“First!”

Good for you, Dee! I’m glad that you’ll be reporting all threats going forward and not protecting those who threaten. And what kind of “watch” group is that? Smells like a fraud to me.

“If it becomes a news media reported article, than that can be posted. Until then we need to leave it off Collierville watch.”

Right. Because we all know how accurate the news media articles are! I’m with you Dee, something is not right with this “watch” group, besides the fact that the leaders are rank amateurs.

What a very strange situation. I can only surmise that someone in the leadership of the Watch group is either connected to the church or to the sex offender. Otherwise, who would want to filter out information about sex offenders working in churches? If they are not allowed to post blog articles, fine, but there are other resources with the same information.

I also find it very strange that a police officer would make a statement downplaying the conviction of a sex offender. This does not seem professional. Was this police officer speaking in an official capacity? Is the officer connected to the church or the offender? It seems like someone speaking in an official capacity would be thinking and speaking with potential liability in mind.

As to the church’s statement… this self-serving propaganda is another reason why I am DONE with organized church. The adults can all congratulate themselves on their mutual sinfulness and inclusivity but what about the kids? Who is watching out for them?

Thank you Dee. Churches should be as safe if not safer for people as any other organization. Keep up the hard work you have been called too!

I think it’s correct that experts say that sexual predators will not change their behavior regardless of ‘therapy’ or conversion, etc.

What do you consider to be an appropriate venue for a predator to participate in a church setting? I’m not stirring the pot here, I really don’t know.

If, and this is a big IF, the congregation is aware of the situation, the predator is never alone at church, etc….Is there a place that considered ‘safe’ for them to work?

We sometimes visit a church locally which ministers largely to homeless, felons, ex-drug addicts etc….There is a man there who we all know is a convicted sex offender. He is escorted to the restroom, sat with in church, never allowed down the hall to the Education area…He is also a very gifted musician….And sometimes he does play in the worship band.

He never leaves the stage until his escort arrives….Is that being naive? Is this an area where by nature the offender cannot be truly repentant and so cannot be forgiven? Is helping with worship seen as a step farther in trust or sanctification than, say, mowing the lawn at church?

I am not a troll; I just don’t know the answers. I was physically and sexually abused as a child so I ‘feel’ that there are no places for abusers in church but I don’t know….

What does your research and your experts say?

Thank you for your dedication to this cause.

The threats commence.

Fair Game Law LRH invoked from Flag.

Nancy2 wrote:

The Collierville watch group just watches out for the church!

it would appear so

Ken happened to leave this link open and it caught my eye so I read all of it. It seems like the cyberbullies have decided to start threatening in order to intimidate. My recommendation is for at least Dee and Deb and perhaps anybody else posting on here, to “document, document, document!” absolutely everything that they/you/we/I post. That would include not only electronic copies but also paper copies, just in case the person(s) making threats, be they veiled or direct, has a way to modify and edit those threats. Screen capture and then print EVERYTHING. When it comes to this type of predatory behavior, a person either misrepresenting themselves as under-age, or worse, using one of their under-aged children to post on their behalf, things can get ugly very quickly. So keeping several copies of what was truly said and written can prove to be vital, if the harassers, threatening ones decide to go high order and not only bluff but actually decide to try to use the legal system to intimidate normal average folks like us. Hopefully the trolls will read my post and decide that it is simply not worth it, but by their prior actions, it is possible that they “need to win at all cost, no matter what happens next and whatever it might take”. Folks that are that ruthless and vindictive without reason/legal grounds are unfortunately more common than most of us realize. Thank God most folks are decent, but I pity the 17 year old who is being played. But is that person truly under-aged or is it nothing but a fake cyber profile to avoid legal prosecution for slandering Dee ? Will be praying that the Lord gives all of you wisdom on what the next step is to protect yourselves and your families from some pretty sly ruthless folks.

What I’m reading from the church’s statement is that in 2013 a registered sex offender known by the leadership began attending the church. Now, in 2016, the church is being made aware of this. If the safety of children and students is the “highest priority” and the church has a “high level of protective policies and procedures,” why is the congregation being informed of this three years after the fact?

I. Just. Can’t.

The rationalizations: She was 17/18. It wasn’t violent. It was 9 years ago. Sounds like a witch hunt. This narrative is likely from someone in the perpetrator’s inner circle, including Highpoint Collierville people.

Isn’t it obvious that the Watch Admin is far more interested in the narrative of the inner circle than actually protecting the 8,000 Facebook members?

How presumptuous of them to DECIDE FOR ME and MY KIDS what’s safe and what’s not safe. Who’s a risk and who’s not a risk. They should be simply reporting the details and leaving it up to each parent to make an informed decision. Censorship of facts to protect the public safety is an affront to our citizenry. These people are potentially dangerous.

The idea of a so-called Watch Group engaged in more coverups of a convicted felon, a sex predator within the community, is infuriating. I’m not sure what else is going on, but it really makes one wonder why they would go to such great lengths to try to threaten and intimidate Dee, possibly using a minor in the process, throwing around police and slander terminology, advising Dee to take down the original post, suggests to me there is something much more sinister that is being hidden. What else is being covered up at Highpoint? Who is being protected?

If this was just one blog post that they thought was irrelevant or misguided, there is no way that such a giant coordinated effort would be made to push back on TWW and Dee. This makes me want to dig in deeper to expose more information and actually protect the public.

Ken F’s wife wrote:

Thank God most folks are decent, but I pity the 17 year old who is being played. But is that person truly under-aged or is it nothing but a fake cyber profile to avoid legal prosecution for slandering Dee ?

Or the groundwork grooming for a false accusation of pedophila against Dee?

Amy Smith wrote:

Predators should never be elevated to positions of leadership and trust.
http://watchkeep.blogspot.com/2015/08/an-open-letter-to-every-senior-pastor.html?m=1

Thank you for the great link! Lots of quotable facts & very useful.

dee wrote:

Do you all see what I am dealing with here? What have I done wrong?

Be encouraged. You hit on something important.

You are a sad human being to attack an innocent person.

Only trash would behave this way. You are trying to be a pseudo reporter but fail. dee wrote:

I have semi deleted the name and picture of the administrator. It appears that another watch group will not post links to this post because said administrator had nothing to do with it. So, let’s see if that is true. I give them until tomorrow afternoon to post the link to this blog. If they do not, the Collierville Watch FB groups’ former administrator’s name and pic is going back up and this time it stays for good. So Collierville, decide what you want to do.

My blog post about Tim Heinz does not mention the watch group admin at all. I wrote it and her comment about the witch hunt was after my post in reference to mine and Dee’s posts. http://watchkeep.blogspot.com/2016/11/convicted-registered-child-sex-offender.html?m=1

Raw Story covered the Heinz story last week, so will the administrators allow it to be posted?

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/church-with-rapist-leading-worship-postpones-merger-with-second-church-facing-sex-abuse-claims/

Anon wrote:

It is the intelligent and responsible thing to do, to limit blog post links

Okay, so aside from that, did you have something against posting the fact that a registered sex offender has been involved in the worship team at a local church? The overreaction of your group is looking very bizarre. Obviously, there’s more to the story.

Anon wrote:

Only trash would behave this way.

Anon, your saying that clearly reveals your character.

Anon wrote:

You are a sad human being to attack an innocent person.

Who has been attacked?

Who is innocent?

Anon wrote:

You are a sad human being to attack an innocent person.

