I was surprised to learn that many sex offenders are apparently being banned from attending church services in some states. The more I read of this article, the more I understood the reasoning for this regulation, but I'm still torn on whether it should be in place.
The focus of the article is convicted sex offender James Nichols who says he was trying to better himself by going to church. The problem is that he was arrested by officers who say the reason is that the church has a daycare facility that makes it off limits to sex offenders. Now Nichols is challenging the laws in South Carolina that contributed to his arrest.
In some states, issues like that of Nichols are raising questions about the rights of sex offenders to attend places of worship. Many state laws make the places off limits automatically due to programs and care facilities provided for minor children. The article states that sex offender advocates agree that some offenders should not be allowed around children but that barring all offenders denies them support they need to become productive citizens.
Presently 36 states have established zones where registered sex offenders cannot live or visit, but only a few provide exemptions for churches.
Many church leaders are torn on the idea of allowing sex offenders to attend services. While many would like to provide a second chance and support for offenders on the road to recovery, they are still wary.
Joseph Green, pastor of a church Nichols attended after his arrest, says,
"I told him as long as he's honest with me, then we're willing to embrace him and help him focus and get his life back on track. The Bible talks about wolves coming in in sheep's clothing, so I've got to be watchful over everyone coming into my church."
I'm still somewhat undecided on this issue. My first reaction to the story was to think that sex offenders gave up many rights when they committed their crimes and should expect things like this to happen. I was in total agreeance with the laws that led to Nichols being arrested.
But the farther I read and the more I thought about things, it doesn't seem entirely fair. Yes, I know- life's not fair, they got what they deserved, etc.
But I'm leaning more toward Nichols's view on the matter. How can he be expected to learn how to live a better life and learn from his past crimes when society never really allows him to be a part of it anymore?
It's such a controversial topic, allowing a sex offender anywhere remotely near a child. In some cases, I think it shouldn't be allowed at all. There are many offenders whose crimes are so heinous that, if they aren't locked up for life, they shouldn't be allowed to ever see a child again.
I do believe that there are some that truly do want to make up for past mistakes and start over on a better path.
It's hard for a church especially, to tackle this issue. On the one hand, the church is there to provide sanctuary and second chances to those that everyone else may have given up on. But on the other hand, the church is a place of safety for all who attend. I can completely understand any parents who would have a problem with a convicted offender being anywhere near their child. If I had children, I know I would.
I just don't think they should be barred from church entirely. Many, many people who were previously thought hopeless have turned their lives around due in part to the church. I believe in second chances and forgiveness and that both should be extended to just about everyone.
That doesn't mean that I'd campaign for Nichols or anyone like him to be the new youth minister at my church.
I think it's the responsiblity of the chruch to offer help to all who need it. They also have the responsiblity to protect the children who can't protect themselves. Many churches, mine included, conduct a thorough background check on anyone interested in working with the youth. This helps to weed out anyone who could potentially pose a threat to the safety of the kids. It seems to me that if more churches adopted procedures like this, it would largely solve this problem. Churches would still be able to reach out to sex offenders to help them turn their lives around and children would be kept safe in the care of qualified people.
Worshipping in a place of their choice is something that should be available to anyone, no matter their past decisions. Jesus reached out to the outcasts and the ones no one else would help.What makes us too good to do the same?
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

I completely agree with you. I am torn just as you are. But God is there to be our savior and they should still be able to worship. But not be allowed to be like a youth leader or anything that deals directly with children.
ReplyDeleteI am sure you are aware that sex offenders have a very high recidivism rate. I agree with you that the church is probably going to be torn between the responsibility to keep its members safe and to help others get back into the church. I don't know where this happend at but most cities have many churches. I am sure that at least one of them would not have the daycare situation that he could go to.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything that you have said. If you were labeled as a sex offender because of a crime you committed you should definitely be prepared to face the consequences. People tend to freak out when they hear they live in the same vicinity as a sex offender let alone attending the same church as one. I must admit (right or wrong) that I would be extremely skeptical about letting my child out of my sight in such a situation.
ReplyDeleteI can see a church not allowing a sex offender to volunteer in their childrens department, but to banish them completely from worshipping in their congregation, goes against the bible entirely. The apostle Paul, persued and killed Christians, and he was one of the biggest evangalists of the new testament. I don't think anybody should be refused the right to worship, but with that said, I think that it is important that such individuals not be allowed to volunteer in such a capacity that would leave them tempted to repeat offend.
ReplyDelete