“His life is a trophy of God’s grace, the kind of miracle that we always long to see.”

How a disclosure about a sex offender centered the offender, sidelined victims and groomed the congregation

This is a story about how a church shared the news that a member was a sex offender with their membership. In sharing it, I hope that other churches will learn and this church will see the errors they made.

1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys suffer from child sexual abuse*. In a church of around 200 adults, this translates to an estimated 25 members who are victims of such abuse — 25 individuals carrying deep emotional scars from their traumatic past.

On the other side was a serial offender of sexual crimes against children who claimed their only known sexual offense was a one-time mistake and that they’ve since reformed.

Victims know that this isn’t how the game works. They don’t need to read books by specialists like Anna Salter to understand that this depravity does not arise singularly like a weed in a perfect lawn; they know that pulling at the weed will not eradicate the root. They know it will continue to resprout over and over in the offender. They may not think of this in terms of paraphilias and an inability to cure them; they likely think of it as a series of deeply personal and traumatic memories of consistent, unrelenting abuse.

Edgefield Church in Nashville is an elder-led, SBC-affiliated church whose two pastors at the time wrote for 9Marks ministries. It first became aware of the offender when two churches merged in January 2021.

Nearly three years later, in November 2023, the elders finally decided to inform the congregation about this offender. They now faced a critical decision in crafting this statement — this was their chance to be transparent and honest. They anticipated many questions about the timing, the historical and future risks to the congregation, and how members would respond.

Any amendments to this statement would demonstrate incompetence and undermine trust in the elders’ leadership.

In the interests of transparency and so full context can be provided, I am including the full disclosure with only last names redacted at the end of this post.

“What should we know about Mike’s story?”

“More than 30 years ago, Mike was convicted of a sexual crime against a minor. For this crime, he served fourteen years in prison.” — the disclosure

Immediately, they attempted to emphasize how far into the forgotten past the crime lies. This is ancient history! Informed experts would instead likely be horrified at the unmentioned possibility of further abuse during those three decades, which has potentially gone undetected.

“A sexual crime” identified a singular episode only. This would later be shown to be false and also defies the clinical understanding of pedophilia. Depravity this severe arises steadily, requiring the offender to go through numerous intermediate steps of self-deception before being able to self-justify a crime against a child.

More importantly, “a sexual crime” was used as a synonym for aggravated rape in the state of Tennessee. Aggravated, meaning not only rape — but additionally, another escalating factor, which in this case appears most likely to be “force or coercion accompanied by a weapon, bodily injury, or being aided or abetted by other persons.” We should instead call aggravated rape of a minor by its name and not use more generalized terms.

While the legal term might be “minor,” the more familiar term that should have been used to avoid minimizing the gravity of the offense is “child,” — especially since the victim, in this case, was nine years old. For a church that had previously ex-communicated a former member for allegedly affirming gay marriage, it might also have mentioned the gender of the victim, which was male.

These details were all public knowledge through the easily accessible sex offenders registry in Tennessee. The elders chose to sanitize the crime instead and then began to refer to it exclusively as “sin.” Raping a child in this manner is not equivalent to every day sin of the rest of the membership. As Diane Langberg says, “We don’t all build an Auschwitz.” By minimizing this crime by equating it to sin, which doesn’t endanger the physical, spiritual, and emotional health of the children God calls us to protect, safeguarding is unlikely to be sufficient. This is grooming: creating an environment in which re-offending is easier.

“And he gave him a desire to share the hope of the gospel with others. Mike has been doing exactly that from his time in prison until now.” — the disclosure

Also of public record and known to the elders at the time was an additional conviction in 2007 for failing to notify the state of a change of employment. The sex offender registry refers to the incident at the time as, “att to falsify info”. Is an attempt to falsify information consistent with a repentant criminal sharing the hope of the gospel with others? Why was this additional conviction not mentioned to the congregation in the disclosure email, and why did it not trigger a more detailed investigation to uncover its specifics? It is a challenge to explain the elders’ decision here without using either incompetence or malice.