You have made a significant number of accusations. Over the years I have read many stories posted here and some came and made similar allegations that were later found false. I will continue to use judgement concerning what I read but so far I have seen great care taken by Dee and Deb to get their stories correct. It remains to be seen if the same applies to your comments but the insults do tend to diminish credibility.

Nancy2 wrote:

Exaxtly what does a predator watch group accomplish by not reporting a predator?

Doublepluswarmfeelies for themselves, just like any other Activist(TM).

Anon wrote:

You are a sad human being to attack an innocent person.

Only trash would behave this way. You are trying to be a pseudo reporter but fail

And now the sock puppets come out of the woodwork.

Fair Game Law LRH has been invoked from Flag.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

And the Witches of Wartburg have the nerve to rain on their meat parade.

Power to the Good Witches of Wartburg!!!

the description of that ‘youth group nightclub meat market’ sounds like it’s a prime hunting ground for all kinds of predation from adult ‘leadership’ …. God have mercy!

“*You cannot post links to blogs or express your views on businesses or people without a news story or reliable source link. Slander and harassment of any kind is not allowed here. This is illegal and police reports can, will and have been filed, so just don’t. ”
I guess Tennessee criminal records is not considered to be a reliable source.

@ Anon:

You are revising history. The “witch hunt” and “agenda” against Highpoint comment in the screenshot was made to the member inquiring the reason that her links were removed. Sharing that comment on twitter exactly as it was stated isn’t an attack. The comment was on social media and expresses an opinion that Dee and I are on a witch hunt and have an agenda against HP. I shared that comment.

Anon wrote:

It’s responsible to rely on facts and until everything is researched to not support something that COULD be wrong. But after the post was removed The admin were attacked on Twitter and there was no reasoning with this loon. She has her agenda and is warping what actually occurred

I saw the comment on twitter and it did not strike me as an attack, in fact I wondered why she had been responded to so harshly and unreasonably. I am still wondering that. Much name-calling and wrath going on here without explanation. It seems like Dee stepped into a minefield unawares.

@ Anon:

Didn’t the church remove the sex offender and admit that he was, in fact, a sex offender? So why don’t you attack the church for “slander” of this “innocent man”?

Law Prof wrote:

Perhaps it’s because churches that are not really Christian fellowships but rather antichristian cults destructive of fellowship…

A common alternative is that they are – at least in one sense – neither; rather, they’re nothing more than fraternity/sorority analogs. They exist to provide the in-crowd with something to do and, by extension, to protect their own.

The complication is that when these groups invoke Jesus’ name, they place themselves in a certain relationship with the unseen world. In that case, I’m reminded of Jesus’ warning, set in the context of the unforgiveable sin and the calling of his work evil: Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me, scatters.

Anon wrote:

there was no reasoning with this loon. She has her agenda and is warping what actually occurred.

Again, your choice of terminology reveals your real character and motive. All of us who know the work of this blog’s owners know that they research carefully before they publish new blogs—and we know their motives are good and well-intentioned—so your accusations ring completely false.

Bridget wrote:

Anon. It appears to me that you are the one coming across a bit odd, defensive, and clueless as to what has transpired in social media and the actual police case.

When I read Anon’s comments it make me think that he/she is projecting. See: http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/projection

Projection is a psychological defense mechanism in which individuals attribute characteristics they find unacceptable in themselves to another person. For example, a husband who has a hostile nature might attribute this hostility to his wife and say she has an anger management problem.

Rather than deal with the very serious problems in their own church/community, it looks like they are projecting their own failures onto others.

Law Prof wrote:

Didn’t the church remove the sex offender and admit that he was, in fact, a sex offender?

Actually, they only partly removed him. From their statement: “Tim will no longer be serving in any role on stage, but will continue to serve in a support role.” The support role he was in previously was on the production team. So, HP Church still has a registered sex offender serving at their church. When a parent or child sees someone in a church in a service role (running lights or sound, taking up offering, whatever) it would be natural to consider that person to be safe and trusted.

Harley wrote:

As far as the situation where Molly wrote that the “sexual predator” was totally watched and sometimes played in the worship band”, I’m not sure what I think about it. On one hand, it’s ok. He has the ability to play music and is sharing it. But on the other hand, once you let the person do this, will they ask to do other things in the church asking for lenience because he could be trusted to play in the worship band.

Two issues:
1. The Collierville Worship team leads at both weekend services and youth services. Some worship leaders stay and socialize and even help lead students after the worship set on Wednesday nights at HIghpoint. HPC did not clarify which services Heinz played at. I’m not sure I would trust their answer at this point since they tried to argue band members on platform are not leading the flock in worship which is a ridiculous claim. Highpoint also features different singers for different songs so they do not have one lone performer leading. Heinz is a bassist. Memphis is the birth place of rock n roll and is called Blues City. There is NO shortage of bassists in the greater Memphis area. Something else is going on here.

2. There is still the issue of Heinz continuing to work in Highpoint’s technical arts video production department. Most mega churches with video teams and technical arts teams have many teens, both boys and girls, volunteering and working in these departments. I have seen teens in the “front of house” at HPC.

Chris Conlee has not been honest about Heinz’s potential exposure to or contact with teens on either count.

Anon wrote:

What makes this sad is your twisting and manipulating because you didn’t get your way. There are rules you don’t like and so you are lashing out like a child.

Yeesh. There speaks the pot to the kettle. Are you even reading what you’ve written here?

dee wrote:

Fifth- Is the predator’s wife a member of this watch group?

Yes she is. I’ve seen evidence that she is a member.

Law Prof wrote:

Perhaps it’s because churches that are not really Christian fellowships but rather antichristian cults destructive of fellowship…

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

A common alternative is that they are – at least in one sense – neither; rather, they’re nothing more than fraternity/sorority analogs. They exist to provide the in-crowd with something to do and, by extension, to protect their own.

This.

This is exactly right. Memphis has a huge church-going population. The most recent information I could find listed 20 megachurches (weekly attendance of 2000 or more) in the Memphis metropolitan area.

Local churches have something going on every day of the week.
Sunday – Sunday school and worship service
Monday – Church league youth sports practice (soccer, t-ball/baseball, basketball {church has a gym!})
Tuesday – Men’s prayer group (6:30 am) Ladies Bible Study (9:30 am)
Wednesday – Dinner at church and AWANA, choir practice, youth group
Thursday – Small group in people’s homes (childcare provided at the church if needed)
Friday – (Night off so you can go to the Christian high school whatever-sport-is-in-season game)
Saturday – All day for church league sports for the kids

Don’t forget the Monthly Ladies dinner (or luncheon) with a speaker…the monthly Saturday morning men’s breakfast…rehearsals for the Christmas/Easter musical extravaganza…and on and on it goes in an endless merry-go-round of activity.

Many of these people have no friends and no life outside of church. They honestly think they have centered their life around their faith because they spend a lot of time thinking/talking about God and hanging out with their Christian friends. When you tell someone their church has a problem, it feels like a personal attack. If their church is damaged it could cause a serious disruption to their entire way of life. The church must be protected at all costs. And if the church leaders decide that it’s okay to have a sex offender playing the bass in front of church then it must be okay.

