9 Marks of Unwise Elders in this Church's Sex Offender Policy
Edgefield Church, Nashville, released a dangerous policy. It remained unchanged 5 months later and still is, to our knowledge.
When our former church, Edgefield Church Nashville, disclosed to us and other members that a sex offender was a member, they had also written a new policy and code of conduct. In my opinion, these were dangerous grooming documents from a group of elders who were desperately trying to show everyone how graceful they were to an offender - yet they had forgotten their responsibilities to prioritize the protection of children.
Here’s a summary first of the “9 Marks” of unwise elders in this policy and code of conduct:
Prioritizing the safety of the offender over the vulnerable and victims
Grooming the congregation by equating sexual crimes with all other sins
Allowing an offender to use the same bathroom as the age and gender of his victims
Leaving the door open to employing offenders illegally or allowing them to serve as volunteers
Not binding the elders to discipline the offender in the event of breaches of the policy
Failing to use third-party experts in their investigation process
Allowing an offender to be part of small groups with children
Not compelling the elders to disclose all offenders to the congregation
Only applying the policy to offenders currently listed on sex offender registries
We met with both the pastor and another elder and relayed our feedback to them about this policy. This was done with patience and love on our part. The frustrated tone with which I now write is only necessary due to their failure to amend their policy in any way formally since (as of February 2024 there had not been an update; if there has been since the church has not publicly posted the updated policy)
1. Prioritizing the safety of the offender over the vulnerable and victims
The policy starts by giving the reasons why the church needs it.
Reason one is “to establish a safe place for the offender to worship God, learn God’s word, fellowship with other saints, and grow in Christ”, and spends 77 words continuing to talk about how important the policy is for the offender.
Reason number three is “To increase accountability and awareness for the purpose of fostering a safe place where the children and youth of Edgefield Church can learn God’s word and have fun.” - 33 words about the safety of children.
This isn’t good enough. It matters that we always say that the safety of children is more important than the safety of offenders. One elder would later tell me that offenders are “in a vulnerable spot”. That is backward: children and victims are vulnerable, not the perpetrators.
2. Grooming the congregation by equating sexual crimes with all other sins
Section 2 begins with a title of, “Our only hope is the gospel of Jesus Christ” and goes on to say:
…as Edgefield church integrates someone into the regular life of the church who in the past has committed a sexual offense, we rejoice in the sufficiency of God’s grace in Christ and appreciate our call to love and to encourage one another in Christ. There are no second-class members among the redeemed. - the policy
Whether or not a sex offender can be saved by the grace of God through the work of the cross (he can, if he is genuinely repentant) has absolutely nothing to do with ensuring a safe environment in our churches for children and victims.
The effect of congregants reading this is a warning shot: don’t be judgmental. Love this person like any other member of the church. But a sex offender should be treated differently by other members. It is an entirely valid decision for a Christian to not interact with a sex offender who claims to also be Christian - they might do this because:
they themselves are a victim of abuse, or know someone close to them who is
they might be a parent of children who are potentially vulnerable
they themselves might potentially be vulnerable to the offender
or any other reason they might wish to invoke that they wish to keep private
At the very least, all Christians should keep a watchful eye over known sex offenders, not only for the safety of the vulnerable in the church but also for the offender’s own salvation, if he is as repentant as he claims - which only God can know.
3. Allowing an offender to use the same bathroom as the age and gender of his victims
I hope I don’t have to explain to you, the reader, why this is such a terrible idea - as I had to explain to these elders. I would go further: since bathrooms are spaces where abuse can happen, and offenders often vary the age and gender of their victims, a sex offender should always use a single-user bathroom, not shared with anyone else. Ever.
It doesn’t matter that the policy said that a chaperone would be present if children were in the bathroom. A chaperone cannot shield a child from an offenders’ eyes, nor the offender from their own subsequent temptation.
It is severely alarming that in a room full of elders, not one could see for themselves how problematic this was - especially in a bathroom which was in the same corridor as kids’ classes, with a baby changing table, and urinal.
