Which Sanctuary Can Ever Remain Safe With a Sex Offender?

And which wolves can resist devouring sheep if invited into their field?

Last week, I wrote about a Christian’s obligation to follow laws. This week, I want to delve into the next thought in a church’s process for potentially ministering to a sex offender - if it’s legal, is it appropriate for this offender? And is it appropriate for this church?

One aspect that unavoidably surrounds the issue of sex offenders in churches is that there’s no such thing as a prescriptive solution, as much as that might disappoint some pastors and elders. Churches must use their God-given wisdom and discernment to navigate this complex issue in the context of their congregations and buildings. They must do so before an offender knocks on their door. Otherwise, they may fall foul to deceit and find themselves walking the dangerous road of cheap grace, lined with such statements as “he would never re-offend,” “his life is a trophy of God’s grace,” or “please love on the sex offender.”

If a group of elders have a passion for doing this ministry, they can always safely do so in private, away from the sanctuary and away from children. Here, we are concerned with churches and offenders who may attempt to bring them into services on a Sunday morning or, more dangerously, “assimilate” them fully into their communities.

The usual caveat: I have no qualifications in this field. I’m just someone with a thirst for knowledge and understanding who likes to read and knows when I read truth or nonsense. It’s this same thirst that led me to become a Christian. We should all be eager to read, think, and act on topics like this to better protect the vulnerable and serve victims.

The Church

Our former church, Edgefield Church, hired a lawyer who outlines why only some churches and some sex offenders should engage in this risky ministry.

Church Stability and Size

It should only be considered by a vibrant, healthy, and stable church. The new Edgefield elders took on this ministry when two congregations merged - one was in apparent financial difficulty, and the other didn’t have a building. This is an entirely inappropriate time to engage in this ministry. As the lawyer notes, “The church in transition should never attempt to take on this ministry.”

The lawyer also cites the church with an established pastor—Edgefield had just removed all pastoral staff and replaced them with those from Trinity Church, led by pastor Matt McCullough. The instability of leadership can be easily exploited.

The lawyer also notes the importance of a larger church—specifically, one with more than 500 members—as it is more likely to have the necessary resources in terms of programs, personnel, and energy.

Another worthwhile question concerns the layout of the church building. In his book, “On Guard,” Deepak Reju (a former pastor at Capitol Hill Baptist Church, the “lead church” of 9 Marks) goes into admirable detail: from where a check-in desk for childcare should be, to what type of doors to use on classrooms:

Is the children’s ministry wing close enough for easy access for families but not residing right at the center of the main flow of traffic in your church? Is your structural setup in any way making church kids vulnerable to strangers? Are there simple changes that can be made that improve our setup but are not very expensive?

In our former church, the bathrooms the offender was using was on the same corridor as the children’s classrooms. It was possible to get to any classroom without going past the check-in desk first. None of the doors were dutch doors. It is an old building, that was simply not laid out with child protection in mind. Therefore, it is not a suitable place to minister to an offender.

Theology and Localized Factors

Many other factors should be considered outside of the ones mentioned in this lawyer’s article. Churches with only a single service should not engage in this ministry; an insistence on a 9 Marks style “one body” congregation means unavoidably offenders will have contact (visual or otherwise) with children, which is unacceptable. If the ministry must happen in the sanctuary, it should be done in an adult-only service, where there is a route in and out of the building and back to the offender’s transport, which does not intersect with where any children congregate.

Other localized factors may make a church more or less appropriate. A church in a retirement community will have fewer children, so it will be much easier to avoid contact between them and offenders. On the contrary, a church—like Edgefield Church now—that has demonstrated it is incapable of handling this issue should not attempt to do so again. This especially applies to churches in which abuse might have occurred historically, especially if a member of the clergy conducted that abuse.

Elders and Members

A church should have wise, strong, experienced, and life-diverse elders. The last one is important: Have the leaders of the church ever really lived in the real world outside of churches? For instance, an elder who has worked in leadership in the school system is likely to have experienced plenty of different safeguarding measures. The Christian who grew up in church, went to Liberty University, and then went straight to seminary before taking up a pastoral assistant position at your church, may have seen none.

This factor is echoed by the lawyer I cited above: he mentions the importance of members with a gift of discernment and a calling to serve in this area. An important note here: that doesn’t mean an elder who has a relative who is a sex offender or those who have a record of refusing to investigate possible abuse. That is offender-centric: We need a quorum of members in these churches who can uphold safeguarding and the interests of victims.

This ministry should always be conducted with the unanimous support of members. It is simply not worth dividing a congregation on this issue when sex offenders can be ministered to outside of the sanctuary.

The Offender

The first thing anyone should acknowledge when attempting to divide offenders into categories is that you probably don’t know the half of it.

The Known Unknown and the Problem of “Tiers” or “Levels”

No one wakes up one morning and decides out of nowhere it’d be an excellent day to molest a child. Like all sin, and in this case crime, it starts with deceit, first of oneself and then of others. The road to believing that it’s ok to commit a crime of sexual abuse is a long one, littered these days with inappropriate internet usage and subtly pushing boundaries in relationships.

Most offenders are never caught. Of those who are, it is rarely their first offense. Only after much abuse is an offender likely to build up the arrogance to offend casually enough that they might be apprehended.

So, I think it is problematic to split offenders into “tiers” or “levels” with prescriptive solutions for each since these classify offenders only by their known crimes.

Equally, I think it is unhelpful to classify offenders based on the elders’ opinion of them. It is extremely difficult at the best of times to do better than guess whether or not someone is deceiving you. We owe our children better than to guess.

Not All Sex Offenders are Pedophiles

“Sex offender” is a broad term. Anyone whose crimes or history indicate an attraction to minors (be it molestation, rape, solicitation, or any other charge or allegation) must be handled with extreme care. A sexual offender with a paraphilia such as attraction to children is, according to the NIH, “likely to reoffend”. It is not healthy for these people to be in the presence of children. Diane Langberg rightly advocates for them to be ministered to away from the sanctuary. She says,

Do we really think that if we permit an abuser of children into the sanctuary that we can guarantee the safety of the vulnerable? And do we not understand that even if nothing overt occurs, that deceptive heart and mind is feeding off the little ones sitting in the pews, strengthening his/her own sin patterns while looking good?

An offender who argues against policies like this, attempting to be allowed near children, just gave you as big a red flag as you’ll ever get.

Certain types of offenders should never be allowed near children. Other types need to be monitored, watched, or chaperoned carefully. Perhaps some who have fallen foul of strange legal groupings (such as those convicted of public urination) just need a watchful eye. The existence of such cases does not excuse our obligations to safeguard against the more dangerous offenders.

Default Position: No.

We must start at no. Only if we can be assured of safety can we move towards a conditional yes, based on expert opinions, not an ill-qualified elders’ opinion of how wonderful a story of redemption sounds. Every known sex offender must have a signed agreement with the church outlining the limits to their interactions and clear, unavoidable consequences (exclusion) if they breach it.

That’s a whole lot of nos.

As it should be. It’s a lot of “nos” to offenders and “yes” to victims, the vulnerable, and children. I won’t apologize for advocating for that, nor for acknowledging that it is not possible to fully say “yes” to both groups in the sanctuary.

We should always share the word with anyone who has ears for it. But there is no biblical mandate to do so amongst children.

A church and an offender who can do this ministry without causing great harm to the body of Christ is extremely rare. If your church thinks that they are the rare unicorn because the elders are “Godly men” and subscribe to the trendy theological teachings of the day, let the red flags fly.