JeffT wrote:

Instead of making their church a safe place for children, they seem intent on willingly offering up their children as victims. It is sick, sick, sick.

like the legend of Silene:
“To appease the dragon, the people of Silene fed it two sheep every day. When they ran out of sheep they started feeding it their children”

Elizabeth Lee wrote:

Sunday – Sunday school and worship service
Monday – Church league youth sports practice (soccer, t-ball/baseball, basketball {church has a gym!})
Tuesday – Men’s prayer group (6:30 am) Ladies Bible Study (9:30 am)
Wednesday – Dinner at church and AWANA, choir practice, youth group
Thursday – Small group in people’s homes (childcare provided at the church if needed)
Friday – (Night off so you can go to the Christian high school whatever-sport-is-in-season game)
Saturday – All day for church league sports for the kids

what days do they open their soup kitchen?

what day do they visit with people in nursing homes to minister to them and sing hymns with them?

what day do they work together with other community churches for the benefit of the homeless in the entire community?

what days do they open their church thrift shop with proceeds designated for the poor?

when and where do their youth volunteer in the community to tutor innercity littles with their reading; to work in the hospital as aides; to work in facilities for the mentally retarded; to help with the local childrens’ home?

what day do they come together to help do repairs for their aged and the aged in the whole community who are indigent?

what day ….. ????

I suppose if you fill up your time with recreational activities and prayer meetings, you find you have no time left for others

New article about TVC:

“But there was no Jesus behind TVC’s scheme, only power-hungry zealots who really didn’t like seeing a woman refuse their manly-man authority.”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rolltodisbelieve/2016/11/27/why-shepherds-really-tend-sheep/

More…

“After he finished truth-trickling to Karen and she finally got a partial idea of the real scope of the situation, they returned home in disgrace. She began annulment proceedings immediately. Karen fully expected her home church, quaintly called The Village Church (TVC), to come down on her husband like a hatful of rusted hammers and to support her in ensuring that the church’s kids were safe. I mean, for real now, what kind of Christians would take children’s safety less than mortally seriously or demand that anyone stay married to an active pedophile?
Well, apparently TVC’s leaders, that’s who.”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rolltodisbelieve/2016/11/27/why-shepherds-really-tend-sheep/

dee wrote:

I have now seen the evidence that appears to prove that the wife of convicted rapist Timothy Heinz is a member of the super secret Collierville watch group.

Ooohhhhh. Isn’t that a bit like having the accused criminal’s wife serve on the jury?

“Goodrich was sentenced to 13 years in prison, much to the dismay of some of his supporters.”

I am doubly troubled by this situation. As if the sins of Goodrich weren’t enough, he has “supporters”! The problem with deception is you don’t know you are deceived because you are deceived.

JeffT wrote:

Why do so many churches find it necessary to defend child molesters in their midst, and so vehemently? Instead of making their church a safe place for children, they seem intent on willingly offering up their children as victims. It is sick, sick, sick.

It would be better for them to hang a millstone around their neck and cast them into the sea.

@ Nancy2:
looks like ….. insular, self-protective, co-opting the recreation and the socializing that the membership might be doing with the whole town community so now it’s ‘one-stop shopping’ for social needs and recreational needs …. the outside ‘world’ is no longer needed so why be bothered with it?

yes, there ARE cultic isolating features present

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

What is wrong with “christianity” today, and is it any wonder that the church is held increasingly in disdain?

You were right to use a small “c” in “christianity”. I call it “christianity lite” … much of the church (small “c”) has taken the salt out of salt.

Memphian Guest wrote:

they tried to argue band members on platform are not leading the flock in worship which is a ridiculous claim

Then don’t call them a worship “team.”

@ Christiane:
should ‘Conflict’

Dee, I am sorry you have had to deal with such abuse. I wonder how much these attacks are coming from a person (wife?) filled with shame, fear and desire for it to “go away”. Maybe the sex offender was able to downplay the situation to his wife as a “weak moment” of temptation with a younger “woman”. If they have children together, she may have wanted to preserve the fantasy that it wasn’t “that bad” or it only happened once.
How long were they at the church before the leaders found out?? The response looks like a irrational knee-jerk reaction to try and make it go away. (i.e. Wife wants to sweep it under the rug and/or protect their own kids and the church has bought into this excuse and also don’t want to look bad). I assume the rape victim was not known by the members of their current church. (Therefore easier to depersonalize). Unfortunately they are shooting the messenger!!- You. Instead, the offender should walk in repentance and take continual responsibility for the fallout due to his crime. He is “hiding” and letting others lash out to defend him and let you take the blame for the problem.
The sex offender could make it all stop if he wanted to, but by silently standing by and letting others pour their anger on you-he is let off the hook. Dee, I hope you know that you and Deb provide a great service for so many people. Sadly it puts you in the line of fire if toes are stepped on. It is my belief (but I don’t know), there is so much shame absorbed by the family by the offender’s past actions, that you probably present a tremendous threat to their carefully constructed defense to protect the status quo. This is just my opinion.
It is irrational and unfair. I hope the ones who are attacking you will quickly wake up to the true issue. You are both very loved!!

@ siteseer:

Sorry, I meant to say Chris Conlee, mistyped there.

I also want to acknowledge, as a follow-up to my previous questions, the lack of satisfactory “justice” that sexual offenses often garner; that many offenders do not “get what they deserve” from a legal standpoint. Admittedly, my emotional response is extremely negative when I think about being in a church with, much less interact with at a volunteer level, someone like Brock Turner or even his parents. I don’t want to say he is welcome at a church. I loathe those people, based on what we know about that situation. But how do we distinguish between true remorse and life change and not-that? Who do we continue to socially prosecute and who do we allow back into our lives? Whose repentance do we accept and who’s do we reject? What is consistent in these situations? Is it even important to be consistent? Again, I truly mean these questions. I do think some people deserve a second chance and an opportunity to be seen and known by qualities other than their offense. But which people deserve that and which ones don’t? Which offenders are forgivable and which ones aren’t? And who decides?

Anonymous wrote:

I have a sincere question that I’d like answered sincerely please

In the church I attend, a registered sex offender would be identified when he/she applied to join a ministry involving children. We use a service that screens volunteers and employees alike. We also have training and oversight rules that help to protect both children and adults from any unidentified predators in our midst. The situation at Collierville is therefore extremely unlikely in my church–although all of us have to remain vigilant because predators are cunning.

You are brimming over with compassion for this registered sex offender. By any chance do you have any compassion left over for the person’s past and future victims?

On another topic, should a convicted bank robber be allowed to work unsupervised in a bank vault? Money is both necessary and ubiquitous. Who are we to judge whether a convicted bank robber might steal again? Shouldn’t we just be nice and let the person blend in and do as he pleases? Aren’t Christians supposed to trust?

Anonymous wrote:

But how do we distinguish between true remorse and life change and not-that? Who do we continue to socially prosecute and who do we allow back into our lives?

You have made an excellent point here. By giving the sex offender a role that exposed him to potential victims, this church apparently failed to protect the sex offender.

You are brimming over with compassion for this registered sex offender. By any chance do you have any compassion left over for the person’s past and future victims?
Do not dare assume I don’t have compassion or empathy for victims as I am one.

On another topic, should a convicted bank robber be allowed to work unsupervised in a bank vault? Money is both necessary and ubiquitous. Who are we to judge whether a convicted bank robber might steal again? Shouldn’t we just be nice and let the person blend in and do as he pleases? Aren’t Christians supposed to trust?
Thanks for the snarkiness. Also, a false equivalency in the case of Heinz (sp?)

@ Christiane:
Christiane wrote:

What ‘second chance’ did the perpetrators give their victims?

Agreed. I am a victim. My life was changed forever and I don’t know who I would’ve been had it never happened. I think some people are truly remorseful and change. What is to be done?

Friend wrote:

By giving the sex offender a role that exposed him to potential victims, this church apparently failed to protect the sex offender.

