Pilgrim UCC deals with sexual offender as a member

[des]

I feel this is the best place on the forum, since we deal with being open and affirming congregations. This story was on the ABC news, though it looks like it has actually been around for awhile. Pilgrim UCC is in CA I think. And a guy who has served time in prison tried to join the UCC church there. The story very well presented the mixed feelings of wanting to remain true to their inclusiveness and also feeling safe (both people with small children and those who were victims of sexual assault themselves). I think the church has actually not decided what to do, though he attends a small group with members from the church (one of whom was assaulted as a child). There is a idea afloat to have him free to attend but to be escorted at all times. This does seem like a good plan. I don't know the floor plan of the Pilgrim church, but in our church we have multiple floors and many bathrooms and hallways-- lots of places for temptations. OTOH, I would guess that the ones you know about are less a threat than the ones you don't know of.

There are a couple websites with good discussions on this. The one I like the best is here:
http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2007/4/11/15265/5819

There is also a good discussion, which I hadn't thought of, discussing the problems faced by a covential church, a community working together (such as UCC or UU) vs a creedal church). As I have read some nonsense about the comparison between homosexuality. (This is a sin that isn't. It really doesn't have anything to do with sin as such.)

--des

 

[applewuud]

This also touches on the issue of democratic church governance. An issue like this can tear congregations apart. People who are carrying the burden of sexual assault have justifiable anger against offenders; we'd like to affirm them and give a safe place to heal. Yet if those who've committed crimes and served their sentence are totally isolated from all community after release from prison, they have no chance to change and are more likely to offend in the future. When the issue is put publicly like this, it awakens all kinds of transference of past hurts and angers.

A safe congregations policy should be in effect at all times. A church is made safe by its structure, policies and procedures, not by who it excludes.

Thom Hartmann says the difference between liberals and conservatives is their view of human nature. The classic liberal position is that human nature is essentially good, and the role of government (or a church) is to help people realize their full potential: education, health services, resources. Conservatism is rooted in the belief than human beings have an inherent tendency towards evil, and the role of government (or religion) is primarily to keep our negative impulses under control: police forces, prisons, armies.

Liberal churches face a deep challenge when a member or potential member has done something negative, whether it's a sex crime or embezzlement. It breaks the myth that everything will be OK if we're just nice enough or tolerant enough. So the temptation is to go to the conservative answer and exclude the offender, make them different from us, send the scapegoat into the wilderness. The statistic that sex offenders have an extremely high recidivism rate supports that temptation.

 

[des]

I can't find any links to it. But they just voted overwhelming to let the guy in. I am very happy to see this. Apparently those who were abused were very active in helping the guy in, convening in the special small services (I don't know what these were as no article was specific about it).

I think the comments re: liberal vs conservative view of human nature are quite valid.

One article on the case was about what the liberal church view of sin is, and that apparently, since this was controversial, that the liberal church does see this as sin (whereas they don't see homosexuality as a sin). I think this is totally beside the point, and if it were our church "sin" wouldn't have been the deciding factor. The discussion focused on safety. But I see the renewing, healing aspects of the community as well, so it isn't irrelevant. I think that we (conservatives and liberals) would see the whole question rather differently.

I was also very happy to see the liberal religious community getting some positive press for a change! I think we mostly get ignored. The ending comment that this was a church that was open, affirming and inclusive (using UCC terms too).




--des

 

[applewuud]

Lilithu on her site (http://www.wizdum.net/?q=confessions) has an interesting liberation theology entry "Good and Evil and the Individual" where she says:

"... in liberation theology sin is not conceived of at the level of individual failure, but rather societal systems of oppression. Sin is the perpetuance of systems that prevent people from reaching their full potential.
I have said for a long time now that there are good and evil acts, but one cannot judge an individual as either good or evil. But I think I better understand now why it really is true.
Good and evil have no meaning in the context of an individual person. They only have meaning in the interactions between people, in the effect we have on each other. It is all about connection, and the lack of connection."

If this is true, it is the greatest challenge to the present system of justice and corrections. By jailing and separating people, we perpetuate evil. Statistically, this concept is supported, e.g. a state that executes the most murderers (Texas) has a much higher murder rate than a state that has no executions (Massachusetts).

However, this is where liberal ideas make average people feel unsafe...or, more precisely, that liberal policymakers can't be trusted with their safety. An individual may not be "good or evil" in essence, but certain individuals have exhibited a tendency to do destructive things to others. The conservatives say separating these people from situations where they might offend again is moral. They would also say that there is a core internal choice that people make, that they are responsible for, regardless of any circumstance of their lives.