“His life is a trophy of God’s grace, the kind of miracle that we always long to see…” — the disclosure

“Mike is a wonderful model of how a believer looks on grievous sin in his past. He freely acknowledges the severity of what he did.” — the disclosure

Christian leaders are supposed to have wisdom. How sure would you have to be of any person to declare their life a trophy of God’s grace? How many Ravi Zachariases and Jonathan Fletchers do we need to see in this sinful world before we acknowledge that we cannot know the hearts of another, no matter how Godly they might appear, least of all the heart of a convicted violent offender against children?

By making these statements, the elders bound their reputation to this man. Should he be shown to be other than how he has represented himself, their disclosure would be false, and they would lose credibility. The truth would indeed later shred their reputation.

This isn’t necessary or appropriate. It’s possible to simply share the facts about someone’s past that the membership — and especially parents and victims of sexual abuse — have a moral right to know without also holding him up as a “trophy of God’s grace”.

“Why are you disclosing this now?”

“Our elders and staff are committed to regular evaluation of our protection policies, to keep our policies current with best practices as those continually evolve.”-the disclosure

Just as these elders in a complementarian church would argue that time does not change the Bible’s teachings (and I would agree with them), equally, time does not affect whether it is morally correct to disclose known sex offenders to a congregation. Whether our children share a bathroom or even a building with a known offender is not the decision of the elders of our church: it is our decision as parents. It wasn’t in 2021, and it's still not today.

What changed from the beginning of 2021 — the time of the merger — to the fall of 2023 — was not the best practices of other church policies but events within the church and/or legal advice given to them that the elders would prefer that you didn’t know about. So I believe they wrote this cover story instead.

“We are doing this because we believe disclosure in cases such as this adds a layer of protection to the chaperone policy we already have in place.”-the disclosure

If this were true, an elder would not have stated in a follow-up email,

“Finally, our policy indicates a single public disclosure is needed. The policy does not require an ongoing disclosure to new members. That was based on the recommendation of our external review.”-elder

How would a single public disclosure add a layer of protection for members who join the church without receiving the disclosure? In a congregation where some people are aware of the disclosure and others aren’t, gossip would surely fester. This is clearly unwise. It leads to the question as to why a group of elders would agree to disclosure but then only do it once? The elder has explained: based on the recommendations of the external review. Is the priority of the church to protect itself legally based on professional advice rather than a motive of safeguarding, as the disclosure claims? If the motive was safeguarding, why was the disclosure not made in January 2021?

“Second, we are doing this because we believe disclosure will actually enhance participation in our church for Mike and for others the Lord may bring to us in the future.” — the disclosure

It’s worth noting that this church also claims to be a congregational church. Without a disclosure for nearly three years, the elders starved themselves of feedback from the members over their decisions in this matter — because they kept it secret, and no one knew (apparently). But then, when they finally do disclose, rather than allow for a period of reflection and feedback, they ensure their disclosure email indicates their willingness to minister to more than the single-sex offender they currently accommodate! How many is too many for a membership of 200 in an old building with many children and only a single Sunday service? How much can you ask, emotionally, of victims within your own church in a single email?

“How should I respond to this disclosure?”

Let’s return to the victims who must endure reading through this statement. Already, at this stage in the email, your own trauma from your past is likely overwhelming, and you also have a number of questions about this scenario in your own church — the community you have come to trust as your home and place of worship. Now, you are being told how to respond to the disclosure!

“First, please come to us with your questions or concerns. We know that this disclosure will be especially sensitive for those of you who have experienced abuse in your life. We long for the opportunity to hear you and comfort you.”-the disclosure

The elders start this section by emphasizing that they would like people to come to them with their questions or concerns. They attempt to deny victims choice as to who to talk to in dealing with the difficulties of the disclosure, forcing people to confront the very elders they might feel are grossly mishandling the situation, to seek comfort. Are the elders afraid that members might have immediately gone to the press at this point? Why do they presume themselves to be qualified to provide comfort to victims of sexual abuse, the majority of whom are likely to be women? What about members who do not wish to share with the elders — who have just written an incredibly insensitive email — that they themselves are victims?