Snarky and unhelpful response. As I posed earlier, “What, in your opinion, is appropriate for convicted offenders (sex or otherwise) when it comes to being involved in a church? Do you believe they should be allowed to attend, but not volunteer? Do you think they should not be allowed to attend at all? Do you think if they attend and the church leadership knows their conviction history they should inform the entire church of said history? Someone earlier posed some suggestions that offenders are always attended to during services and in bathrooms etc. Is this “good enough”? What is appropriate from a societal perspective when someone has, according to the law, served their time and paid their dues? Do we believe that the legal system’s justice is not sufficient and thus must enforce a societal system of justice as well? Are they allowed back into society at all? Should they be able to shop in stores or allowed at public events where there are likely people in the same “victim group” as their previous victim(s)? If this is allowed, why is a church or worship center/volunteer arrangement not allowed? Please answer sincerely and not snarkily.”

Friend wrote:

You are brimming over with compassion for this registered sex offender. By any chance do you have any compassion left over for the person’s past and future victims?

I think this is an unfair characterization of Anonymous. I never got the impression that Anonymous was gushing with compassion for offenders at the expense of victims. The questions are good, and not easy to answer. I had to face this in a very personal way when, through my work, I had to be in contact with an offender who had not yet been convicted. It’s a long story that I’ve partly written about at various times on TWW treads. I recently commented on it in this thead: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/11/22/highpoint-church-memphis-has-a-convicted-statutory-rapist-leading-worship/#comment-295207.

My experience with this particular offender gave me more compassion for victims, not less. In fact, my motivation for coming alongside this particular offender was my concern for potential future victims. I wanted to do what I could to make sure he was getting the help he needed so as not to put himself in the position where he could fall back into old habits. He is doing great right now – staying away from kids and surrounding himself with who people keep watch over him and tell him the truth. He does not want to be associated with any church or other organization that does not have strong child safety measures in place, partly because he does not want to have opportunity to be falsely accused based on his past. I think he is about as safe as a registered offender can be, but I would NEVER agree with him being in any job, club, or organization where he could have easy access to children. Whether or not I made a difference for him, I do know that my motivation was honorable.

That process put a lot of similar questions into my head – questions that I never would have considered otherwise. For example, why does our legal system release offenders back into society rather than locking them up for life with no parole? Why does it prosecute some but never put them behind bars? Should released offenders be allowed into any Christian fellowship? If so, what types? The probability of an offender finding a Christian fellowship with no children is astonishingly small. I know this to be true because prior to his release into a very large city several hours from where we live, my wife and I searched long and hard for Christian ministries, halfway houses, or reintegration facilities. There is very little out there. There are many Christians who would like to see them getting ministered to, but “not here.” The result is that there is almost nowhere that they can get healthy Christian fellowship. Is that good or bad for society? If there is any possibility for them to repent, is it better for society for them to be accepted into Christian fellowship with certain caveats and controls, or is it better for society for them to be excluded from churches. Does involvement with Christian fellowship make offenders more or less likely to re-offend? The bottom line is I believe we need to think through the unintended consequences to make sure that we are not being “penny-wise, pound-foolish.”

There are many good question to ask about the role of registered offenders in church. The one positive thing we can say about registered offenders is we know who they are. They will show up in background checks, which makes it a bit easier to contain them. I worry more about the offenders who are smart enough to never get caught because they will never show up in a background check. This is where I believe churches need to focus their efforts. Churches need to be made safe for children so that even the “best” offenders find no opportunity to victimize children. The recent posts on TWW tell heartbreaking stories of churches who don’t understand the gravity of victimization of children, and who underestimate the work required for offenders to repent.

I’m looking forward to Dee’s post. I know it will be thought provoking.

dee wrote:

To make matters worse, they now have children. At least one of them is a little girl which means something in this situation.

It appears to me that Heinz has 4 children–two from former wife PL, 1 from former wife AM, and 1 from his current wife AP. Two of them are girls. I do not know if there are any other former wives or children.

siteseer wrote:

How do you make them aware of the reality? Especially when they are so defensive?

When their children are molested.

Anonymous wrote:

Do we believe that the legal system’s justice is not sufficient and thus must enforce a societal system of justice as well?

When it comes to sex offenders, no. Serving time is not enough. That is why their is a sex offender’s registry that continues a convicts consequences past the time served.

Anonymous wrote:

Thank you for this response. I do not know how churches should deal with convicted sex offenders who have been dealt with according to the law and are living lawfully and I’m going to read those resources.

Guest post by Simon Bass, CEO of CCPAS (Churches’ Child Protection Advisory Service:

http://watchkeep.blogspot.com/2015/08/an-open-letter-to-every-senior-pastor.html?m=1

Anonymous wrote:

I think some people are truly remorseful and change.

I think it possible that people CAN be truly remorseful, but there are certain ‘weaknesses’ that don’t go ‘away’ or change, and if the person has injured innocent people as a result of his ‘weakness’, and his injury was to minors, then there is a greater possibility of recidivism. Should this person RETURN to the same kind of setting where he WAS tempted, he would be sinning. He would be putting himself into a situation that we call in my Church ‘the near occasion of sin’ …. that is, willingly returning to a place of known temptation, and if that place is a Church with families and young people and children, then it is a ‘target rich environment’ and a truly repentant perpetrator would NOT return to temptation willingly.

It’s that simple, and that complex. Does the person deserve ministry? Absolutely. Does the person deserve to get that ministry in a place where he might be strongly tempted? No. No, he doesn’t. He gave up that possibility when he injured an innocent in a similar environment.

There are some sins for which you can be forgiven, but where you must be ‘watchful’ that you do not place yourself once again in the way of temptation. As we pray to God: ‘and lead us not into temptation’, then we also know that we ourselves are NOT disobey by seeking temptation out.

Bridget wrote:

Anyone can be forgiven if they repent, accept the consequences, live life in a way that shows repentance. BUT … don’t take chances with children

I think every TWW commenter would agree that no one who is truly repentant is beyond forgiveness. Forgive a child abuser? Yes! Put them in ministry? NO!

Anonymous wrote:

Which offenders are forgivable and which ones aren’t? And who decides?

I think it’s important not to confuse forgiveness with granting further opportunity.

You’ve raised some good questions and they are questions being grappled with in other religions, as well.

My own feeling is that we need to protect children first and most importantly. Sex offenders can be forgiven -that’s something between them and God- and only the persons they have offended against can decide whether to forgive them or not- but that doesn’t mean it’s good or healthy for them to be in positions where they will be subject to temptation. It’s not fair for them to expect secrecy about their past.

@ Christiane:

I agree with all that you have said there.

Anon wrote:

The problem is that in this day and age anyone can put anything in print. Unfortunately that includes you. I am in no way condoning a sex offender. But to attack someone, by name, that is simple covering all the bases on a very inflammatory subject to insure no backlash is idiotic and infantile. In your rambling you have done nothing but hinder any good a predator watch group could accomplish. You should be ashamed of your own behavior because the way you have went about this is more than wrong. I understand you are emotionally invested through your own history, but you have fumbled this. I hope you feel the reprecussions.

What, pray tell are you talking about?

They discovered someone who has been convicted of aggravated sexual assault.

This information is already public.

This website has reposted it.

If you would please be clear about what it is your are claiming WW did that was wrong, or how they should have gone about it, please say so.

Otherwise, it just looks like you don’t like what WW did for some reason.

Wow!! All this makes me even more extremely concerned about the children and youth at this church.

I agree with the other comments:

Perhaps the information coming into the light has touched on deeper evils in the church community.

Have TWW and WatchKeep disturbed a possible cover-up of grooming and sexual abuse happening now in the congregation?