The key to a liberal solution is to have enough skill in the community, enough resources, to create an environment that is constructive and healing for those in trouble. Building such an environment, to the level of reaching out to offenders before they offend, is difficult. Yet, since one of the classic roles of a church is to call people away from sin, it's a role we have to play.

 

[lilithu]

Lilithu on her site (http://www.wizdum.net/?q=confessions) has an interesting liberation theology entry "Good and Evil and the Individual" where she says:

"... in liberation theology sin is not conceived of at the level of individual failure, but rather societal systems of oppression. Sin is the perpetuance of systems that prevent people from reaching their full potential.
I have said for a long time now that there are good and evil acts, but one cannot judge an individual as either good or evil. But I think I better understand now why it really is true.
Good and evil have no meaning in the context of an individual person. They only have meaning in the interactions between people, in the effect we have on each other. It is all about connection, and the lack of connection."

Someone is actually reading my posts?

Well then how about this one? (which may or may not contradict the one you mention)
http://www.wizdum.net/?q=node/147

If this is true, it is the greatest challenge to the present system of justice and corrections. By jailing and separating people, we perpetuate evil. Statistically, this concept is supported, e.g. a state that executes the most murderers (Texas) has a much higher murder rate than a state that has no executions (Massachusetts).

That's a very interesting point, one that hadn't occurred to me. I was just thinking today about the religious grounding for our commitment to prison reform. I was arguing that we don't believe one loses inherent worth by committing (or being accused of) a crime. Therefore, as we stand with those who are most marginalized, we support reform. But, again, I'm arguing from an individualistic frame. To say that by separating people we perpetuate evil is a much more systemic view.

However, this is where liberal ideas make average people feel unsafe...or, more precisely, that liberal policymakers can't be trusted with their safety. An individual may not be "good or evil" in essence, but certain individuals have exhibited a tendency to do destructive things to others. The conservatives say separating these people from situations where they might offend again is moral. They would also say that there is a core internal choice that people make, that they are responsible for, regardless of any circumstance of their lives.

And I do not disagree with any of that.

But where the "conservatives" and I part ways is in how we respond to this. Yes, a person who has sinned is responsible for his sins. But does this make him irredeemable? No. Yes, if you allow someone in a situation where there is temptation it increases the chances that he'll sin again. But does that justify locking him up or out indefinitely? No.

The key to a liberal solution is to have enough skill in the community, enough resources, to create an environment that is constructive and healing for those in trouble. Building such an environment, to the level of reaching out to offenders before they offend, is difficult. Yet, since one of the classic roles of a church is to call people away from sin, it's a role we have to play.

It is building the Beloved Community. As UUs we believe that we will never have "heaven" until we accept the responsibility to (co)create it ourselves.

btw des, I have been following this story too and agree that the church's decision is courageous and wonderful. Truly living their values when put to the test. And grappling with it. Not some gloss-over.

 

[jamaesi]

I'm very proud of this Church.

I have a history of sexual abuse throughout my childhood... this topic is one that I have struggled with for many years. I used to be one of the supporters of the mob mentality "hangins' too good for them." Recently, and after much struggle and thought and inner debate, I have come to the realisation that many of these people were victims, too. That in no way ever excuses what they have done- but does force you to come to face with the fact that society has failed these people. They have been failed when they were allowed to be hurt or when they did not receive support when they were hurt- and that is a huge cycle. They are failed by a society with law enforcement that is clueless of how to deal with abuse victims. They are failed by a health care they can't afford or won't pay for their treatment. They are failed by society that makes women choose between extreme poverty or staying with an shady man, putting their children at risk. They are failed by so many factors... I would be deeply ashamed and would have to really rethink being a part of a society, especially one such as UUism, if they too would also reject and fail these people.

 

[des]

I am too (proud of this church). Makes me happy to be UCC, though I would say that such a decision, like all congregational (lower cases c) makes their own decisions.

I think it is ultimately a liberal church (UU included here) that makes these questions a little different than a conservative church might. A conservative church might make more questions on how serious this person is on redeeming himself, whether he is or isn't truly saved by Grace, whether he has truly accepted Jesus, etc. A liberal church makes other kinds of decisions and choices (I think some degree of seriousness might be similar-- but more because it affects the safety of the congregation).

I think the question of how redeemable someone is is interesting. Last night I saw this Frontline documentary (I'm going to have to stop watching these late at night-- yikes, it was so disturbing). Anyway it was about locking up of kids for life for murder. Some of them didn't actually commit murder and some that did were horribly abused, esp sexually. The victims families for the most part wanted them hung up for life.

Desire for vengence might be normal, but it is also not really what we want to base our societies (or religions) on.


--des

I'm very proud of this Church.

