Blog Layout
MANAGING THOSE WHO POSE A RISK
Simon Bass • 11 April 2020
Managing those who pose a risk
An open letter to every senior pastor whose church wants to minister to those who pose a risk of harm
It is commendable that your church wants to support sexual offenders in being part of your worshipping community, after all the gospel is for the ‘whosoever’. It is not meant to be critical in pointing out that as a pastor you are likely to have an optimistic view of people borne out of the Christian doctrine that no one is beyond God’s redemption; we are all sinners, but our sins are redeemed by God’s saving action in Jesus Christ. We are unworthy and undeserving by ourselves but God’s grace is poured out for the redemption of all who believe. Sometimes it is difficult to see beyond this, to have a critical understanding of the nature of perpetrators of sexual harm.
As shepherds you have a duty of care towards your flock, and especially those who are vulnerable; those children and adults in your congregation. As a good steward it is vital that before contemplating ministering to anyone who has committed sexual offences such an undertaking is not done so naively – the risk of harm to children is just too great. I say this based on the recidivism rates for sexual offenders, which sadly includes those who profess a faith in Jesus Christ. If we have learned anything from the clerical abuse scandals that have plagued the Catholic Church and other major denominations it is that professing faith does not mean we become sinless. Those who have sexually molested children will always pose a future risk to them. This is not to deny the transforming work of Jesus Christ but recognition of the addictive nature of sexual crimes.
In every fellowship there will be survivors of sexual abuse (based on national and international statistics of the number who have been victims of abuse in childhood). Many look to the church as a place of sanctuary and struggle when churches have sympathy and mobilise resources for perpetrators of abuse, whilst the pain and safety needs of victims are ignored.
How you as a pastor respond to perpetrators who have molested children must always have as a starting point the safety of children. Then you should give due consideration to the needs of survivors, and the affect ministering to perpetrators of abuse can have on them. If you appear to be one-sided you will alienate many in the church, and especially those who have been harmed. Survivors of abuse will only ever have confidence in your church if their voice is heard when you are working with those who have committed sexual violence against them.
I would urge you as pastors to use appropriate language when talking about sexual offenders, and by this I am talking about those who have molested and raped children, and filmed then shared these abusive acts. Don’t describe sexual offenders simply as offenders, nor describe them as ex-offenders, as it can be perceived that there is a denial of their offence and ignoring that they will always be a risk, and it consigns the abuse to the past. Certainly don’t describe their behavior as being about mistakes in the past, which is just too dismissive.
Boundaries
Ensuring your church is a safe and welcoming environment requires that you have a child protection policy in place, and that all your leaders have been trained in child safety, including safer recruitment, that you have clear working practices including what to do where abuse is disclosed or suspected. This would also include how you address the pastoral and counseling needs of those who have been affected by abuse. With this in place you will be better equipped to minister to sexual offenders, remember they will look for acceptance, and the church is often the only place where this can be found. It is understandable why sex offenders are drawn to church.
Some manipulative sex offenders will target churches, professing faith and using language and acting in ways suggestive that they are repentant, knowing they will be accepted, in order to gain contact with children in order to abuse them. Other sex offenders who truly want to turn away from the crimes they have committed will show fruit in keeping with repentance. One clear way is for the sex offender to agree to never working with children or wanting to have any position or authority within the church which would give rise to a child believing them to be trustworthy. This requires wisdom in considering what roles and titles you give to sex offenders to ensure they are not seen as a person in a position of trust.
Children are trusting, and if they believe a person is safe to be around because that is the impression you give at church, they are not going to be weary when approached outside of church. It is imperative that you engage in a covenant contract with the sex offender, outlining the boundaries they are expected to keep and how the church may be able to support in their rehabilitation to prevent the likelihood of them re-offending. Living with the consequence of the crime isn’t denying redemption. This should be written drawing on a professional risk assessment from their probation or law enforcement officer, or others involved in their aftercare. It should clearly state the crime they committed, and any sanctions or restrictions they are under, and what sex offender management plan that may be in place. Key leaders in the church need to be aware of this contract. Don’t assume that members of the church will refer to the sex offender register.