The elders did expediently change the implementation of the policy such that the offender was taken to a single-user bathroom. However, the text of the policy remained unchanged months later, when we left the church.
4. Leaving the door open to employing offenders illegally or allowing them to serve as volunteers
The church in question is opposite an elementary school and public park. This makes it illegal for a sex offender to work on the premises according to Tennessee Law. So why, then, did the policy include this clause:
If an offender applies for a volunteer or staff position, he or she will be denied by the church, unless otherwise approved the elders in writing. - the policy
No elder should reserve themselves the opportunity to approve in writing what is illegal under the law.
If the elders, at the time of writing this, didn’t know employment of offenders was illegal, it is inexcusable that they didn’t, especially since this offender had previously been illegally employed by the same church under its previous leadership.
Furthermore, a sex offender working in a building to which they might have keys is an obvious danger - they could use the building out-of-hours to conduct abuse, or plant cameras in bathrooms. These risks were rightly talked about on the Bodies Behind the Bus episode with Chris and Anna, talking about Steve Chandler’s employment as a custodian at the Village Church, Denton:
5. Not binding the elders to discipline the offender in the event of breaches of the policy
I acknowledge any violation of this policy (including allegations or suspicion of abusive behavior) can result in discipline, a removal from church membership, and/or being banned from any Edgefield Church related activity or public gathering. - the code of conduct
Any violation of a code of conduct or policy should always result in discipline for sex offenders attending churches. A repentant offender will diligently follow any policy and code of conduct they are held to. An offender seeking to re-offend in the church will try to push the boundaries of the policies, trying to re-gain control over the relationship, testing if elders will hold them to account or not.
Most policies I have read simply use the word “will” here, instead of “can”. For elders who are prone to giving cheap grace, a policy needs to hold them accountable too: there should be no room to allow for policy violations to pass without any discipline.
Edgefield Church’s own lawyer, Rob Showers, agrees:
A single violation of these conditions will result in an immediate termination of the sex offender’s privilege to attend the church.
6. Failing to use third-party experts in their investigation process
The elders will appoint two men from the elder board who will meet with the offender as soon as possible and will begin an investigation. - the policy
The psychology of sex offenders is a complex topic, very briefly touched upon here by the Center for Hope & Safety. Elders should not presume - as Godly as they might consider themselves - equipped to make informed, educated decisions as to the suitability of an offender to attend church. Or even, as in this case, their capability of running an adequate background check, which these elders failed to do.
There are experts who can help - such as netGRACE. There are professionals who spend their lives working trying to rehabilitate offenders. Elders who can be easily deceived are ill-placed to make these decisions, especially elders who go on to say, in their policy:
If the offender’s report appears to be false or is incomplete, the offender will be given an opportunity to correct any information that had been given previously or provide additional information - the policy
Any offender who is not immediately forthcoming with the full scope of their crimes - both those they have convictions for and those they got away with - should immediately disqualify themselves from attending church. They should not be allowed to attempt to lie to elders and then be given an opportunity to correct their deceit.
7. Allowing an offender to be part of small groups with children
In general, we will attempt to assign a registered sex offender to a small group without children or youth. The offender will never participate in a small group where children or youth are present without 1) approval by the elders, 2) first disclosing to the entire small group that he or she is a registered sex offender, and 3) receiving permission to enter the home. - the policy
Prior to this policy being published, the offender had attended a small group without disclosure to the rest of the group, which included multiple families.
Note that their policy does not ask families if they consent to being in small group with an offender; it merely states that a disclosure will take place to the entire small group. What if a family doesn’t want to meet in a small group with an offender against children?
Convicted child molesters and rapists should never be allowed to be in small group with children. It’s so disappointing that this even needs to be said in 2024.
Small groups - informal settings, where adults and children mix, and various childcare arrangements take place, often involving men watching children while women meet, and then vice versa - are an easy opportunity for an offender to re-offend. They are in a familial environment where children roam freely around a house, as other adults are occupied trying to serve food, tidy and meet to study God’s word. This is an entirely inappropriate setting to minister to a sex offender.