From what Memphian Guest has said, the place sounds like great concealment for predator networking.

If youth are being coerced through grooming, threats, or even blackmail, I pray they will tell many trustworthy people about what’s going on in their lives. RIGHT NOW!!

Remember how TT gets people to tweet, text, and post for him? Maybe the same thing is happening here.

Max wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you believe they should be allowed to attend, but not volunteer?

Any church worker who stands on a worship platform – whether they be paid staff or a volunteer – performs a leadership role whether that is intended or not. When they are given visibility by the church, they assume a position of influence; they become trusted leaders in the minds of those who see them up front. That’s just the way it is. Gifts and talents are important, but integrity and Christian character are far more critical than how talented one is. At the end of the day, character stands above talent. Our character has been shaped by our past; bad characters can only be changed by the blood of Christ. I trust that church leaders vetted Mr. Heinz with this in mind, rather than how good he could play a guitar. The question remains – should he have been given a visible role in church knowing that some day, reports such as this would emerge and have to be addressed, causing confusion within the church and concern without?

Your points are what runs through my head as well.

Bridget wrote:

BUT it does not mean they are trusted again in the area in which they were convicted of a crime. A sex offender should never be given a chance to offend again and that does mean limiting their access to children! You simply don’t take chances with children.

Not only is this common sense, it has been at the core of corporate governance classes in the secular realm for at least 30 years. Why are Christians so dense about these things sometimes?

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Why are Christians so dense about these things sometimes?

Trying to be innocent as snakes and shrewd as doves?

Anonymous wrote:

Who do we continue to socially prosecute and who do we allow back into our lives?

You’re missing such an essential point: it’s not about THEM, it’s not about THEIR social persecution. According to what Jesus said about those who harm and mislead children, they’re lucky to be alive rather than in a watery grave–Jesus literally said that, it’s in multiple Gospels. In what sort of bizarre upside down universe does one call themselves “Christian” and refer to their fellowship by Christ’s name and yet utterly ignore what He specifically said about situations like this and instead wring their hands over the social costs that the child sexual abuser will face?

Frankly, I’d call it not Christian at all and I’d assume that those who’s knee jerk reaction is “But what of the social costs to the abuser?” not like a Christian at all based on their fruits. How about “What of the costs to the victim, the one who was abused and psychically destroyed and now sees their former tormentor up on the stage and held up as an example of goodness by the church?” Do they count? Or just damn them, why can’t they get over it and celebrate the “victory” with the rest of the church?

They’ve done something that has scarred a child for life, they should be thankful that they are even allowed to live. If you don’t get that, I don’t want to hear about your faith, I call bull–it’s a lie.

If Timothy Heinz cares one whit about anything other than himself, why doesn’t he come on here and shut down his defenders and say “Look folks, what I did years ago was evil, it hurt a young lady greatly and she’ll probably never get over it, it may have damaged her relationship with Christ, maybe destroyed it. I was spitting in the face of God, and I didn’t get what I deserved, I only got a light sentence and put on a predators list. Stop trying to defend and minimize the evil I’ve done.”

Until I see that, I have to think he’s a coward and doesn’t know the meaning of repentance.

BY the way, Anonymous, I have a post in moderation that I’d like the first paragraph to stand, but in retrospect, regret the last two. Still think it’s nonsense to ask “What of the social costs for the perp”, but I went too far questioning your faith, and area over which I have no expertise.

@ Anonymous:

I think it’s similar to dealing with a verbal abuser in the family, or a drug addict or an alcoholic.

You can love these people from a distance. You don’t have to permit them access to your life or home.

You wouldn’t probably want to give your liquor cabinet key to a family member who is an alcoholic or leave them alone if you know you have beer in your fridge.

Child molesters don’t have to attend a church. They can watch church services on TV or over the internet.

Adults from that church can visit that pedophile at his home or a restaurant or some other public place to do Bible study together.

I don’t see that it’s necessary for a pedophile to attend the same brick and mortar building that everyone else goes to.

I don’t think some people are every fully healed of their problem, whether it’s alcohol addiction or being a pedophile, or whatever it may be.

I’m always puzzled by the grumpy church folks who show up to this blog every time Dee does a post exposing a church who is covering for a pedo, to scream, “Don’t you people believe in grace or that God can heal a pedo of pedophilia”.

I was not supernaturally healed of my depression or codependency, in spite of reading the Bible, praying for a healing, and having faith in God.

To get over that stuff, I had to turn to books by psychologists – prayer did not heal me.

I still deal with anxiety to this day. Prayer hasn’t healed me of that, either. Maybe I’ll have to live with anxiety for the rest of my life.

Someone in my family died of cancer and other things, in spite of my family’s prayers for her.

Maybe God can heal people of ‘X,’ ‘Y,’ and ‘Z’, but for some reason, he chooses not to. I don’t know why not.

I would not risk the safety of kids to prove some kind of theological point to myself or other people about God, healing, grace, and forgiveness concerning pedophiles.

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for the snarkiness. Also, a false equivalency in the case of Heinz (sp?)

I didn’t feel it was a false equivalency.

I just used a similar analogy in my post above before reading his (or hers).

The nature of pedophilia being what it is, one cannot trust having a pedo around children.

Interview With Dr. Anna Salter – Predators Among Us
https://www.sott.net/article/272019-Behind-the-Headlines-Predators-Among-Us-Interview-With-Dr-Anna-Salter

Salter speaking:

Dr Salter: Oh, that’s pretty common. I have had offenders tell me that they love churches because people are more gullible in churches, that they look for the best in everyone.

You know the real, oh gosh I don’t know the word, but the truth is that offenders, predators don’t just prey on our weaknesses, they prey on our strengths as well.

They prey on the fact that many people are trusting, that they do look for the best in people, that they don’t consider the worst in people.

And those are natural victims for them. Most of them are not actually looking for a challenge, they’re looking for the easiest victim.

At about the same time Dr Fundystan was posting his reference to scripture we were visit Mabry Mill on the parkway. We saw some millstones. My husband used the opportunity to explain to our son. ” this what Jesus was talking about when He said” … It would be better…” I take it this is the scripture meant to be heard and confirmed today. Let him who has ears to hear…

Daisy wrote:

Adults from that church can visit that pedophile at his home or a restaurant or some other public place to do Bible study together.
I don’t see that it’s necessary for a pedophile to attend the same brick and mortar building that everyone else goes to.

Frankly, this sounds like a healthier way to have Christian fellowship than:

1). Attending a brick and mortar building,
2). Watching a group of people preen about, singing loudly and not-quite-on-key, blasting your senses with the amps,
3). Listening to the leader of said “worship” band grab the mic and insinuate that if you don’t lift your hands in adoration while his crew assaults your senses, that something is somehow wrong with YOU,
3). Hearing a series of announcements about all the great things that are being done in the “name of God” and with your money, and this is done with all the sincerity and forthrightness of the average corporate annual report (not the financial statements, mind you, which are audited by an independent firm, but rather the fluff and puffery and unbridled nonsense from the senior management that accompanies it)
4). Then watching someone take their space under the spotlight, tell a remarkably bad joke, launch into some inane nonsense only peripherally related to the Bible, plucking out a few out-of-context scriptures to support some message that at bottom either establishes how dadgone wonderful you are (so keep coming back to fill the collection plates) or how downright awful you are (so keep coming back for more abuse), but in every event establishes how the speaker has the right to your income, your assets and your obedience.
5). Then finally, with a deep sigh, heading home and trying to pretend you just got a dose of the Spirit of God when in reality you’re only trying to wash the bad taste of subtle abuse out of your mouth.

