are interesting factors in this case:

a) The sex offender has served his time, and been released.

He openly acknowledges his guilt.

c) He openly tells people that he is sexually attracted to children, has not changed, and may offend again.

d) He has agreed that every minute that he is on church property, and/or involved in an off-church activity, he will be supervised by a male staff member who will accompany him every where he goes--bathroom and everywhere else.

e) He will not have any leadership role in anything that is related to children.

My take on this:

1) He has taken responsibility.

2) The congregation has accepted the responsibility to supervise him.

3) He has agreed to appropriate supervision.

4) Parents of young children are properly informed.

[Gerr]

Are you talking about a repeat offender? A repentant offender?

If we shut the church doors to every sinner (why pick on sexual offense only?), the church would be empty!

Was not David a sex offender?

Gerry

[Danny J Goff]

I concur. . an you will note I stated so in my original post. . .Thanks

[Danny J Goff]

We are talking about a convicted sex offender on 4 counts. He has not admitted guilt as is usual in these cases. Whether he is guilty or not is not for me or the church as a whole to answer. He has been convicted by the State of Washington. I appreciate fully that we need to minister to sex offenders. . .my question is how do we do this in a way that protects all parties. . . children, congregation AND the offender himself. . . .a repeat offense is not only difficult for the victim BUT ALSO for the offender. . .not saying that the act is justified but why put them in a situation that can cause them to fall again??? Just a thought. . .

[Gregory Matthews]

Gerry:

There was nothing in my post to indicate that the congregation shut the doors to him. I think it clearly said that they integrated him into the life of the congregation.

But, the congregation then took steps to protect its children. Children deserve a special degree of protection that competent adults may not need.

[Gregory Matthews]

Danny, I think my post suggests a way in which such can be ministered to, and at the same time the children protected.

Now, if your sex offender fejects such conditions, then I think that he has excluded himself from the life of the congregation, and that responsibility rests on him.

[Dr. Shane]

I agree with Brothe Matthews, who I believe has a very balanced position on this. Some sins we cannot ignore and have to take special provision for. Some sins are complusive and the congregation holding the sinner accountable will actually help the sinner in both the long and short term.

[Stan]

It is easy to be one of acceptance. (AND not all will agree with me on this.)

The brother may have everything under control, but one day, he will have trauma, as we all do, ( and not in a sexual way), and chances are good, he will cross the line again.

Of course it might not happen, but in my opinion, it is not worth the risk of a kid.

He must forgive, but we must NEVER forget.

[Amelia]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

He must forgive, but we must NEVER forget.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I agree Stan. But I also think that it needs to be an honest forgiveness and not one of lip service. God will know the difference. That being said, I also believe that if you forgive, you dont have to forget but you also shouldnt pass judgement by talking about the person in a negitive/harmful/stumbling block manner.

[Stan]

I agree, he must be accepted and not reminded every time we see him. BUT he is not to be around our kids.

We are all sinners, everyone of us, some have more open grievous sins than others. Some get got, some do not.

He in my opinion, can watch out TV shows, buy books from out ABC, but he has to be kept away from our kids, as an alcoholic needs to be kept out of a bar. I can still love and forgive the alcoholic, but he has to stay away from the thing that may give him great comfort on the day that he or she is in great pain, we all seem to get those on our journey through life. A recovered sex offender gets those as well, and if he is allowed to be near our kids, or other kids, given the right circumstances he will cross again.

[NormF]

What if his incest (if that's what it is) took place with his sister ... or brother? Then what do you say?

Do you really know what this man's sin is?

[Stan]

Tough call one has to know what happened...

If the Church Board is aware, and they have no objection to this, or any other person who has paid their debt to society by incarceration, then, in my opinion, they should be willing to personally cover any legal liability that happens in the future.

The same with a Conference Committee, or a Conference President, if they move around a known Clergy sex offender, then they should be personally willing to cover any liability in the future.

The Church as a whole, should not have to be financially responsible, if they are not will be willing to be responsible for their actions.

[jasd]

My take: It’s like cockroaches; one is aware of the few but -- there are more ‘under the radar’… the greater number, perhaps.

Your having brought this matter to the attention of church officials has certainly aggravated the church’s liability to exposure from a manufactured suit. The .Org must surely have its enemies, as well, its malcontents. Fiduciary responsibility compels them to ‘disfellowship’ the “convicted sex offender” -- immediately. (the caveat, “Whether he is guilty or not is not for me or the church as a whole to answer. He has been convicted by the State of Washington.” [ed.] is not relief from having ‘borne witness’ against him)

It may be that the more immediate concern of the GC lies elsewhere than with “convicted sex offenders”.

It may be advisable that the .Org take measures now to insure its continuing viability should a cascade of charges of sexual depredation be brought against it. Given,

the .Org’s history of ongoing condemnation of the faith(s) of others -- in [its] respective communities… one can easily imagine the biases that may exist in a pool of prospective jurors, Sunday-keeping. That said,

the size of settlements awarded against the .Org in sexually-oriented cases might prove staggering.

