Pilgrim UCC deals with sexual offender as a member (Jesus, moral)

[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/.../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]

Originally Posted by 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."

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

Originally Posted by applewuud

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.

Originally Posted by applewuud

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.

Originally Posted by applewuud

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

Originally Posted by Khalila

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...for_Gunman.htm

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

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by applewuud

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/arti...id=169&scid=12