I have a history of sexual abuse throughout my childhood... this topic is one that I have struggled with for many years. I used to be one of the supporters of the mob mentality "hangins' too good for them." Recently, and after much struggle and thought and inner debate, I have come to the realisation that many of these people were victims, too. That in no way ever excuses what they have done- but does force you to come to face with the fact that society has failed these people. They have been failed when they were allowed to be hurt or when they did not receive support when they were hurt- and that is a huge cycle. They are failed by a society with law enforcement that is clueless of how to deal with abuse victims. They are failed by a health care they can't afford or won't pay for their treatment. They are failed by society that makes women choose between extreme poverty or staying with an shady man, putting their children at risk. They are failed by so many factors... I would be deeply ashamed and would have to really rethink being a part of a society, especially one such as UUism, if they too would also reject and fail these people.

 

[uumckk16]

This whole discussion reminded me of VA Tech. I think that case is representative of the sinner being in a lot of trouble and not receiving the help he needed, and while it definitely doesn't excuse what he did, it shows that he was not the only one to fail. I am proud of the church in this article as I am of the VA Tech student who put out a rock for the shooter at a memorial that had a rock for each of his victims.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070428/27136_Virginia_Tech_Has_Little_Anger_for_Gunman.htm

Some people have such an incredible capacity for forgiveness. I find it so, so touching and inspiring.

 

[McBell]

If this is true, it is the greatest challenge to the present system of justice and corrections. By jailing and separating people, we perpetuate evil. Statistically, this concept is supported, e.g. a state that executes the most murderers (Texas) has a much higher murder rate than a state that has no executions (Massachusetts).

You forget to mention that Michigan also has a no death penalty statute AND has a much higher murder rate than Texas.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=169&scid=12

 

[jamaesi]

You forget to mention that Michigan also has a no death penalty statute AND has a much higher murder rate than Texas.

And you forgot to mention there's many factors that tie into murder rates... size of the state, poverty levels, education, etc etc. I don't think that Texas and Massachusetts is a good comparison anyway.

I'm going to say it's very safe to say that having a death penalty is no real deterrent against committing murder. Texas has one, Michigan doesn't, and yet their murder rates are very close...

 

[McBell]

I'm going to say it's very safe to say that having a death penalty is no real deterrent against committing murder.

I agree.
I have lost count of the number of times I have heard convicted killers say that they drove over the state line to avoid the death penalty in their home state...

 

[des]

I got side tracked and just about answered you, but I should have pointed out that this is not a debate forum. Go over to the debate sections. I'm sure some people would love to debate you on capital punishment.

Also this post, is not inline with the OP. The discussion is not about capital punishment and imprisonment, but it is about church communities providing love and redemption for a serious crime.


--des

I agree.
I have lost count of the number of times I have heard convicted killers say that they drove over the state line to avoid the death penalty in their home state...

 

[McBell]

I got side tracked and just about answered you, but I should have pointed out that this is not a debate forum. Go over to the debate sections. I'm sure some people would love to debate you on capital punishment.

Also this post, is not inline with the OP. The discussion is not about capital punishment and imprisonment, but it is about church communities providing love and redemption for a serious crime.


--des

You are absolutely correct.

My apologies.

 

[des]

One always likes to hear this (You are correct. ) LOL!
Apology accepted.

--des

You are absolutely correct.

My apologies.

 

[kadzbiz]

.....OTOH, I would guess that the ones you know about are less a threat than the ones you don't know of........

I would totally disagree with you here des. Most victims of sexual abuse know the perpetrator well.

 

[des]

I think my comments were taken a bit out of context. But that isn't really what the OP was about. Go ahead and reread the OP. That's what this is about. This is not a debate forum. Yikes guys.

--des

I would totally disagree with you here des. Most victims of sexual abuse know the perpetrator well.

 

[kadzbiz]

I think my comments were taken a bit out of context. But that isn't really what the OP was about. Go ahead and reread the OP. That's what this is about. This is not a debate forum. Yikes guys.--des

I saw a point and addressed it. Perhaps you can keep the OP more specific next time. If it you're wanting a comment about the guy's attendance to the church, well, c'mon, here's a guy who is seeking salvation and wants acceptance by the church, who are obligated, aren't they not, to take in people seeking salvation? If the church is too concerned about his presence becasue they can't accept him on face value, they surely can't make restrictions on his attendance, so tell him he's not welcome and find another church. You're either a christian or you're not. If you're unsure about what you should do, ask yourself what God, or Jesus, would do. I think the answer is simple.

I'm not a church goer myself, so I know exactly what my decision would be.