Moreover, case law exists -- holding that the individual parishioner is also financially accountable for the affairs of his/her .Org. (that means the firewall that is normally thought to isolate the individual member from the misdeeds of his/her .Org might be somewhat permeable… one might want to rethink having one’s name on his/her church’s membership rolls)

The .Org might oughta think ;-) upon restructuring and refiling the paperwork of the Conferences, the Divisions, and other(s)… as pertain properties, accounts receivable, other assets… to limit exposure to an attack against its finance$ cum deep pockets. It may be that

there is not sufficiency of faith within its general community to advance the work of the Lord without the monie$ needed to do so… and it would be unfortunate should the .Org have to dispose of properties in a ‘fire sale’.

Welcome, and plant your feet, the deck pitches

[NormF]

When it comes to the cold hard world of insurance and dollars, how do you separate personal liability from corporate liablility?

I think the Catholic church wishes it had the answer to that. Apparently, so do some Adventist conferences and unions. If in the real world of here-and-now you can't separate them, what then?

Regards,

Norm

[darlene]

We have camp meeting beginning in 10 days and as it approaches I fear and tremble. I know of a couple repeat offenders and some who may have offended only once who will be on the campgrounds. Since I am responsible for the children's divisions program, am I liable if there is an incident? Have I done enough to protect the children? We have made a list and will probably share it with our coordinators at least at this point we will. (Our lawyer is coming in tomorrow and will give us his advice). We also have very strong privacy laws in our province which really limit us as to what we can say and do.

I am also reponsible for the Single Adult Ministries program and several of the offenders come to our events. Should I let the other leaders know of these people? What are our legal peramiters? Any advice anyone?

[Bravus]

Bah: the momentary cost is of infinitesimal importance compared to the damage done to the children. If it takes monetary fear to drive us to do the right thing, we have problems that are more serious than the monetary ones!

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "What if his incest (if that's what it is) took place with his sister ... or brother? Then what do you say?"

This is really not a question that the Chruch can settle. This is a question for the civil authorities to determine, and they often have to make such decisions.

[Gregory Matthews]

Darlene:

Most (all) of your questions can only be answered by one knowledgeable in Canadian law.

However, as a general statement, the actions of individual volunteers/workers at a Conference Campmeeting should be covered by the Conference liability policy. However, I can think of exceptions.

NOTE: There are likely differences between the volunteers and the employees.

[Robert]

How long is a worship service from start to finish - 3 to 4 hrs? I think you need to be "more" concerned with everything outside these hours. Instead the church is becoming a habitation for so-called "saints".

If I had it to do over I wouldn't bring any children into this evil world under Satan's sway.

:2cents:

[Dr. Shane]

I was listening to talk-radio, I believe the Micheal Reagon show, when they said you should not leave your child unattended until they are 12 years old.

My wife and I have taken on the awesome responsibility of raising children. We have 2 ages 2 & 4. We are teaching them about sex early by using books published for their age. I think that is one of the major parts of preventing child sexual abuse is educating your children about it.

[NormF]

Earlier, I had written, "What if his incest (if that's what it is) took place with his sister ... or brother? Then what do you say?"

The notion behind my question was what if you are barring the door to the barn when there is no bull in the pasture trying to get in?

I was thinking in terms of a single specific instance, gearing up to protect say a given campmeeting, for example, against a sex offender, when the guy on the list, it turns out, isn't one who's got children in his sights anyway. Isn't that a bit pointless, getting all wound up with the militia and cavalry in place, when this isn't what this guy does anyway?

Granted, on the other hand there are larger issues, and more than one kind of threat, and those do need to be carefully addressed and resolved in ways that are appropriate and effective to each one. I'm not discounting that at all. (That current grizzly story from Idaho is evidence enough to establish the validity of being concerned.) And granted further, there is a role for civil authorities to play. I wasn't arguing against that.

Just, a simple reminder, look before you leap.

Regards,

Norm

[Gerr]

Just tagging on.

My wife and I were out to dinner at the Soup Plantation tonight and saw two people within minutes apart that reminded me of a different kind of sexual offense.

A reasonably endowed woman with a tight T-shirt were these words boldly emblazoned in large letters over her assets: "SQUEEZE ME". A few minutes later came a family. The woman had tight short shorts with the words also boldly emblazoned over her fanny: "FLIRT".

Gerry

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "I was thinking in terms of a single specific instance, gearing up to protect say a given campmeeting, for example, against a sex offender, when the guy on the list, it turns out, isn't one who's got children in his sights anyway."

There are many types of sex offenders. My focus is on those who molest children. A man who is arrested for attempting to photograph up women's skirts, at a public shopping mall (Several local males so arrested a few days ago.) is a sex offender, but probably not likely to molest children.