Source: churchleaders.com 8/15/25
Let’s talk about one of those Elephant in the Room subjects that no one wants to talk about. I’m referring to the issues of sex offenders and the local church. Fortunately in recent years we have begun to discuss it, but there’s a long way to go). Early in my career in the field of Criminal Justice I spent several years working with exclusive sex offender populations. It was during those years that I realized that Sex Offenders were one of the few populations behind the walls of a correctional institution that were treated differently. I have since concluded that this is true for both behind the walls of a prison and on the streets of society.
Let’s be honest, sex offenders are definitely not treated nice in prison; as they are considered the lowest of the low. And many times they are treated equally as bad by their neighbors/society when they are released. Their names are placed on a sex offender registry for the rest of their lives and neighborhoods can pass out fliers and post signs notifying the entire neighborhood that a sex offender taken up residence in their neighborhood.
The neighbors don’t generally sit around and sing the Mr. Rodgers theme song: ”It’s a beautiful day in the neighbor hood, a beautiful day in the neighborhood… Won’t you be my neighbor!” It’s more like: “Not In My Neighborhood, I Don’t Think So or I Know He Didn’t.” There seems to be a heightened sense of awareness with the recent release of corruption at Penn State, aka Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal.
We have come to understand that sex offenders are be treated differently in society and behind prison walls. The real question is “Should sex offenders be treated differently by the church and faith communities?” Research reveals that sex offenders have a high propensity to re-offend, which tends to put everyone on red alert. Again, that’s why sex offenders are all in a national database and are required to register upon their release.
There are over 728,000 registered offenders in the U.S.; Texas leads the nation with well over 63,000 registered offenders, and Florida is a close second. Most Christians will tell you that they are uncomfortable around and even scared of sex offenders; especially when it comes to their children. Let’s face it, insurance companies even have exclusionary clauses for churches that hire or allow sex offenders to volunteer; in other words: no coverage.
The church must play a critical role in helping sex offenders develop…
All the California Rescue Mission’s don’t take PFR, back in 2008 it was raining my car broke down I was transient and was on 3 year felony probation for FTR so I couldn’t risk staying with friends or family so I went down to the Rescue Mission to see if I could get out the cold but as we’re doing the intake he says I’m sorry ur a PFR we don’t except PFR and kicked back out on the streets when I asked for a blanket or something he said comeback tomorrow around 3:00pm we give out clothes. I froze my azz off that night.
Scott Williams wrote the article, and I quote;
have a high propensity to re-offend,
that’s all I need to know about his research paper, someone in his neighborhood aught to set him straight.
Looks like the author bought into the fake research by say PFRs have “a high propensity to reoffend”
Civilian institutions-including churches, shelters, insurers, volunteer services, and health programs-are increasingly enforcing registry-based exclusions without legal mandate, effectively acting as instruments of state punishment. This privatized enforcement transforms civil regulation into constructive punishment and blurs the line between policy administration and vigilantism. When registrants are denied access to worship, housing, healthcare, or community participation based solely on status-not individualized risk or adjudicated harm-such exclusions violate First and Fourteenth Amendment protections and may constitute jurisdictional slander, ex post facto punishment, and reputational harm without trial. Disclaimer: This commentary is not legal advice. It reflects a constitutional critique based on publicly available sources and personal testimony. Individuals affected by registry laws should consult qualified legal counsel for guidance specific to their jurisdiction.
Churches that receive tax-exempt status under the premise of serving the public good must not engage in categorical exclusion of individuals based solely on registry status. When worship becomes conditional and sanctuary is denied, the institution risks violating the principles of equal protection, religious liberty, and the spirit of nonprofit exemption. Written policies that preemptively bar attendance, coordinate with law enforcement, or impose surveillance on worshipers transform sacred space into a site of discrimination. The Supreme Court’s decision in Bob Jones University v. United States established that tax exemption can be revoked when a religious institution engages in status-based discrimination—in that case, racial exclusion. A similar challenge could be mounted against churches that codify and enforce registry-based exclusion, especially when such policies are justified by insurance risk rather than theological doctrine. Redemption cannot coexist with exclusion, and any institution that denies entry based on status—not conduct—should be scrutinized for its alignment with constitutional values and public benefit.
Disclaimer: This statement is a constitutional critique and does not constitute legal advice. Churches must consult qualified counsel to assess compliance with local laws and federal tax regulations.
The article cites, “ have a high propensity to re-offend, which tends to put everyone on red alert. ”
What research? Where is the link to such study or studies? This regurgitation of the false research all stems from the Smith v Doe, 2003 decision, which stated a “frightening and high” recidivism rate of 80%. This stat comes from a Psychology magazine to promote sex treatment and it wasn’t a scientific research!
The true recidivism rate is between 3.0 – 3.5% from many state research. In CA, they stopped posting the recidivism rate because for three consecutive years the recidivism rate was below 1% via CASOMB and CA DoJ.
I appreciate the article being shared, but I gotta be honest and say this is incredibly low quality writing. I’ve never heard of the site, and the piece itself is barely coherent. Is he even making a point? He talks about Sandusky as if it was recent—Sandusky went to prison nearly 15 years ago!
I wish it was easy to find a church I could attend in person that only serve adults. So far no luck, is the best way to call the church directly and ask if they have youth ministry or Sunday school?
Seems like we’ll never escape the cloud of Epstein.
I served a church for 5 years. Once they found out they kicked me out told me not to return.