@ Law Prof:
Law Prof, I do believe you’ve attended some of the same churches I have! Your words remind me of the following parody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RJBd8zE48A

Jesus wept.

Ken F wrote:

The probability of an offender finding a Christian fellowship with no children is astonishingly small. I know this to be true because prior to his release into a very large city several hours from where we live, my wife and I searched long and hard for Christian ministries, halfway houses, or reintegration facilities. There is very little out there. There are many Christians who would like to see them getting ministered to, but “not here.” The result is that there is almost nowhere that they can get healthy Christian fellowship.

Many times you have posted this story and many times I have posted the Mennonites in the U.S. and Canada’s Circles of Support and Accountability, for sex offenders (C.O.S.A.). It is a very time intensive process, very highly trained volunteers and the organization works with the sex offender’s supervising law enforcement agency, psychiatrist, etc.

I don’t know if you have always missed my posts in response to your statements about this.
The Mennonites minister to most sex offenders apart from the normal congregation.

A rare exception would be the nature of a sex offense, say a sex offender registrant who was legally prosecuted for having sex with his girlfriend who was close in age to him.

Friend wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

@ Ken F:
Thank you for this response. For someone to say that I don’t have compassion for victims and that I’m “brimming” with compassion for offenders was, if I’m totally honest, a very hurtful implication/accusation to read as I am a victim myself. Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful response and for hearing “me” in my questions.

I also thank Ken F. for the thoughtful comment.

I am sorry that you were victimized, and I certainly did not mean to hurt you in any way.

At the time I wrote, I did not know that two or more people were writing as Anon and/or Anonymous (that is unusual on TWW). Weirdly, there’s a stack of protests here against TWW’s efforts to warn people that a registered sex offender is on a church worship team. If you read the comments—including your set of ten questions—there’s much emphasis on the burden the offender carries, without much reference to the reason why.

My responses were absolutely not intended to be snarky, unhelpful, or characterized by false equivalency. I absolutely mean it when I say that, by giving the sex offender a role that exposed him to potential victims, this church apparently failed to protect the sex offender. The church set this man up for public exposure by putting him into contact with potential victims. The church could have prevented all of this. Instead, the leaders put him on the worship team and kept mum, because they have the power.

Your comment in bold is the one that I realized I might have completely misunderstood after I commented on it. I was thrown off by your statement about protecting the offender. That’s not exactly the angle most people think or talk about so I did totally think you were just being… I don’t know. Sarcastic? Thanks for taking a moment to clarify. I get what you’re saying. It’s weird for me for some reason to think about “protecting the offender” as a way of also protecting potential victims. So, I’m gonna have to chew on that. Thanks.

All,

Reminder: It’s Dee’s birthday.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/11/28/make-sure-you-wish-dee-parsons-happy-birthday-tweet-her-wartwatch/

Muff Potter wrote:

I also think that when there’s conflict with what’s supposedly Christian this, that, and the other, good sense should prevail.

If it were only that easy. Unfortunately “good sense” seems to be a rare commodity in far too many church leaders.

Velour wrote:

All,

Reminder: It’s Dee’s birthday.

What?! Happy Birthday, Dee! This is a day to celebrate – I’m so glad you were born!

Velour wrote:

The pastors/elders even invited him to volunteer at a 5-day basketball camp for children, and didn’t tell all parents — including those who aren’t even church members and entrusted their children to the church!

Well, you’ve just brought up another issue I hadn’t really been thinking about, but traditionally, church has been a place for kids to invite their friends, and, traditionally, a place where those friends’ parents would believe is a safe, innocuous place.

Daisy wrote:

Child molesters don’t have to attend a church. They can watch church services on TV or over the internet.

Adults from that church can visit that pedophile at his home or a restaurant or some other public place to do Bible study together.

I don’t see that it’s necessary for a pedophile to attend the same brick and mortar building that everyone else goes to.

I don’t think some people are every fully healed of their problem, whether it’s alcohol addiction or being a pedophile, or whatever it may be.

I think those are good points. Thanks for your opinion. That’s really what I want to hear people say- “No, I do not think they should be allowed in churches.” Or whatever iteration of that one believes. I’m undecided on that front and I want and need to hear others’ opinions.

Anonymous wrote:

I was thrown off by your statement about protecting the offender. That’s not exactly the angle most people think or talk about so I did totally think you were just being… I don’t know. Sarcastic?

Thank you for your gracious response. No, I wasn’t being sarcastic. With regard to the church “leaders,” though, I was being scathing.

Crime prevention protects everybody, including criminals tempted by easy access.

I like Velour’s account of the Mennonite program posted at 9:56.

Going off line now. Best wishes.

Velour wrote:

Many times you have posted this story and many times I have posted the Mennonites in the U.S. and Canada’s Circles of Support and Accountability, for sex offenders (C.O.S.A.). It is a very time intensive process, very highly trained volunteers and the organization works with the sex offender’s supervising law enforcement agency, psychiatrist, etc.

I don’t know if you have always missed my posts in response to your statements about this.
The Mennonites minister to most sex offenders apart from the normal congregation.

This seems reasonable. Why isn’t this practiced more here? Funding? Interest? Disgust?

@ Velour:

~ Happy Birthday, Dee ~

Law Prof wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who do we continue to socially prosecute and who do we allow back into our lives?

You’re missing such an essential point: it’s not about THEM, it’s not about THEIR social persecution. According to what Jesus said about those who harm and mislead children, they’re lucky to be alive rather than in a watery grave–Jesus literally said that, it’s in multiple Gospels. In what sort of bizarre upside down universe does one call themselves “Christian” and refer to their fellowship by Christ’s name and yet utterly ignore what He specifically said about situations like this and instead wring their hands over the social costs that the child sexual abuser will face?

I saw your subsequent post about retracting the two paragraphs originally following this one, so I’ll just respond to this one. I’m not missing any point or making my concern more about offenders than victims. AGAIN, as a victim MYSELF I am INTIMATELY aware of the always and ongoing problems victims experience probably until the day we die. By asking questions I am not making statements. I have no problem continuing to socially prosecute someone who is deserving. That’s a statement. Some people have responded to my questions with honest opinions which is what I have hoped for in posing the questions. “Should convicted offenders be allowed in churches? Y/N” “If they are allowed in churches, in what capacity [or area] are they allowed?” Etc. I don’t want to write them all out again. Posing questions and developing definitive answers is how systems, protocols, laws, etc are established. OBVIOUSLY, (OBVIOUSLY) churches need more definitive systems and protocols for offenders in regards to attendance and participation in areas OTHER THAN AND IN ADDITION TO youth and children’s ministries if they are going to be allowed into the buildings at all. I still need to check out the links and resources others have posted in answer to these questions…

Daisy wrote:

My point for bringing all that up is that is secular society is more aware of the dangers pedophiles pose than do a lot of churches or Christians.

That is very true!

@ Daisy:

I so agree with your comment, Daisy.

Thank you.

Happy birthday, Dee! God bless you. 🙂

“….In addition, from time to time, he has served as a bass player on stage for the worship services. At no time has he led worship for High point.”

Please don’t tell the bass player at my church the he is not leading worship.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Anonymous O.a.D. … that name is a gas, gas, gas …

Thanks. Brad futurist guy.

I have always enjoyed your comments.

The fact that you like my new name is a great compliment to me!

Law Prof wrote:

so often throw that word “slander” around with reference to anyone telling the truth about the abuse coming from the leadership, it gets ingrained into the minds of the cultist, and out pops that inaccurate word.