Be very clear as to what offences have been acknowledged, and dealt with by the courts, as further admissions can lead to you as pastors needing to mandatorily contact law enforcement. A situational risk assessment should also be undertaken to ascertain if you are able to provide the level of support and supervision needed to ensure the sex offender can be monitored sufficiently so as not to put children at risk. Churches don’t just operate in one building but include meeting in homes for bible studies and as a church family there will be offers of hospitality. These need to be included in the contract, which should be constantly reviewed, and remain in force indefinitely.
Other considerations
I have known sex offenders who have said the church should cease the contract such as at the time of the end of their probation. The risk they posed though had not changed so the contract should remain. Certainly don’t give public ministry to sex offenders or opportunity for them to share their testimony. It is grossly offensive to survivors of abuse, for some it is an opportunity to groom a congregation and other sexual offenders will get sexual gratification from re-telling their story. It is unfair to their victims, not least because it risks identifying them.
I believe that sex offenders can be part of church but because of the nature of the offence there are many aspects of ministry that they should not be involved in, starting with not having any role where they are in any position of trust. Many churches provide pastoral support and recovery programs but again this is not something a sex offender should be involved in. Due to the predisposition to sexually abuse a child, this is a matter for long term intense therapeutic intervention; this disqualifies sexual offenders from acting as facilitators within certain recovery programs, for example where providing care or counsel to anyone dealing with addiction, especially sex addictions or pornography. This is simply foolhardy. I have known sex offenders who began viewing pornography and then downloaded child abuse images. Some victims of sexual abuse have become addicted to alcohol or drugs in order to cope with that abuse. For these reasons it is therefore totally inappropriate to have a sex offender involved in these ministries.
Finally
Churches should always be a place of acceptance and refuge and welcome, so let’s first ensure that survivors of abuse believe this first. Working with sex offenders require you as pastors to recognize that this is a specialist area where you should be working collaboratively with appropriate professionals and their agencies. It’s therefore vital to work with law enforcement and get support from organizations such as G.R.A.C.E. and Stop it Now!, and survivor advocacy organizations such as SNAP.
This Blog Post first appeared on Amy Smith’s Watch Keep blog in November 2016
http://watchkeep.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/convicted-registered-child-sex-offender.html
Details of Amy Smith can be found:
https://www.blogger.com/profile/09238444710658478191
Church Safeguarding Consultancy Blog
If our churches and places of worship are truly sacred spaces offering sanctuary for all, we have to ensure we respond with Christ’s love to anyone who discloses or reports abuse. Having a clear safeguarding policy, readily accessible, that provides details of both the safeguarding advocates within the church as well as how to report externally is vital. There are various titles given for those with safeguarding responsibilities within the church, this can be for example safeguarding co-ordinators, officers, or advocates. Additionally, the safeguarding policy should include details of law enforcement and civil authorities with child and adult protection responsibilities such as police and children’s social services, and adult social care. Pastors and all ministry leaders should adhere to, endorse, and promote a safeguarding policy which reflects local circumstances, as to which statutory authorities and organisations should be immediately contacted whenever a safeguarding concern arises. Realities A disclosure or discovery of abuse WILL affect the church. It means that someone has been harmed. It means that there is a victim of abuse, possibly other victims too, there is a perpetrator of abuse, who may also be in the church, and there may well be other family members of both victim and perpetrator. The victim and perpetrator may hold roles within church, and they are likely to have friends within that place of worship. This is why it is vitally important that churches appoint safeguarding advocates to act independently of the church and on behalf of the victims of abuse. Having safeguarding advocates insulates against actions being influenced by friendships, or as is often the case due to church allegiance actions take having at their heart the desire for reputational protection. We