 

[lilithu]

I saw a point and addressed it. Perhaps you can keep the OP more specific next time. If it you're wanting a comment about the guy's attendance to the church, well, c'mon, here's a guy who is seeking salvation and wants acceptance by the church, who are obligated, aren't they not, to take in people seeking salvation? If the church is too concerned about his presence becasue they can't accept him on face value, they surely can't make restrictions on his attendance, so tell him he's not welcome and find another church. You're either a christian or you're not. If you're unsure about what you should do, ask yourself what God, or Jesus, would do. I think the answer is simple.

I'm not a church goer myself, so I know exactly what my decision would be.

And do you know which forum you are in?

A non-church goer coming into our forums and giving us "advice" on how our churches are supposed to function.

 

[kadzbiz]

And do you know which forum you are in?
A non-church goer coming into our forums and giving us "advice" on how our churches are supposed to function.

Oh lilithu, thy sword has plunged deep within my heart and mortally wounded me. I was of the belief that this forum was open to all; to learn, to comment, to "advise". I wasn't telling a church how to function. I was suggesting they (the undecided church goers in this case) search their Christian heart and let their teachings make up their mind. I've been told that the bible holds all the answers. I have just finished reading it and find that statement a little to hard to swallow, but Christians like you should find the answer easy, I'm sure, for you have studied it more thoroughly than I.

 

[des]

The OP was a news story. I can not advise any church how to operate. I think that this is quite a special problem as this could potentially effect the safety of the members. I think I know how I would vote, but that doesn't mean I could judge how someone who say had been sexually abused would vote (or someone with small children say).
Read it again if you are confused. There are also some links on the story, I think.

Not all of us here ARE Christians. This is a UU forum. UU stands for Unitaritarian Universalists. This is a church without doctrines of any sort, and there are believers in Islam, Christianity (of the liberal persuasion), Buddhism, atheism, agnositism, humanism, paganism and combinations of these things, etc. etc. Please read up more if you want to participate. I would suggest the topics before the general discussion. Or maybe doing a wikipedia search. Here is a belief net link: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8041_1.html

The church in question is United Church of Christ (UCC) which is a non-doctrinal church (meaning that no one has to have specific beliefs to join). I, for instance, do not believe in the trinity or the divinity of Jesus (and this is totally accepted in the UCC.
UU and UCC have common roots and both churches have a very strong social justice message, history, tradition. UCC would probably be termed Social Gospel Christianity (that is where the message of Jesus' works is much stronger than the message of the cross, resurrection,etc.) Most of us believe that such things as the resurrection are largely metaphoric. http://www.stillspeaking.com/about/beliefs.htm (Although I would caution you that since there are no tests of faith, none of these are required.)


I think this is all important info for you, in that you need to know who it is you are addressing. For instance, to suggest to someone who might not believe in intercessory prayer (the idea that you can pray to get certain things-- health, answers, understanding, etc etc)-- I do not believe in this (and I would guess quite a few of us don't though some do). So anyway you can't necessarily just jump into some of these multireligious forums (with a wide range of beliefs like paganism, Islam, Mormonism, humanism), and expect that you can just apply what you think they should do. They aren't going to take to it very nicely, necessarily. Take a look at the structure of the forums, as they suggest which are debate and which aren't. These are also non-debate, so you can't go in and expect someone to fall in to your p.o.v. However, they are a great thing for someone with a seeking mind.

You seem like a nice guy/gal. But you need to be kind of considerate to the views and beliefs of the terrain you are going in to. You see you head into the UU forum and tell people that the answer is all in the Bible,to pray, and so forth, and you don't know that we believe that. As it happens, many of us do not! And then you insist we must logically be Christians. Well as it happens many of us are not. I might be one, depending very entirely on how you want to view this.

Also the OP was a news item. Not really a debate or discussion topic as such. I thought that the group here would be interested in it, as we come from the same roots,and would have the same general ways of dealing with the problem. It is exactly why I did not put this story in the general debate section or even the Christian non-debate section. Many Christians do not consider UCC a Christian denomination, though most UCC people consider themselves Christians. So I did not want to get into a what I consider tiresome discussion of sin and redemption from a conservative Christian standpoint. Your answer is EXACTLY why I didn't open it up more. The thread was very short, which I expected. I thought it an item of interested. Perhaps I should clarify and say UU only. Of course, I would expect that given that mostly people here are UU (or leaning that way anyway). I consider myself lower case uu.

I hope this helps.

--des

Oh lilithu, thy sword has plunged deep within my heart and mortally wounded me. I was of the belief that this forum was open to all; to learn, to comment, to "advise". I wasn't telling a church how to function. I was suggesting they (the undecided church goers in this case) search their Christian heart and let their teachings make up their mind. I've been told that the bible holds all the answers. I have just finished reading it and find that statement a little to hard to swallow, but Christians like you should find the answer easy, I'm sure, for you have studied it more thoroughly than I.