Source: christianitytoday.com 10/5/23
One pastor and his staff considered whether their congregation should accept people with a history of abuse.
On Sunday mornings at New York Chinese Alliance Church, where I pastor, several different ethnic congregations come to listen to God’s Word in their mother tongues. Parents drop off their youngsters for children’s worship and Sunday school. Youth gather for fellowship and Bible study.
Our seasoned ushers always try to welcome every familiar face and newcomer into the house of God with a warm smile. And while their primary goal is to meet and greet each person, our church has also trained them to identify acute needs and flag any potential concerns among the congregation.
We have a congregant with a history of incarceration who often invites other formerly incarcerated men and women to church. And although we are happy for the opportunity to minister to such individuals, we try to be discerning in how to best serve them in the context of the larger community.
One Sunday morning this year, this congregant invited a new visitor who triggered a sense of concern. When the ushers decided to inquire about the newcomer, they discovered that he was a registered sex offender. And while they still welcomed him as a first-time guest, they also wanted to protect our other congregants—and so they decided to inform our pastors and governing board members.
Prayerfully, our church leadership identified a spiritually mature member to accompany the young man for the remainder of the service, and he was able to enjoy fellowship with other members throughout the afternoon.
As a medium-sized Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, we realized we were woefully unprepared—having no explicit policies written to address these kinds of situations. Our governing board had never had to consider how to enable someone seeking God to find him in our fellowship, while still ensuring the safety of young children and adolescents in our congregation.
Seems like the article is based on nearly 30-year-old study. Their 30%+ reoffense date is based on a study from June, 1997
It was at Church I encountered Jesus and was filled with the Holy Spirit of God and became a completely different person. Because of Jesus, there is no chance I would ever re-offend again.
Unfortunately, the law does not see or embrace such a change so my name and face are still on the internet for everyone to see. I had to leave a Church because someone knew and told. I realize the public has been brainwashed to believe people with a sexual offense are an imminent danger to everyone, especially children, and due to that myth we are treated differently. If this Church or any Church is going to have someone accompany someone due to having a certain criminal past then anyone they know that has any form of criminal past should have someone from the Church accompany them which is still wrong in itself, It is wrong to single any one class of felon or any felon out either outside the Church or inside the Church. Jesus never did this! Matthew was hated to the core by his own people and considered a traitor because he collected taxes for the Roman government yet Jesus chose him to be a disciple and later he wrote one of the gospels.
Wow, in my layman opinion, the self-admitted discrimination against Registrants, by that church, is damning. In California, PC section 290.46 prohibits discrimination against a Registrant for Health Insurance, Insurance, Loans, Credit, Employment, Education, Scholarships, or Fellowships, Housing, Accommodations, Benefits, Privileges, or Service Provided by Any Business Establishment. I don’t know about New York, though.
This “pastor” relegates this person to “virtual” attendance, via “online service,” rather than “in person,” relying on outdated “government” “statistics.” Specifically, the article, pastor, and government board members picks and chooses unfavorable statistics, which shows they had the intent to discriminate from the beginning. Yet one study shows that as much as 44 percent of Christian church attendees “have been victims of sexual misconduct,” so a bit hypocritical on their part.
They also have a PDF pamphlet publishing their alliance with the NYPD. Yet do they not know it’s been reported that over 40 percent of cops beat their wives? Seems like they’re worried about the wrong demographic . . .
The author and pastor of this article cite scripture that controverts their action (“whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea” [Mark 9:42, KJV]).
This makes me realize that scripture is too often perverted by churches, just like how many “Judges”/”Justices” pervert the Constitution, and caselaw, to fit a predetermined outcome. This is one of the reasons why I separated from organized religion many years ago (and after much introspection, I think my upbringing as a strict Catholic, taught to repress sexual thoughts, had some type of impact on my psyche, and had an impact on my failure to healthily cope leading up to my crimes [i.e., prayers and attending mass can only do so much]).
The Registrant in question might be better off seeking a place of worship that will judge him on his simple intent to worship.
Because this place seems discriminatory as fuck.
The article is published in Christianity Today, which generally publishes a lot of utter garbage. I wouldn’t take this man’s column (and deep misunderstanding of Mark 9–“little ones” are not children, they’re all of us, and “cause to stumble” is not sexual abuse!) seriously.
If you have to question if we should allow “sex offenders” to attend church. Maybe we should question if drunk drivers should be allowed to drive to church? Who knows, maybe a drunk driver would hit a kid? Or even worse a whole family! But you know, those God fearing people, don’t ever drive drunk….. Insert rolling eyes here.