simply should not ignore personal motivation and assume that all safeguarding advocates will respond robotically to all safeguarding matters. Instead we should ensure we have processes in place to not simply mitigate against this but remove it completely. If a safeguarding advocate has a personal connection with either the victim or the perpetrator then another safeguarding advocate should deal with the safeguarding concern. Where this is not possible then the person who raises the safeguarding matter should be assisted in making a direct report to the statutory authorities for child or adult protection. No church should ever want to negate caring for those who are hurting within their community; so the pastoral response should be undertaken where possible in parallel with any investigation conducted by police or social services or other civil bodies, but with clear boundaries so that it doesn’t interfere with any such investigations. The churches response must always be rooted within the principles of justice, and must always be victim-centric, focusing on the needs of those who have been hurt and abused. Such principles will help shape actions and priorities when managing an allegation. The church is not there to make a judgement, or to investigate any safeguarding allegations. Based on statistics alone, which show that false allegations are extremely rare, it is likely that any allegation is factual. It is though not for the church to decide this, but to report concerns so that they can be scrutinised by the statutory authorities, which may then lead to either through a criminal court, on the criteria of beyond reasonable doubt, or through a civil procedures working to the threshold of on the balance of probabilities. The sensitivity of the language used is always important, and some who have been abused prefer the term survivor. Many churches will have policies for managing those who may pose a risk of harm, which includes the boundaries and support on offer from the church. A church should have a survivor care strategy that dovetails the safeguarding policy. A church demonstrating a victim centred response to allegations of abuse is one that liaises with the statutory authorities and offers pastoral care and support to victims and their families. Listening to what they say with an empathetic ear, and journeys with them over the long term.
There is a greater understanding of all forms of abuse, including the sexual abuse of children and of adults within churches. There is acknowledgement that those who have perpetrated the abuse have held prominent roles within our churches and houses of worship including pastors. There is a begrudging acceptance that the ‘clerical abuse scandal’, as it is often referred to is as prevalent within Protestant churches as it is within Catholic ones. The #Me Too and the #We Too movements have given voice to those who had previously been voiceless and shown that protectionism has been rife. It isn’t that abuse wasn’t known about, but that very often the abuse was covered up, and managed within the four walls of the institution of the church rather than reporting to the civil safeguarding authorities. The reputation of the church, and the perpetrator being prioritised over the care of the victim. The Church of England in the UK, and the Southern Baptist Convention in the USA, are just two examples of denominations that are having to face up to their past failings, whilst also having to address making the church a safer place for all today. Journeying with forgiveness Churches have not always been safe havens for children or adults with vulnerabilities. Nor have churches responded appropriately to disclosures of abuse, both in the actions taken and, in the justification, given through quoting passages of the Bible to justify their actions. An example being applying Matthew 18:15-20 to force victims of abuse to seek restitution from within the church in confronting their abuser. This includes a reliance on having other witnesses to establish that the abuse has taken place, is a sad reflection of taking scripture out of context for the purpose of containment, preventing justice and righteousness. Justice, being the proposer exercise of authority and power, and righteousness being about doing the right thing. Given all of this, for victims and survivors of abuse, who retain their Christian faith, the complexity of forgiveness can weigh heavily. In Matthew 18:22 when Jesus was asked how often we should forgive he replied, ‘seventy times seven’. In Luke 17:3 conditions are applied to this, that offering forgiveness is conditional upon the person being repentant for their acts. For some survivors of abuse, the struggle to forgive their abuser, for the horrific acts committed against them, brings about a sense of deprecation. Scripture says they should forgive, they struggle with this; it can feel insurmountable and then feel