News-Record.com

Two comments:

First, the slant on the story is typical New York Times. The paper sets up Christians for failure, creating scenarios they think will be "profound tests of faith."

Second, why would any church not allow a repentant sex offender in its pews? Christians know first-hand how all humans are sinful beings that do bad things. Forgiveness is at the heart of the story of Jesus, and is central to the Gospel. A church might be wise to not allow a former sex offender to teach Sunday School to kids, but full participation in other activities would seem a given.

Yes, "repentant" is the operative word here. This whole idea of letting anybody and everybody "into" the life of the church is alien to the NT and the OT. Jesus secomed sinners who repented of their sins and were committed to "go and sin no more." But held out the promise of judgment to those who persisted in thier death-ridden ways.

Personally, I can think of little in the way of sinning that tops sexually abusing kids and young people. Since I believe strongly that capital punishment is a Biblical norm for all cultures until the end of the earthly age, I believe we should promptly, after due legal procedure, execute these wretched creatures. The marring and maiming of the soul of precious innocent children demands nothing less - if justice is to be done.

Sounds harsh to bleeding heart ears, but our policy of coddling and freeing these folks has proven disastrous - if only ONE child more is molested.

I find the above responses very interesting, and goes along with my response to Nancy's Easter post. Jason feels that it's vital to be forgiving and give folks a chance, regardless of the sin. Nikos wants to be judge and jury... and might even stand in line for the chance to push the button to execute.

Allowing convicted sex offenders into a church around young children sounds like letting a wolf guard the chicken coop to me. Parents of these young children have very good reason to be concerned about this situation.

Well, I agree with Jason that in the case of any social group allowing a sex offender to participate, there are limits that are reasonable. Allow such a person into a situation you know he has a problem with, and you're asking for trouble. But there are many other venues available where he can participate and trouble can be avoided.

It's the same with letting a person suffering from kleptomania into a church. You don't let her volunteer to count the money from the offering plate, but that's about it.

Eric: “Nikos wants to be judge and jury... and might even stand in line for the chance to push the button to execute.”

Now, Eric, you are a literate person. You know that’s not at all what I said. I said, “AFTER DUE LEGAL PROCEDURE.” I do not believe at all in vigilante-ism; and do not in any sense “rejoice” in capital justice. I see it as just and reasonable retribution for capital crimes, AFTER a jury has duly weighed the evidence.

I have two much-loved children and two very precious grand children. They are the epitome of sweetness and beauty, with a lifetime of growth and happiness ahead of them – even in this crazy world, and the inevitable vicissitudes of life. The very thought of some maniac wounding their innocent souls by molesting them fills me with horror and indignation.

Without an understanding of man’s fallen nature, of sin and its destructive power, and God’s pronouncement of judgment on both sin and sinner, modern atheistic man sees little difference between a convenience store robber and a terrorist, between a tax evader and a child molester. They are all just poor, pitiable victims of an unjust and oppressive social order that should feel collectively and individually guilty; so much so, that there should be only minimal incarceration and absolutely NO capital justice.

I’m inclined toward the Biblical justice system of restitution. Incarceration is obviously not effective in either prevention or rehabilitation. It is necessary in particular cases, but is not the answer. While I have serious problems with our current incarceration system, I do believe that capital justice is appropriate when the crime demands it. Child molestation is one of those categories, by virtue of the nature of the crime. Jesus put it this way:

“Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!”

Here Jesus propounds the argument that children are so very precious that to offend (hurt, maim, desecrate) one demands a most serious punishment.” “Drowned” is clearly capital.

I know someone will bring up the OT scenarios where God commands warfare against certain peoples, in which all kinds of people are killed. My only response to that is that God’s judgments are perfect and not for us to “judge.” These are in the category of establishing the chosen people in the land that God gave them, for the purpose of building his Kingdom on the earth and preparing for the coming of Messiah. The “cup of iniquity” of the heathen peoples was full and ripe for judgment. This is a complex and difficult area, so I won’t belabor it here.

IF a child molester came into my church, having not been justly executed by the authorities, and it was known that he had committed such crimes, he would not be cast out on the pavement, but would be received with love and kindness, with the goal in view of repentance and forgiveness – and watched and surveilled VERY carefully (Thanks for your comments in this regard, RS). I would hope and pray that all offenders, in or out of the justice system, would repent and find God’s grace and forgiveness.

But there is a VERY DIFFERENT roll given by God to the Church and the State. This is NOT understood or appreciated today in our humanisitic milieu. The Church is the dispenser of grace and forgiveness, of restoration and mercy. The State is called by God to provide for just laws and trials, and the application of just sanctions (Romans 13). It is charged with protecting the people from crime and injury. If man is not responsible (given mental capability) then there is no case for courts or laws or anything along those lines; and he is reduced to a sophisticated lab rat: totally conditioned and totally un-responsible. We should, from this perspective, try to help the person convicted of speeding find the socio-psychological roots of his speed-crazed mentality and provide several months of care and rehab, with no criminal charges.

It is not just a matter of “punishment,” but of showing forth God’s view of sin, obeying his commands for justice, and of protecting the populace from sexual predators and the like – of providing a safe and godly social order in which little children can mature and find fulfillment.

"Now, Eric, you are a literate person. You know that’s not at all what I said. I said, “AFTER DUE LEGAL PROCEDURE.” I do not believe at all in vigilante-ism"
True enough. I stand corrected. My apologies...