“Second, please pray for and love on Mike and his dear wife”-the disclosure

As a victim reading this email, you will certainly need prayer from your “brothers and sisters in Christ” to handle being told you are in the same congregation as a known child abuser. Imagine, then, being asked to “pray for” and “love on” the offender! Words cannot do justice to the ignorance and abysmal timing of this request.

From the offender’s perspective

As should have been done from the start, the analysis of this disclosure from the victim’s perspective has been prioritized so far. However, it’s worth considering how this looks from the perspective of the offender, too. In doing so, it’s worth noting that the elders would later acknowledge that the offender had personal sign-off on the email and the way in which his crime was described (and the lack of mention of his others).

That is wholly inappropriate. An offender should never have any control whatsoever about the way in which they are described to a church. This introduces an easy way for them to influence the manner in which they are spoken about and, potentially, groom the congregation through this disclosure.

As a truly repentant offender, do you need to be spoken about in such exalted terms? Or would you ask for the tone of the email to be less glorifying of you? Would you make sure that all your offenses are listed, or would you consider only the most recent conviction of a sexual crime to be relevant?

More hauntingly: if you were an offender who was intent on using the church to access more victims — as has happened far too many times, especially within the SBC — would this disclosure make you feel like the elders were holding a wise, discerning attitude towards you, or would you feel emboldened that you had deceived them into falsely trusting you, opening the door for possibly more abuse?

Questions to ask when your church sends a disclosure like this

There are some serious red flags for church members, congregants and attendees on seeing a disclosure like this.

Most significant, in this case, is the lack of discernment and wisdom from the elders to pay little heed to victims or their perspective, minimize the crime(s), and eulogize the offender.

Elders must be called to correct such errors, and a faithful elder will listen, repent, and change policy based on this feedback, especially after all the abuse we have seen unearthed in churches over recent years. An elder who gets defensive (as would be the case with some of them here) rather than address your concerns is a warning sign that they are not as Godly as they might think they are and not a leader you should be submitting to.

Here is a list of questions we wished we had asked in full at the time:

• The disclosure says your policy has been recently changed. Please send us a copy of your previous policy. We suspect was no previous written policy. This question would have exposed the elders’ attempts to feign past competence and capability in this matter.

• You’ve claimed to have conducted an extensive external review. Please can you name the firm that conducted this review? Please share a copy of this review in the spirit of transparency. Faithful elders have nothing to hide and will have no problem giving this information. Elders who are trying to pull the wool over your eyes will squirm away from this question — we did put this to them and did not get a firm answer. This was another warning sign.

• Which victim advocacy groups did you consult with prior to writing the disclosure? The disclosure is clearly not trauma-informed. This question (and its inevitable answer) would have exposed that the elders’ intent was to protect the offender and their church, displaying their lack of interest in how this would affect victims in their membership.

• Have you done a detailed investigation into the offender? Who conducted this investigation? Please share a copy of the report. An offender should never be trusted solely based on their own word. Elders must do their due diligence. A group of elders who have performed an extensive investigation in the interest of protecting their flock will be eager to share it with you. Beware the elder who makes claims they cannot or will not substantiate.

• Did the offender read and approve the disclosure prior to it being sent? We would later ask this question and receive an affirmative response (he did — totally inappropriate). An offender who approves of being endorsed with a lack of truth is dangerous. If the elders have worked with the offender in writing the statement, there are serious concerns as to the level of control that the offender may have established over the elders. They may have been groomed without knowing it — and the entire email might be a grooming document, unbeknownst to the elders, infecting the entire membership with their self-deceptions.