condemned through reading in Matthew 6:14-15 that forgiving others who have wronged them is conditional on God forgiving them. For many people who have been harmed, forgiveness is a journey, and one that cannot be rushed. It is on this journey that for the survivor of abuse through care and support are able to begin to heal, to make sense of what has happened to them, to begin to trust other people, as part of the process of their recovery. There are different aspects of forgiveness. Only God is able to forgive us our sins through His grace, through Christs redemptive work on the cross. Whilst living under grace, God expects us to confess our sin, be repentant and seek His forgiveness (1 John 1:9). That God can forgive sins does not mean that there are not consequences as part of God’s judgement. The bible is very clear on God’s divine judgement on those who cause harm to children will be punished (Matthew 18:1-6). To be repentant, means to sin no more, and to be held accountable for all actions and behaviour. Someone who is truly repentant will act in ways to demonstrate that. Another aspect is relational forgiveness, with a restoration and reconciliation of relationships between the person who has been harmed and their abuser. Although desirable biblically it is not always possible, nor wise. Relational forgiveness requires repentance on the part of the wrongdoer (Luke 17:3). Too often the emphasis has been on the person who has harmed to forgive rather than what is required of the abuser. It is this aspect of forgiveness that requires time. The emphasis must be on the abuser. Firstly, there is a need for cessation of harm; secondly, for the abuser to take responsibility for the harm they have caused. Repentance is more than simply offering an apology for the wrongdoing. It is about taking the necessary actions in keeping with repentance. That includes but is not limited to admitting their offence to law enforcement, and accepting any punishment, civil or criminal that may result. It is about recognising areas of weakness and doing everything to ensure that there is no repeat. The journey of forgiveness can be purposefully slow because it is a journey of trust and requires the offender to demonstrate genuine fruit of repentance (Matthew 3:8, 2 Cor 7:10), and this can only happen over time. There is a need for the offender to acknowledge the harm they have caused and seek restitution (Luke 19:8), whilst this may be managed through civil courts, on a practical level, the child sex offender could demonstrate restitution by paying for counselling for their victim. There are sensitivities with this arrangement, and this is why civil redress may be preferable. Though using the civil courts to sue to seek compensation and reparation for harm committed has very often affected the finances of the church as an institution rather than the individual who has committed the offence. These acts can help towards a rebuilding of trust, but ultimately the time needed for healing in the process of forgiving cannot be specified. It is the state that provides the apparatus to address the wrongdoing. This can be through the criminal justice system, or through redress in the civil courts, or both. A survivor of abuse in reporting the abuse to the authorities is acting in accordance with scripture. In criminal court proceeding the victim of abuse is acting as a witness as the state prosecutes the person alleged to have committed the offence, for a jury to decide if there is sufficient evidence to convict. Ultimately God is a God of justice. For victims and survivors of abuse the journey of forgiveness is one that requires protection. Something that was missing whilst the abuse took place. A church with the hallmarks of being a safe place is one that: • does not demand forgiveness but rather walks with the survivor of sexual abuse on their journey with patient steps. • responds with compassion, supporting the choices the survivor wants to take • recognises that forgiveness is a process • differentiates between forgiveness and reconciliation Forgiveness has many layers and different facets, it is relational, both for the survivor of abuse with God, the perpetrator of abuse and God and between the victim of abuse and the person they harmed. As Luke 17:3-4 demonstrates forgiveness on the part of the person who has been harmed is conditional on the person who has sinned and caused harm to repent and then asking for forgiveness. Too often the emphasis has been on the narrow focus of a survivor needing to forgive their abuser. For a survivor this can suggest a dismissal of the abuse, an enabling of the abuser, forgetfulness, and consignment of the abuse to the past, when there is ever present pain, and a let off. Churches can support survivors of abuse on their journey of forgiveness, starting with having no expectations of time scale, but being prepared to travel the entire distance.