And so sinners who are beyond the pale in their crimes, are to be wholly shunned even if they profess a desire to trun over a new leaf?

Freddy, this is not about crimes in general. This is about one specific crime, child molestation. Sexual predators are much more likely to strike again than are let's say shop lifters. The desire to turn over a new leaf is outweighed by the potential life shattering consequences of what has been shown to be an irreversible condition. Once a sexual predator, always a sexual predator.

Why is it this particular crime has such a high recidivist rate? Science might offer strong evidence someday (it is close now) that such awful urges are congenital. If so, doesn't an ostensibly socially-responsible, compassionate faith require every effort to reach and aid the offender who seeks to fight the genetic predisposition? I am not making any excuse for such behavior...as one should not excuse thoise predisposed with other terribly detrimental desires from the responsibility for their actions. But by shunning and casting anyone with a history of bad acts from seeking aid, in whatever forum they and their doctors or therapists or perhaps even a rogue pastor or two deem fit, seems high-handed and cold.

But, then again, this only further illuminates my contention that all religious organizations are basically clubs: you are there for the jolly time of associating with those who endorse your particular set of exclusionary prejudices.

I wonder whom else many otherwise "compassionate" believers would shut their doors to, if their true hearts were revealed? Clearly, gays, lesbians, fornicating teenagers and divorcees...and those are merely the sexual escapadists. And what, after all, of the perennial kleptomaniac, as you mention, or the more insidious time-cheat who is plays solitaire at work rather than being productive...let's widen the net...I mean, do those with a penchant for little lies on their taxes, year after year, with no signs of remorse or intent to change their ways...do they deserve more accomodation than those of any criminal background who sincerely seek to put their bad acts behind them for good? Is it the crime of the past or the current dedication to reform that counts more?

You consider protecting children high handed and cold? This letter was about a specific crime. Don't try to turn it into a general one.

So, on principle, then, if the crime is specifically child sexual abuse, that group of felons can be thwarted from attending even special non-child-attended services, for example?

"So, on principle, then, if the crime is specifically child sexual abuse, that group of felons can be thwarted from attending even special non-child-attended services, for example?"

I never said a word about keeping anyone from attending any kind of services, Freddy.

"Parents of these young children have very good reason to be concerned about this situation."

If you're going to comment on the letter, then comment on what was actually written. Not what you want to read into it.

And to answer your question, that decision would be made by the people in charge of the meeting and they are the ones accepting responsibility for the consequences of those decisions.

Okay: "In Santa Cruz, Mr. Pliska agreed to avoid children and to always be escorted by another adult. The church has two services, which made it easier for those uncomfortable with him to still worship."

This doesn't even go as far as I suggested, setting up child-free services. But many in the article, as uncomfortable as they felt, were willing to not leave (though some did). Guess my hypotheticals don't applt to this particular church as much: their "club" is more inclusive, a "liberalist" stance, as they themselves admit. Good for them, and for the repentant past offender.

The questions about recidivism and genetics still pertain, however, if we are willing to broaden the discussion. Those scientific investigations may ultimately change the terms of many similar debates revolving around issues of moral responsibilty: if our genes make us do it, or at least make it highly probable we do bad things, how does religion deal with that?

Rebel and I don't see too much eye to eye; but at least RS sees the practical side of this issue very clearly. Others seem to be blinded by the bleeding heart liberal syndrome.

First, I stand by my belief that these denizens deserve capital punishment if anyone does. Many of these law-based issues would be much clearer is we would try to understand the difference between community justice and personal redemption. The two are not mutually exclusive, but very different in MO and purpose. One is given by God to maintain order and decency in society and the other to afford individual sinners the grace of personal redemption. If we blurr this distinction we are headed for choas and tragedy.

ALL can be offered the optional of repentance and saving grace. But the laws of a society cannot be implemented in this way. And we must be "wise as a perpent" when it comes to our precious children.

The UCC church's issue should be a non-issue. The child molester should either be dead or put away for life. He/she should not be out in society with access to children. It is horrifying enough to know that there are others out there who haven't been cuaght or put away.

When it comes to society, God is MORE concerned about order and the protection of the innocent and the righteous than about the "rights" of perverts and molesters. Paul makes exactly the same point in Romans 13. The god-less humanist, however, has no holy God, no divine Law and thus no capacity to discern the nature of sin and its horrible and wretched consequences.

How many more children must be molested, how many more high schoolers wantonly killed and how many more college campuses assaulted before we see that sin is no trifle. Either we call it what it is and deal with it as such, or we pay the awful price. This is precisely why God demanded of his OT people to "drive sin from the camp." Blessings can only flow if sin is dealt with.

So, if well-documented science comes to find a genetic marker for such proclivities (or the likelihood of committing such acts, which are the oldest of societal taboos, Freud argued, precisely because of the prevalence and strength of their urge), and then devises drug or one day (invasive or radioactive) treatments to treat people with them effectively, would that alleviate the desire to see them killed or locked up for a lifetime? I venture to say it would not. revenge is too strong a counter-motive.

In fact, if my daughter were harmed in this way, I'd want to kill the blanker myself.

Is my desire for revenge a good reason for legal penalties of death and lifetime incarceration, let alone public shunning of someone seeking guidance and reform in utter sincerity?