I’m tired of being treated “potentially dangerous.” EVERYONE is potentially dangerous whether on the registry or not. I say, how dare you assume I would be a threat to your children because of a 2007 conviction! Learn about the individual, not just about the crime committed.
When I spoke with the monsignor at my Catholic church he simply responded that Christianity was all about forgiveness and redemption. However, he was happy to hear that I did not live in the same zip code as the church. There are busybody parishioners who scour the registry. I’ve been attending that church for 6 years.
I think the real question is – should we allow churches in our communities. I feel the answer is “no”. They seem to cause more problems than any positives they bring. They seem to be a drag on resources. We should at least tax the f*ck out of them and make them cover the extra resources they consume.
Maybe the question is do they make their parishioners better or worse people? Do their parishioners support Registries? That can determine if we should care about them or not. And “suggest” that they locate somewhere other than near my community. We don’t want knuckle draggers here.
My opinion is highly biased on the subject, but I believe that most religion (in general) is a sham. There are, of course, well-meaning people within religious communities or groups…but the same can be said for secular ones as well. The marked difference, however, is that “non-believers” aren’t beholden to any tolerance, acceptance or compassion based purely on deference to “divine” authority or “holy” mandates/precepts, and genuinely non-religious individuals (usually) don’t express any pretense to such. In answering the question “should sex offenders be allowed in church”, I imagine one would seek an answer to that question within their prefered scripture…although it seems strange to me that literally *anyone else* would be permitted (including murderers), but not this one, specific group. “Sex offenders” are every bit the modern-day lepers…and, if I recall my (reluctant) Sunday School teachings, a *certain individual* just may have spent some time among *literal* lepers at one point in history (but I could be mistaken…)
Create your own church and then keep the non-registered out with threatening signs and humiliating rules. Make them prove that they are on the registry! Unless, of course, you decide to let them in provided that they are accompanied throughout by the church bouncer and are never allowed to interact with the children for fear of their contaminating effects.
How Christian to practice forgiveness and redemption while treating registrants in ways that aren’t Christ like? How about focusing on the members of clergy who commit sins of the flesh involving minors? My problem with churches is that too many Christians are hypocrites while claiming to be the most compassionate, moral, humane, and honest people.
I’m not going to get into a big sermon, but if churches don’t want to allow PFRs into the congregation, then they shouldn’t allow any “sinners” into their midst.
For the churches that shun people with a record, be warned; God is going to judge you harshly.
Although this pastor recognizes the different tier levels related to “dangerousness” and risk of reoffense, it doesn’t matter to him since he believes sexual recidivism rates are 30% within 10 years. Because like he says, “it’s difficult to overcome this “thorn in the flesh.” You know Pastor Ko, I don’t want anything to do with your fu*k*n church. Besides, your church committee would probably vote to put me online, just like that gullible sucker. I would never give you the satisfaction that you’re doing me a favor while getting brownie points from your sky god.
The real question not being asked is why do churches still operate under a tax-exempt status? Clearly money is being changed hands in the pews for the parsonage. If churches are institutions and corporations are people, then churches should be taxed and not be insulated under the “religious freedom” nonsense.
A church that doesn’t openly welcome everyone who wants to be there for the teachings, is a church that isn’t following the path of Jesus and would be a church to absolutely avoid.
I have yet to find a church that would openly accept me for the sins of my past.
I really encourage everyone to not take this article very seriously. Christianity Today has been accused of being in the tank for the sorts of lawyers who sue churches for a while—especially over sexual misconduct—so I’m very skeptical of their motives in publishing this article. You’ll find very few “traditional” (SBC, PCA, most evangelical) churches who care a fig about it, or anything this pastor (of a niche Chinese-language church in NYC) says in this article. Just like the Internet is full of garbage misinformation about registrants, Judaism, and Islam, it’s also full of garbage misinformation about Christianity.
This pastor has fallen into the same trap I see so many others experience. The fact he used “sex offender” continually to describe people is revealing of his mindset.
To all the pastors, deacons, and others of influence in the church, I say this: Establishing a child safety policy around identifying people with known histories will completely and utterly fail. It’s just a matter of time, and you will have disobeyed the Great Commission while also failing to protect the children under your care.
A robust child safety policy doesn’t focus on keeping former offenders away from children nor does it need to keep children away from former offenders. It reminds parents of the need to supervise their children when outside the home. it also sets up internal accountability within the children’s ministry so that opportunities for abuse can’t take place while the church has physical custody. If you don’t have enough volunteers to do this, then the children’s ministry should be shut down before someone gets hurt. Supervising specific people is a drain on human resources best devoted elsewhere and it won’t ever stop abuse from happening. If you think I’m wrong, just wait and see.