• Please may I have a copy of the policy. Finally, you should ask for a copy of all policy documents, and you should read them. Often, such documents are not immediately shared in the hope that no one reads them, or are excessively long, designed to obfuscate clauses contained within that pose a sincere danger to the church and its members.

Next up, I will write about the policy that they shared and how it contained even more serious red flags on how this offender was being handled.

Here’s the full disclosure:

Fellow members,

Our elders and staff are committed to regular evaluation of our protection policies, to keep our policies current with best practices as those continually evolve. Following an extensive external review, we have recently made changes to one of our protection policies, specifically our policy for registered sex offenders who may wish to attend or join our church.

I’m writing now both to tell you about these updates, and in light of our updated policy, to tell you that our brother and fellow member Mike ******* is a registered sex offender.

We want to answer any questions you may have about this disclosure, but let me briefly address a few questions I expect to be top of mind.

What should we know about Mike's story?

More than 30 years ago, Mike was convicted of a sexual crime against a minor. For this crime, he served fourteen years in prison. While in prison, God's grace did incredible work in Mike's life. He gave him hope in the power of Christ to overcome his guilt. He gave him a deep hunger for studying the Bible. And he gave him a desire to share the hope of the gospel with others. Mike has been doing exactly that from his time in prison until now. His life is a trophy of God's grace, the kind of miracle that we always long to see.

But his sin has significant ongoing, necessary consequences for his life, including his life in our church. Our policy restricts what events, roles, and areas of the church building are available or unavailable to registered sex offenders. It sets limits for interactions with children and sets expectations for accountability to the elders. Most importantly, our policy requires a chaperone to accompany a registered sex offender during any attendance at church events, whether on or off campus.

Mike has willingly embraced any restriction we have placed on his participation since we first met. He has been forthcoming, cooperative, and a model of gracious humility.

Why are you disclosing this now?

First and foremost, we want to be clear that this disclosure is in response to recommendations from an external review of our existing policies, not in response to anything that has happened at our church. We are doing this because we believe disclosure in cases such as this adds a layer of protection to the chaperone policy we already have in place.

Second, we are doing this because we believe disclosure will actually enhance participation in our church for Mike and for others the Lord may bring to us in the future. Here's what I mean:

Mike is a wonderful model of how a believer looks on grievous sin in his past. He freely acknowledges the severity of what he did. He is living with the consequences of his sin, which are enormous. And he is walking, day by day, in the hope that there is more grace in Christ than sin in us. But to walk his path from here to glory, he needs what every Christian needs--the support of friends whose love for him is shaped by the gospel. That gospel promises us that we are fully known by God--for all we've done and left undone, every thought and deed and attitude--and fully loved by God through Jesus. We all need a community of people who know us fully and love us fully. That's what we want Mike to experience here with us.

How should I respond to this disclosure?

First, please come to us with your questions or concerns. We know that this disclosure will be especially sensitive for those of you who have experienced abuse in your life. We long for the opportunity to hear you and comfort you.

We know that others may have many questions about the path to this decision or the details of our current protection policies. We welcome those questions. In fact, we will set aside time for Q&A about this update in our members meeting this coming Sunday. And in the meantime, I am always available to you. For specific questions you may have, let me also highlight Bill ****** who led our most recent policy revisions, and Grady ****** who oversees our chaperone system. We are also glad to share copies of our protection policies with you at any time.

Second, please pray for and love on Mike and his dear wife Erin. Our response to Mike goes straight to the heart of what sort of church we want to be. Sin has consequences. Mike's sin has specific consequences for his life as part of our church that are appropriate and necessary. But God is merciful to sinners who repent. None of us has any hope apart from that promise. No one is beyond the reach of his love in Christ. If we believe that, we will charge with joy into every opportunity to show the love that's been shown to us.

I'm so grateful for each one of you. And I'm eager to talk anytime.

Yours, Matt

*: statistics taken from https://victimsofcrime.org/child-sexual-abuse-statistics/