8. Not compelling the elders to disclose all offenders to the congregation
Disclosures are made to key leaders in the church to facilitate accountability and ensure adherence to this policy. Additional disclosures to members and/or parents may also be deemed necessary by the elders. - the policy
Churches are places where people form communities. At this particular church, which was the product of two churches merging, the leaders would frequently encourage congregants to commune with one another during the week - and especially those who didn’t necessarily share the same “season” of life. We were encouraged to do this by looking at the membership directory and just picking out contact details (as an aside, the same membership directory shared photographs and addresses of children with the offender).
Before inviting another person into their home, one has a right to know if they are a sex offender. There should be no debate to be had here, and it simply isn’t true, as one elder tried to assert to me, that “for as many people feel as strongly as you do, there are as many who come down on the opposite side of the decision”. A sex offender who is against disclosure is a sex offender who is not repentant. Imagine how a repentant offender would feel about establishing relationships with families under a false pretense that they presented no danger to them?
Not disclosing can also allow gossip to fester. How likely is it, for instance, that no elders told their wives about the offender in this church during the 34 months in which he was kept secret? One elder’s wife said to my wife, “we didn’t want to disclose” which would strongly suggest she knew, thanks to gossip from her husband. If she did know, it is hypocritical of an elder to be against disclosure, but then to disclose to his own wife.
9. Only applying the policy to offenders currently listed on sex offender registries
When this policy applies: The determination as to whether a person will be required to submit to the additional protections and requirements outlined in this policy will be made by the elders of Edgefield Church. This policy is designed to apply in situations where an individual is currently listed on any sex offender registry, having been convicted of a corresponding sex-related crime. - the policy
We shouldn’t defer onto law the decision as to whether or not a sex offender remains dangerous. Such a legal decision might be conducted on the basis of a complex legal workflow, including plea bargains, trials which fail to convict, or errors on the part of prosecutors or judges.
Churches should always lean towards safety, and the expiry of an offender’s legal requirement to be on a registry does not in any way mean they are no longer subject to temptation of this crime.
What needs to happen now?
Edgefield Church has seriously erred in its handling of a sex offender. They were arrogant enough to assume they had the expertise, knowledge and experience to write a competent policy, and they ended up doing the opposite. The church must release a new policy, publicly, that has been reviewed by third-party experts such as netGRACE, so it is evident they take this issue seriously and show a careful, discerning grace shown towards offenders: not a cheap, toxic grace that endangers children.
More resources
I wish that this was a complete list of errors and imperfections in the policy, however, it is the tip of the iceberg. There are so many other resources that are worth reading, if your church is undergoing this process. I’m just a lay-person with a brain cell or two, certainly unequipped to give legal advice: this article contains merely my opinions. These people are far more qualified than me:
Rob Showers - Edgefield Church’s lawyer, whose advice they either didn’t seek as they claim, or simply chose not to follow, has some good suggestions such as insisting that offender’s internet access is monitored as part of the code of conduct allowing an offender to attend church
AG Financial - this company that offers financial services to ministry talk about the importance of following decent policy, as failure to do so can void church’s insurance policy (has Edgefield voided theirs?)
netGRACE - Godly Response to the Christian Environment has wonderful resources, including a fantastic YouTube channel
Baptist News - this article summarizing a discussion between two panelists discussing Grace vs Law has some good pointers such as “start by assuming they are lying”
Church Executive - say, “while all these precautions might seem harsh, it’s always best to err on the side of being overcautious”
Diane Langberg - a faithful lady whose every sentence is laden with heavy truth, especially on this topic
The Presbyterian Church has an article about this issue which quotes in part, Rev. Madison Shockley, “The key lesson for churches is this: The policy, however it winds up, must be a consensus of the congregation… I talked to so many pastors who decided they’re going to make the decision because they know what’s theologically and spiritually right — and that’s absolutely the wrong thing to do.”