Man, you just gotta feel bad for sex offenders who have to wear the scarlet A after abusing their victims. Cause, ya know, the victims get to go on with their lives without any long term consequences from the abuse.
Being a survivor of both incest and sexual assault, it would seem natural that I would be very against registered sex offenders being intermixed with a general church population. And I am...to some degree. However, the point made about how other sins are seen as redeemable, but this one is not seems a cause to pause.
I don't know what it looks like practically for registered sex offenders to be welcomed into the body of Christ as fellow sinners in need of a Savior (as we all are). I definitely have qualms about certain roles. It is such a challenging and nuanced topic.
Who am I to know the state of another's heart and mind? Who am I to know the work the Lord is doing in an individual's heart? And being kept in the proverbial "lepers colony" sends a pretty strong message that "we" are better and "they" are reprehensible.
If there is grace for me to change...is there not for every other person?
(Again - lots of sexual trauma in my past...so I deeply feel the tension in this discussion)
It's very brave of you to even be open to talking about it, so thank you.
First and foremost the offender's probationary restrictions need to be evaluated. Can they legally even be around kids? Once that's been determined, each person would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There are so many variables from the nature of the crime, the offenders age at the time, how long ago the offense occurred, etc.. But it's a huge red flag when you've got people convicted of sexually abusing kids actively working to get around kids again. If they're truly repentant, they should not want that. They should fear temptation. Anything less is a sign their repentance may not be real.
All sins are equal; all are redeemable. However, there is a hierarchy of consequences. We can't deny them fellowship, being apart of the Body, but we can deny them a physical presence in our churches. It would involve online services, fellowship only on days when the regular congregation is absent, under guardianship, with clear rules. There was a teacher I knew who was convicted of molesting his daughter. I was out of school when it came out, and years later I met up with him. He was in a church, but could not be around any children; he was also getting married again. People (because women can be sexual predators, and their reported numbers are steadily increasing) repent, and we aren't the judges of their hearts. Paul and Peter and Jesus tell us to obey authorities: that means following the laws on sexual offenders. Forgiveness also means never forgetting boundaries: why would we, in the name of love, bring them back to places that would be considered parole violations, and possible temptations?! You can't just forget someone was a predator; that actually does them a great disservice. If you pretend a sin never happened, you don't lessen their guilty feelings. You either enable them, or you destroy them, because they think their sin is too great. If I robbed a store, and then repented, but everyone ignored that, what would happen to me? I'd either keep robbing, assuming I had impunity, or I would drown in guilt, because I knew there was no way to make restitution. Ignoring sin is the same as ignoring an individual: our humanity is not bound to our sin, but our sin will shape our lives. We are given a new image, a new spirit, the free will to now obey. (Martin Luther maintained that free will only happened after salvation, because now you understood sin; you can't not choose something if it's the only choice.) And in the new Jerusalem, our consequences are finally redeemed, and there won't be any need for these laws. But, until then, we have to accept both the person and the effects of their sin. And that means not allowing registered sex offenders to be in the same space as our minors - even if they have an escort, and are not in a service with them. Deacons and elders are invaluable in helping offenders maintain fellowship while maintaining safe spaces in our churches.
(I'm not sure if this made sense - I'm barely seeing straight from the pain)
My wife and I were members of the church Chandler Fozard mentions in this article in Stillwater, OK (Stillwater RPCNA). Bruce Parnell was my pastor for nearly 18 years. Two things:
1. In 2021, my wife was sexually assaulted. When we informed the church, they did none of the following that Fozard says they did for him: "The church provided the initial expenses for a place to stay, showered him with everything he needed to live and attend college..." For us, the Scarlett A was squarely placed upon my wife, and no funding was given for anything we endured (AirBnb, child care, legal fees, advocacy, lost self-employment income). Instead, that was the type of church that put forward a man for leadership who wrote online reviews about Lolita that essentially blamed the 12-year-old, offered rides home to teenagers alone, accosted toddlers in Sunday School, and was accused of abuse by his children.
2. The article linked says the Stillwater church..."welcomed him into their homes and even around their children." This is no shock. They had another registered child sex offender (possession of CP) who was not only regularly granted access to children (people would undress their children in front of him to potty train or discipline) but was even placed on their "security team" that watched the cameras at the church. This man regularly complained about the unjust legal system and criticized his sentence. The church pitied him. Any time we said that new members with small children should know they would guilt us for wanting to make him feel ostracized; we felt it was a protection for others, the church, and the sex offender. If this was the start of Fozard's familiarity with how to treat sex offenders, I'm not surprised at all...the Stillwater church is a blight.