Making my way through the comments, I think they use slander because they think it’s biblical, even if it’s legally inaccurate. of course, the whole point of slander is that it’s a LIE, not true stuff people don’t want to talk about.

I’m only partway through the comments, but I wonder if this Collierville watch thing wasn’t meant to be reporting break-ins and stuff, and then somebody mentioned someone in charge’s church, or alternately their close family friend Tim (or maybe both), and they freaked out. That’s kind of how it seems to have gone. Because reporting the Tennessee sex registry list, followed up by a statement from the church, is pretty obviously not a lie or slander.

Balanced One wrote:

– his wife is a member of the watch group

Ah, missed this. That’s why they freaked out.

The U.S. Is not alone. This morning in a Canadian city, four courageous men are facing their abuser in a Preliminary Hearing for evidence gathering. There is no statute of limitations here as these abuses took place in the 1980’s. The abuser is a police officer who attended our former church. The boys did too. It’s taken many years and difficult circumstances to get to this day. I believe many people at that church knew and said nothing. Please pray for justice and that the judge will find enough evidence to go to trial. Pray for these young men.

There are several points in Dee’s post that reference a known, but here-unnamed, person threatening Dee[bs] with reporting to the police for “slander”, and a certain amount of discussion thereon in the comment thread.

Dee also observed:

For quite awhile, I believe we have been more than generous with our promise of confidentiality of emails. We wish to continue this.

However, from this point forward, if we are threatened that we will be or have been reported to the police or a person threatens us with slander, libel or defamation, bodily harm, etc. we will release their names and other identifiers to the public via our blog. This includes Direct Messages, phone messages and snail mail. Such threats may also be forwarded to legal counsel.

We will contact any police department in the area of the threat and ask if police reports have been made and will relay the name and other identifiers to the police.

We have kept many of these threats from our readers, knowing that most of them were from impotent blowhards. However, this series of Direct Messages and ridiculous threats affected my Thanksgiving as I pondered how to deal with them. I hope you all understand or reasons for doing this.

Oddly enough, I think it’s important to protect (among other things) the concept of slander itself. It is important, in other words, that those who try to hide their evil deeds in the dark should not be able to use “slander” as a cover.

The criminal offence known, in UK law, as perverting the course of justice * is considered serious enough to carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment (though I’m not aware that this has ever happened). My point is not that the persistent wrongful use of the term “slander” used by people in and around churches is, or is not, a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice; rather, that the principle that the law of the land must not be twisted or distorted is a vital one.

I fully support our blog queens in any effort they make to connect people with the consequences of their actions. I’d almost say that this is more, not less, important with impotent blowhards because the criminal law is not to be frivolously meddled with. If those who are simply childish and petty get away with it, it makes it easier for those who are calculating and powerful.

* I gather the nearest US equivalent is “obstruction of justice”

siteseer wrote:

I think it’s important not to confuse forgiveness with granting further opportunity.

I think forgiveness is granted by the person who was hurt. And then by God. NOT by pastor bob, or by unconnected church members.

Risk assessment and protecting the vulnerable in your care is a different matter entirely from forgiveness. That is what the church should be concerned with.

dee wrote:

You should see what some of them are saying-accusing people of being influenced by Satan, etc.

Just like the Malleus Malefacarium — The Devil and his Witches are HERE! THERE! EVERYWHERE!

Anonymous Oracle at Delphi wrote:

Thanks. Brad futurist guy.

I have always enjoyed your comments.

The fact that you like my new name is a great compliment to me!

🙂 [futuristguy does retro emoji]

My original career choice was archaeology, so I always had an interest in the era of classical Greece, and knew immediately what the reference was to the Oracle at Delphi.

Plus it made me think of Whoopi Goldberg in *Jumpin’ Jack Flash.* “And it’s a gas, gas, gas …”

Humor keeps me afloat in an ocean of stuff that wants us to sink.

ishy wrote:

Would it be possible to remove “Anonymous” and all derivatives as a post username?

It’s been complicated by the fact that on this thread we’ve had two Anonimi taking up, as far as I can see, diametrically opposing views. So it’s been a bit like watching a Silastic Armourfiend of Striterax trying to beat himself up.

However, I believe one of the Anonimi has sportingly updated their name!

dee wrote:

My understanding is that they will report sex offenders in the area.

Ah, well that’s different then!

dee wrote:

You should see what some of them are saying-accusing people of being influenced by Satan, etc.

Wow! Such nonsense.

dee wrote:

My understanding is that they will report sex offenders in the area. I think this on made it awkward for them since the rapist’s wife is a member as well as a number of Highpoint people. You should see what some of them are saying-accusing people of being influenced by Satan, etc. I will deal with some of this today in a post.

I’ve always had a rule for myself that has served me well. I don’t expect anything out of anyone that I don’t expect from myself first.

If these people want to watchdog everyone else, but can’t take the heat when it’s turned on themselves or people close to them, then they need to carefully consider if they are the problem, not everybody else.

Lea wrote:

the answer to every question is ‘It Depends’

Mazzeo’s Law … it has corollaries, one of which is: it’s important to accurately know WHAT ‘it’ depends on

Canna wrote:

So thoroughly did people believe in his innocence that parents requested their children to be placed in his classroom.

Thank you for your long comment, Canna, about this incredibly serious subject. Predators in our churches and how to handle them.

As attorney/author/child advocate Andrew Vachss would say about these parents and enablers of predators, “They aren’t just sick, but sickening.”

I am so sorry the victim and her mother had to move to another state, they were so horribly abused.

Go Dee! We are all accountable for statements we make on any public forum. In the case of harassing statements and threats made in a public forum, there should be no privacy of these things. If they say that they are going to sue or are going to file a complaint with authorities, then we all have to own that statement. Let our names be publicized. There is a point where we lose any right to privacy.
Actually, in the end everything that we all have done and said will be made completely public. Better to keep that in mind as we act and communicate with each other. The final judgment is coming as sure as the things we live for in the future. Privacy is temporary and passing away, just like our aging bodies. It is wise to live with the end in mind.

Canna wrote:

@ Velour:
Thanks, Velour. I had tears rolling down my face the whole time I was typing. Andrew Vachss has been my educator on child abuse, I admire him so much.

I am glad that you changed your stance on this serious subject and are grieved by where you went amiss. If there is any way for you to reach out to the victim and her mother, you may want to do that. “I’m sorry” means a lot to people…even years later.

If you’ve been reading here at all, I was ordered to be excommunicated and shunned from my (ex) church Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley after repeatedly being threatened by the pastors/elders in a meeting and by telephone. I’d discovered, while doing a separate project for a former sex crimes attorney/prosecutor, that a new church member was a Megan’s List sex offender/child pornographer. The pastors/elders let him become a member and told no one and even put him in charge of a team. The pastors/elders invited him to volunteer at a 5-day basketball camp for children, and told no one — including parents who aren’t church members and entrusted their children to the church!

The pastors/elders repeatedly told me in a meeting that “child porn wasn’t a big deal”. Ummm, yes it is a big deal. It’s a violation of federal and state laws. Someone who is sexually turned on to children is a danger to children. Period.

I started a blog about GBFSV. But there are countless dangerous churches like them, with sick theology to back up their sick practices. https://gbfsvchurchabuse.org/2016/08/25/first-blog-post/

Max wrote:

It’s an upside down world where the crowd rallies around the wrong folks, rather than those who were wronged.