How can we ensure that churches and houses of worship are safe place for everyone, especially children and any adult who may be vulnerable? Whilst the simple often given reply is that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility, and there is much truth in such a response, it ignores the power dynamic embedded within the culture of our religious institutions, and the influence of those in positions of clerical authority. For safeguarding to be effective requires not simply having policies and procedures and protocols but adoption through a culture of safeguarding. It requires an outworking theology of safeguarding, that is firmly rooted in Micah 6:8 ‘to do justice, to love mercy and walk humbly with God.’ Sadly, there have been occasions where scripture has been used to silence victims of abuse, with churches dealing with incidents of child abuse internally with no recourse to the civil safeguarding agencies. This is despite Romans 13:1-2 and 1 Peter 2:13-15 being very explicit that Christians should come under the God delegated authority of governments. A failure to do so is an act against God. Similarly, Jesus was very clear in Matthew 22:15-22, when the Pharisees asked about paying taxes, that citizens should come under the law of the land: “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” The abuse of children is not simply morally and ethically wrong but are also criminal acts. The sexual abuse of a child is a crime. In circumstances where someone becomes aware of child abuse, they should report this to the civil authorities such as law enforcement. This act can protect a child from further abuse, along with giving the police the opportunity to conduct a criminal investigation and enable other civil agencies such as social workers to safeguard and protect. One chapter of the bible that promotes the welfare of children is Matthew 18. In answering ‘who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven’ at the beginning of the chapter, Jesus instructs us all to humble ourselves like children. He then pronounces in verse 6: “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Also found in Luke 17: 2, Mark 9: 42). These are damning words from Jesus, as he forewarns that anyone who harms a child or anyone who is vulnerable - the ‘little ones’, who causes them to sin, (in Greek the word ‘skandalizo’ also means to draw someone away from whom they followed), it would be better for such a person to drown in the depth of the sea. Here we see how God takes the abuse of the vulnerable seriously, with dire consequences for those who offend. This goes beyond just the individual but includes institutions who do so corporately by not providing safe spaces for all, and who fail to act to protect those who are vulnerable. God holds all those in positions of power, authority, and trust accountable for their behaviour as they shepherd those in their care. Yet, Matthew 18:15-20 has often been used by churches as justification for them to handle allegations of criminal behaviour themselves, rather than report to the criminal justice systems in place within their jurisdiction. Rather than report sexual abuse and other crimes against children (and adults) these verses have been used as a means of church discipline and to pursue interpersonal reconciliation: “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:15-20) Churches have used these verses to advance that Jesus is advocating that Christians can adjudicate on criminal matters, through church discipline and through reconciliation, rather than seek legal address and through the statutory safeguarding authorities. These verses actually address immoral matters and disputes between believers and church discipline, not criminal matters. They have been weaponised to silence victims of abuse, especially where the abuser has been a leader in the church. Too often they have been used to silence children, and to keep the knowledge of the abuse in-house. Imagine a situation where a child has disclosed abuse to a trusted person within the church. The church leadership have then run a ‘kangaroo court’, undertaken their own internal investigation, and forced a child to disclose their abuse to a group, all men, of leaders, with the abuser present. Where, the accused leader has admitted to the abuse, the child is forced to accept their apology and forgive and be reconciled to them. The leader may face some church discipline but is then quickly restored to leadership. Often times where a child has been sexually abused, they have been discipled along with their abuser, for what the church leaders describe as their ‘sinful’ behaviour. Alternatively, where the abuser denies they are a sexual predator, the rest of the leaders say abuse cannot have taken place because the child is not able to prove the abuse happened through the ‘testimony from two or three witnesses.’ Sexual abuse in particular is carried out in secret. To misapply scripture in the defence of a perpetrator of abuse, not only denies justice for the victim of abuse, but causes untold spiritual harm in addition to the physical, sexual, and emotional harm the abusive act will have caused. Such action prevents healing and creates a roadblock on the journey along the path of forgiveness. Too often the reputation of the church and good name of the perpetrator has been the overriding priority, above seeking justice. Consequently, actions taken by the church have been about damage control rather than ministry to those hurt and affected by the abuse. Victims of abuse can be reluctant to disclose. Fearing that they won’t be believed and that they will be ostracised by the church, and hearing the clarion call by all those in church authority is towards restoring a fallen minister of religion showing grace and mercy, with the victims care being an afterthought, at best and often an inconvenience. This is addressed with a clear understanding of the theology of safeguarding, practically applied. A church grounded in a clear understanding of the theology of safeguarding, one which works in partnership with the governing authorities and defers investigation to them and one that has a survivor focus, is a church that understands the marriage between Romans 13 and Matthew 18.