Also, if churches are getting specific pressure from their insurance provider to enact these kinds of policies, there are other alternatives that don’t put on that kind of burden. Seek them out.
It’s sad that even the church doesn’t understand their God-given commission. They see people through the eyes of the culture, rather than through the eyes of Christ.
Maybe it’s time to switch my religion and attend mosques. I haven’t heard anything about them banning “sex offenders.” And it makes sense, given that women & children are separated from men during prayers. Although a female registrant may slip thru the cracks every now & then.
I am kinda surprised by the masses here. No one has mentioned the fact that there are those in the 95-97% of first time offenders who are on the church staff to begin with. Maybe the pastor, the congregation, and attys should be alerted to that fact before shunning those PFRs who want to partake in church services in person on campus and then give the repeat offense rate nearly as low as those who murder (and violate a commandment). Talk about a way to decrease congregation participation in church volunteering with this optic and wonder about full time staff members. Just saying…
Reminds me of the time at a church I attended where the church band piano player was a convicted murder who did their time and was welcomed…until they were busted for DUI and then was not seen again. Not a repeat offense, but did not come back to play or attend as far as I know.
BTW, great point on the Great Commission that should be considered by those on church staff and those who advise them…
Heres’ the thing – organized religion is business. Big business. Yes there are many good people with sincere faith who do good work, but at the highest level churches recruit and raise funds to support their leaders’ agendas. Are those agendas pure and holy? Often no because the leaders are humans in positions of power and are as corrupt as any other segment of society in positions of power.
And these people will cater to the views of others if it supports their agenda, much like politicians do (see humans in positions of power). The catholic church, being the largest in terms of $ does much good work, but they are also the most corrupt. If there were money to make from it, they would allow registrants in and find a way to spin it.
If registrants are really the worst, scariest, biggest sinners (not saying they are), then churches are abandoning them when they need them most. This is exactly what Jesus would not do.
And churches should not be exempt from taxes. This country was founded on separation of church and state.
If it were up to God, we would be welcomed into his house. The sad reality is that churches all try to keep SO’s out because they are a liability and embarrassment to their parish. Nonetheless, priests and other types of clergymen still molest kids all the time, knowing the church will help cover it up and no jail time given. It’s a messed up system. You’d be better off learning god on your own in your house.
I will add that that this Christian website is mostly subscription based. See attached. Does one really need to subscribe to fulfill their faith?
As a long time Christian, myself, I’m
very disappointed to read about this church. There are a number of issues I have with them, based on the article, but the one that most sticks out to
me is whether or not the offender is truly repenting of his sin. I would wager a guess that there are many church attendees who aren’t truly repentant of their sins yet the church isn’t questioning anyone else except a registrant. I’ve been fortunate in that I grew up in a church and continued attending the same church even after my crime. I didn’t have to tell anyone because I was never listed online due to it being a low level, misdemeanor crime, and therefore there was little chance anyone would find out about my status. However, having already been a leader in my church, I felt it was appropriate to inform my head Pastor and when I did, he ensured me that he would not look at me any differently nor share with anyone about my past. I believed him because I continued as a leader in the church for several more years until my family and I moved to another area. I never informed my new church of my status since I chose not to pursue any type of leadership role within, however, I can proudly say that this church also welcomes anyone, despite their past criminal history. While it’s obvious that there are some bad churches out there who are not functioning as Jesus would have them do, there are also some really great, welcoming churches in this world that portray what Jesus would do himself.
It’s churches like this who keep non believers from
ever having an opened mind to hearing about the word, unfortunately. That Pastor should be ashamed of himself.
Before my experience with the injustice system a member of my former church was a registrant and the congregation had a meeting. Most were supportive, while others were pearl grabbers dripping with judgement. After my arrest the first thing I wanted to do was meet with our Pastor. He asked me if I asked for forgiveness and what he could do for support. Not all Christians can walk the walk as an example of Jesus or for those who aren’t religious being a decent humane being no matter who you come across.
Just face it, If ur a PFR ur not allowed to do anything, PFR gotta cut the BS and face the facts, We gotta stop lying to are self’s about being able to still live a normal life.
We can’t leave the country and I’m not talking about people on probation/parole I’m talking about people who’ve been off paper for decades, they can’t leave the country.
Not only that We can’t leave our state with out notifying law enforcement of our plans before and after we leave and if you plan on moving out of state you have 3 days to register in the new state. That fact that PFR aren’t allowed in churches just go’s to show how much damage the registry has done to peoples lives.
It was the Long Beach rescue mission for me, when the pastor came out and said I was not welcome in the house of GOD I officially new being put on the registry was a death sentence.
Until I’m free from registry, I’m just a zombie walking dead 💀