I think the thing that makes me understand this, as much as I can, is the concept that the victim is not ‘perfect’ in many cases. They are angry, or depressed, or they did something ‘wrong’ or what have you, and there stands actual bad guy, who is fine (because nothing happened to him!), no emotion, acting so nice and personable…the contrast makes people trust the abuser over the victim. Because for some reason we except the victim to be perfect, in the way that they are just not going to be.

Throw church language into all of this, and we expect those who have been hurt to be pleasant and instantly forgiving too.

And then, I think you have people who just don’t want their little applecart upset, and they don’t want to realize that they have been thoroughly duped, because it hurts their PRIDE to think they weren’t as excellent a judge of character as they thought they were.

And all of that combines to make a mess out of things, like in Canna’s story. Which is truly truly sad.

It looks like Perry Noble has a new business going, where he’s a consultant to churches.
This is his site where he is selling his services to churches:
https://www.iwantmychurchtogrow.com/

Velour wrote:

Many times you have posted this story and many times I have posted the Mennonites in the U.S. and Canada’s Circles of Support and Accountability, for sex offenders (C.O.S.A.). It is a very time intensive process, very highly trained volunteers and the organization works with the sex offender’s supervising law enforcement agency, psychiatrist, etc.

Sorry if I gave you the impression that I was ignoring you. I have not been able to find any CoSA groups in the state where he lives. When he was released from prison he was required to live in that state and was not allowed to leave it until his parole was over. CoSA was and is not an option for him because it does not seem to be available. Or if it is available, it is well hidden.

You are right, Velour, I should reach out to the victim and apologize. I agonized over doing that when the article came out and am not sure why I didn’t follow through. I went to a spaghetti fundraiser and the board meeting, but never saw the victim or her mother and didn’t know they had been forced to move from the community until I read her interview. We moved away and my children didn’t attend the school system he taught in, but my understanding is he remained a popular teacher and many former students were shocked as he had been their favorite. This guy was very clean cut, a science nerd. Now I know that pedophiles can be very convincing and manipulative. I thought it was just a huge misunderstanding, which is why what I or anyone else who was not an expert thought shouldn’t have mattered. We didn’t know all the facts. The support of the community shouldn’t have been factored into the school board’s decision. The superintendent later said she believed the little girl and fought to have him fired. Wish I had known that fact.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

Think Tony Blair.

I was thinking more Jeremy Clarkson…

@ Ken F:

Secular culture at least recognizes that pedos are a danger, so they put laws in place, like pedos cannot live by schools or hand out Halloween candy.

That is more than most churches do. A lot of churches want to coddle pedophiles, rather than put a structure into place to safe guard kids.

I also don’t see Non-Christian culture falling all over themselves to white wash pedophiles, or plead that they deserve compassion and sympathy and grace as much as victims.

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
Hopefully the guy behind the curtain can free that…

Ken F wrote:

@ Reidster:
@ Daisy:
Yes. I very much agree.

Sorry – it was a reply just to Daisy but i made a mistake with my phone.

@ Bill M:

Muff Potter wrote: “I also think that when there’s conflict with what’s supposedly Christian this, that, and the other, good sense should prevail.”

Bill M wrote: “If it were only that easy. Unfortunately “good sense” seems to be a rare commodity in far too many church leaders.”
++++++++++++++++

unfortunately it is true. but it’s a great personal policy to have! quells the temptation to overanalyze and secondguess onself. keeps the religious guilt monkey off my back (it loves to jump on anyone and everyone either by its own accord or as emissary of another christian).

frees me up to enjoy God and God’s companionship and partnership, and, I believe, it facilitates God being able enjoy me, as well. nothing like stress, consternation, and guilt (think Rex the tyrannosaurs in Toy Story) to interfere with connecting with others.

but most of all, it helps me sleep in peace.

Max wrote:

@ Law Prof:
Law Prof, I do believe you’ve attended some of the same churches I have! Your words remind me of the following parody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RJBd8zE48A
Jesus wept.

That is just so wrong and unfair! The worship leader is nowhere “cool” enough- he doesn’t have bleached or spiked hair, given he is bald – he should be sporting a “soul patch” or a very long goatee with no moustache and ear piercings! Other than that – spot on, sadly.

Ken F wrote:

Velour wrote:
Many times you have posted this story and many times I have posted the Mennonites in the U.S. and Canada’s Circles of Support and Accountability, for sex offenders (C.O.S.A.). It is a very time intensive process, very highly trained volunteers and the organization works with the sex offender’s supervising law enforcement agency, psychiatrist, etc.
Sorry if I gave you the impression that I was ignoring you. I have not been able to find any CoSA groups in the state where he lives. When he was released from prison he was required to live in that state and was not allowed to leave it until his parole was over. CoSA was and is not an option for him because it does not seem to be available. Or if it is available, it is well hidden.

Thanks Ken F.

I think when we are faced with these situations we could reach out to the Mennonites who lead Circles of Support and Accountability and ask if they have contacts in our respective states/regions or know of other similar groups to their group.

Ken F wrote:

If it is true that sexual offenders cannot be cured, then the secular legal system should lock them up for life after one offense. That does not happen. We have to worry about recidivism only because they eventually get released (some don’t even go to jail).
Because the secular legal system does not put them away from life, churches need to get smart about what to do about it.

There aren’t many topics that polarise society like this one, are there?

Precisely because of, or as a part of, this, I think a significant and ongoing issue is the fact that a lot of what’s done involves re-acting rather than acting. For instance, if we see a cultural tendency to downplay the seriousness of child abuse, then rather than soberly assess the actual needs of the abused, we fall into the trap of “correcting the imbalance” by arguing with the down-players. If that process continues, then we’ll push back harder and harder against “trivialising child abuse” until the abused person is utterly beyond healing and can at best hope for some palliative love to ease the crippling pain that can never ever go away.

Again, we see churches claiming cheap and false miracles of easy transformation for abusers. By way of reaction, we push back harder and harder against any claim of transformation, to the point where God is powerless to heal an abused person and the Cross is powerless against the sin of abuse. (In which case, we may as well euthanase all abusers and quietly dispose of them at sea…)

It is not possible to talk about “exaggerating the effects” of child abuse. But I am concerned that we do not exaggerate the hopelessness of the abused.

elastigirl wrote:

well, it seems the unpardonable sin in church is not being happy and smiley.

“Hell hath no torment greater than Constant Forced Cheerfulness.”
— G.K.Chesterton, “Three Tools of Death” (Father Brown Mystery)

dee wrote:

I think this on made it awkward for them since the rapist’s wife is a member as well as a number of Highpoint people. You should see what some of them are saying-accusing people of being influenced by Satan, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubCl5_kDWks

Velour wrote:

I think when we are faced with these situations we could reach out to the Mennonites who lead Circles of Support and Accountability and ask if they have contacts in our respective states/regions or know of other similar groups to their group.

That could work. For me it’s water under the bridge because my friend has a good circle of support in place now. I did not know about CoSA when he got out of prison and had to get himself set up with no money, no place to live, no job prospects.

@ Mike:
I believe the parody was produced before bleached/spiked hair, long goatees, and ear piercings became in vogue for worship leaders. Such look is now in, of course, as cool mega-churches spread across the landscape doing church without God. Heck, convicted sex offenders are now welcome on-stage!

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

elastigirl wrote:

well, it seems the unpardonable sin in church is not being happy and smiley.

“Hell hath no torment greater than Constant Forced Cheerfulness.”
— G.K.Chesterton, “Three Tools of Death” (Father Brown Mystery)

Number 12 looks just like you.