I do not agree with the Fozards' view that it is reasonable to expect a registered sex offender to be able to attend a church with families without a chaperone after a period of time. At the same time I don't think that your characterization of her arguments are also not reasonable.
Mrs. Fozard was clearly not discussing situations that would fall under Romeo and Juliet laws. A 25-year-old could believe that they are in a relationship with a 19-year-old only to find out later that their partner is 17-years-old. Romeo and Juliet laws would not apply here, and the fact that she is discussing someone who has been charged with a crime it is clear that she is discussing situations that are not covered by Romeo and Juliet laws.
The truth of the matter is that there are registered sex offenders who do not have a predilection toward minors or non-consensual sex. This does not mean that they should not be charged, punished, or registered. It also does not mean that they should have unsupervised access to church services ever again. When you deny that some registered sex offenders are not fundamentally predators, this weakens your case by denying reality.
I do hope the Fozards are in communication with their congregants' parole officers and receiving accurate verified information about their offense history and sex offender assessments so that they can understand the true situations of each congregant instead of taking their words for it.
I don't think that their church should be allowed to be a church within the OPC. I hope that they can find a way to be a mission or outreach of a larger congregation. I have a family member who is a registered sex offender who was not allowed by their parole officer to attend church for many years but their parole officer found them a weekly mid-week men's bible study that met at a local cafe that they could attend. The parole officer was in contact with the Bible study leadership so that way they knew what restrictions were appropriate. Because his heart was in the right place about wanting to be in Christian fellowship, he was willing to put up with whatever restrictions were required to attend. It is so difficult for me to hear Mrs. Fozard to describe one of her congagants as not having this same heart without taking it as a red flag.
I feel like the emphasis on public Lord's Day meetings governed by a session in full-communion with the presbytery (sorry if I'm not using the correct Presbyterian wording here) within the Presbyterian movement puts them at a real disadvantage in being able to minister to these men. In other traditions a solution like the one my family member used would not be treated theologically as a second rate option in quite the same way I feel like it is in the Presbyterian church. I do hope that their ministry can find an option that gives them the oversight they desire, enables communion with the larger church, provides their congregants access to the sacraments, and keeps everyone safe.
Man, you just gotta feel bad for sex offenders who have to wear the scarlet A after abusing their victims. Cause, ya know, the victims get to go on with their lives without any long term consequences from the abuse.
/end sarcasm/
My honest, but likely unpopular, mixed feelings:
Being a survivor of both incest and sexual assault, it would seem natural that I would be very against registered sex offenders being intermixed with a general church population. And I am...to some degree. However, the point made about how other sins are seen as redeemable, but this one is not seems a cause to pause.
I don't know what it looks like practically for registered sex offenders to be welcomed into the body of Christ as fellow sinners in need of a Savior (as we all are). I definitely have qualms about certain roles. It is such a challenging and nuanced topic.
Who am I to know the state of another's heart and mind? Who am I to know the work the Lord is doing in an individual's heart? And being kept in the proverbial "lepers colony" sends a pretty strong message that "we" are better and "they" are reprehensible.
If there is grace for me to change...is there not for every other person?
(Again - lots of sexual trauma in my past...so I deeply feel the tension in this discussion)
It's very brave of you to even be open to talking about it, so thank you.
First and foremost the offender's probationary restrictions need to be evaluated. Can they legally even be around kids? Once that's been determined, each person would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There are so many variables from the nature of the crime, the offenders age at the time, how long ago the offense occurred, etc.. But it's a huge red flag when you've got people convicted of sexually abusing kids actively working to get around kids again. If they're truly repentant, they should not want that. They should fear temptation. Anything less is a sign their repentance may not be real.
All sins are equal; all are redeemable. However, there is a hierarchy of consequences. We can't deny them fellowship, being apart of the Body, but we can deny them a physical presence in our churches. It would involve online services, fellowship only on days when the regular congregation is absent, under guardianship, with clear rules. There was a teacher I knew who was convicted of molesting his daughter. I was out of school when it came out, and years later I met up with him. He was in a church, but could not be around any children; he was also getting married again. People (because women can be sexual predators, and their reported numbers are steadily increasing) repent, and we aren't the judges of their hearts. Paul and Peter and Jesus tell us to obey authorities: that means following the laws on sexual offenders. Forgiveness also means never forgetting boundaries: why would we, in the name of love, bring them back to places that would be considered parole violations, and possible temptations?! You can't just forget someone was a predator; that actually does them a great disservice. If you pretend a sin never happened, you don't lessen their guilty feelings. You either enable them, or you destroy them, because they think their sin is too great. If I robbed a store, and then repented, but everyone ignored that, what would happen to me? I'd either keep robbing, assuming I had impunity, or I would drown in guilt, because I knew there was no way to make restitution. Ignoring sin is the same as ignoring an individual: our humanity is not bound to our sin, but our sin will shape our lives. We are given a new image, a new spirit, the free will to now obey. (Martin Luther maintained that free will only happened after salvation, because now you understood sin; you can't not choose something if it's the only choice.) And in the new Jerusalem, our consequences are finally redeemed, and there won't be any need for these laws. But, until then, we have to accept both the person and the effects of their sin. And that means not allowing registered sex offenders to be in the same space as our minors - even if they have an escort, and are not in a service with them. Deacons and elders are invaluable in helping offenders maintain fellowship while maintaining safe spaces in our churches.
(I'm not sure if this made sense - I'm barely seeing straight from the pain)
If this is the same Fozard from this article: https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/crossroads-lab/article270298552.html ...then I have a few things to add.
My wife and I were members of the church Chandler Fozard mentions in this article in Stillwater, OK (Stillwater RPCNA). Bruce Parnell was my pastor for nearly 18 years. Two things:
1. In 2021, my wife was sexually assaulted. When we informed the church, they did none of the following that Fozard says they did for him: "The church provided the initial expenses for a place to stay, showered him with everything he needed to live and attend college..." For us, the Scarlett A was squarely placed upon my wife, and no funding was given for anything we endured (AirBnb, child care, legal fees, advocacy, lost self-employment income). Instead, that was the type of church that put forward a man for leadership who wrote online reviews about Lolita that essentially blamed the 12-year-old, offered rides home to teenagers alone, accosted toddlers in Sunday School, and was accused of abuse by his children.
2. The article linked says the Stillwater church..."welcomed him into their homes and even around their children." This is no shock. They had another registered child sex offender (possession of CP) who was not only regularly granted access to children (people would undress their children in front of him to potty train or discipline) but was even placed on their "security team" that watched the cameras at the church. This man regularly complained about the unjust legal system and criticized his sentence. The church pitied him. Any time we said that new members with small children should know they would guilt us for wanting to make him feel ostracized; we felt it was a protection for others, the church, and the sex offender. If this was the start of Fozard's familiarity with how to treat sex offenders, I'm not surprised at all...the Stillwater church is a blight.
You can read more about all of this on my X. I have posted a thread dealing with some of this, here: https://x.com/JN193655/status/1891936191362093095
I do not agree with the Fozards' view that it is reasonable to expect a registered sex offender to be able to attend a church with families without a chaperone after a period of time. At the same time I don't think that your characterization of her arguments are also not reasonable.
Mrs. Fozard was clearly not discussing situations that would fall under Romeo and Juliet laws. A 25-year-old could believe that they are in a relationship with a 19-year-old only to find out later that their partner is 17-years-old. Romeo and Juliet laws would not apply here, and the fact that she is discussing someone who has been charged with a crime it is clear that she is discussing situations that are not covered by Romeo and Juliet laws.
The truth of the matter is that there are registered sex offenders who do not have a predilection toward minors or non-consensual sex. This does not mean that they should not be charged, punished, or registered. It also does not mean that they should have unsupervised access to church services ever again. When you deny that some registered sex offenders are not fundamentally predators, this weakens your case by denying reality.
I do hope the Fozards are in communication with their congregants' parole officers and receiving accurate verified information about their offense history and sex offender assessments so that they can understand the true situations of each congregant instead of taking their words for it.
I don't think that their church should be allowed to be a church within the OPC. I hope that they can find a way to be a mission or outreach of a larger congregation. I have a family member who is a registered sex offender who was not allowed by their parole officer to attend church for many years but their parole officer found them a weekly mid-week men's bible study that met at a local cafe that they could attend. The parole officer was in contact with the Bible study leadership so that way they knew what restrictions were appropriate. Because his heart was in the right place about wanting to be in Christian fellowship, he was willing to put up with whatever restrictions were required to attend. It is so difficult for me to hear Mrs. Fozard to describe one of her congagants as not having this same heart without taking it as a red flag.
I feel like the emphasis on public Lord's Day meetings governed by a session in full-communion with the presbytery (sorry if I'm not using the correct Presbyterian wording here) within the Presbyterian movement puts them at a real disadvantage in being able to minister to these men. In other traditions a solution like the one my family member used would not be treated theologically as a second rate option in quite the same way I feel like it is in the Presbyterian church. I do hope that their ministry can find an option that gives them the oversight they desire, enables communion with the larger church, provides their congregants access to the sacraments, and keeps everyone safe.