Is it too far?

[Supernaut]

That's a very worldly concern for a very spiritual institution. Are you willing to do the right thing (spiritually) even though it may cost you everything (worldly)?

Good point. So the Church as a whole must rely on God to see them through should the negative press have an impact on attendance.

 

[Philothei]

Should the Church be concerned as to how it may be viewed by the general public? Negative publicity? Should it be concerned with falling membership numbers should it decide to accept this gentlman?

Publicity? Nope the church should not be conserned about that IMHO because Christ accepts all. It is the sinners and the sick who are in need for the Physician

 

[Supernaut]

Publicity? Nope the church should not be conserned about that IMHO because Christ accepts all. It is the sinners and the sick who are in need for the Physician

I see. But say something goes awry, say he touches someone, and the news gets a hold of this?

 

[JBJoe]

Good point. So the Church as a whole must rely on God to see them through should the negative press have an impact on attendance.

I, personally, don't think that God will intervene on the church's behalf as that would require tweaking the free will of every member. A test of faith, is a test of faith, and not all have happy endings - at least in this life.

But ethically, I think, one must answer that basic question: are you willing to suffer the price of doing the right thing? I think this is similar to the dilemma Jesus posed to the wealthy young man in Mark 10.

 

[Supernaut]

I, personally, don't think that God will intervene on the church's behalf as that would require tweaking the free will of every member. A test of faith, is a test of faith, and not all have happy endings - at least in this life (just ask Job).

Ya never know! But yeah He probably would not.

But ethically, I think, one must answer that basic question: are you willing to suffer the price of doing the right thing? I think this is similar to the dilemma Jesus posed to the wealthy young man in Mark 10.

That is true.

 

[mont974x4]

The church would be liable. Many insurance companies requires a background check for people working in churches. It really comes down to a stewardship issue. It is also why many interior doors are being renovated to include windows and you should always have two workers in any class, and a male should not counsel a female without a witness. It is very sad, but the state of our culture demands such precautions be seriously considered. I generally encourage women to seek the advice of a godly woman but when I must counsel a woman I make sure that it is in the open so people can verify nothing improper has occurred. As pastors we operate under the name of Christ. A lapse in our integrity or character impacts His name. His name is what we need to be concerned with, not ours and not the financial status of our particular fellowship.


The church would have to be creative to find the proper balance of meeting the real spiritual need of the alleged offender and the safety of the people already in the church. This may mean working with another church or ministry.

 

[Supernaut]

The church would be liable. Many insurance companies requires a background check for people working in churches. It really comes down to a stewardship issue. It is also why many interior doors are being renovated to include windows and you should always have two workers in any class, and a male should not counsel a female without a witness. It is very sad, but the state of our culture demands such precautions be seriously considered. I generally encourage women to seek the advice of a godly woman but when I must counsel a woman I make sure that it is in the open so people can verify nothing improper has occurred. As pastors we operate under the name of Christ. A lapse in our integrity or character impacts His name. His name is what we need to be concerned with, not ours and not the financial status of our particular fellowship.

Absolutely true.

The church would have to be creative to find the proper balance of meeting the real spiritual need of the alleged offender and the safety of the people already in the church. This may mean working with another church or ministry.

Creative indeed. Seems a rather difficult situation from every aspect.

 

[quatona]

God has given him the "freewill" to molest children. So who am I to limit his "freewill"?

 

[david_x]

God has given him the "freewill" to molest children. So who am I to limit his "freewill"?

idk about you but we are the Church, so we can.

 

[JBJoe]

God has given him the "freewill" to molest children. So who am I to limit his "freewill"?

You are the one who can, by your own free will, choose to stop him or report him to those who will.

 

[quatona]

You are the one who can, by your own free will, choose to stop him or report him to those who will.

Sure I can, but my point was not that I can´t.

 

[Archer93]

Hypothetical scenario here.

Gentleman comes to Church asking to be allowed in. Sounds ok right? You then find out that he has been arrested and awaiting trial for child molestation. Even though he has not been found guilty, your skin crawls at the idea of anyone doing harm to a child. You tell him that you will get back to him.

You approach your Church council/congregation with the gentlemans request. There are mixed feelings from the congregation. Eventually everyone seems to agree to allow the gentleman in with strict access, including a chaperone to would follow him around.

What would you do? Would you give the final yay/nay?

Would you preserve the "safety" of the congregation and tell him no? Turn him away?

Would you let compassion win and allow him in (under above stated guidelines) at least until the completion of the trial?

Would you ask, "What would Jesus do?" ?


One need not be Christian to respond.

Chaperonage and moral support. It's quite possible the man is innocent. In fact legally he is, until the trial takes place.
If he did do it, support from his church could help stop him from doing it again.
If he didn't, he'll still have a lot to deal with as that sort of mud sticks. Support from his church, again, would help him greatly.

And I wouldn't leave children with an unchecked-out adult in the first place.

 

[Philothei]

God has given him the "freewill" to molest children. So who am I to limit his "freewill"?

So if someone has a gun and a free will he has a right to kill others? We have to safeguard life and the well being of others .... We are stewards of the creation and anything one does to harm it we are to be there to make sure it does not happpen again. .... Free will has nothing to do with "correcting" one anoher in christian love.... Free will does not mean free range to harm. We do not stiffle free will we are safeguarding the right of another to his wellbeing and safety.... Also we are encouraged to help the weak... one example here;

12Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. 13Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other. 14And we urge you, brothers, warn those who are idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, be patient with everyone. 15Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else.

1 - PassageLookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com Thessalonians+5&version=NIV

 

[JBJoe]

Sure I can, but my point was not that I can´t.

If you don't, then I will look at you with a disappointed expression because you failed to use your own free will to stop it.

Where are you going with this? That it is unethical to interfere in someone else's free will, even if that someone is hurting another person?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

An entrance exam to come to church?

Sounds like you are saying not everyone is welcome in the house of God

...kind of like when my dad still in the catholic church and he and my mom had to take a test to get married because she wasn't catholic...

Anyways, no one was saying he wasn't welcome, they were saying that he should be allowed but with the use of advisable caution.

If he truly is a molester, no he shouldn't be allowed to go back and teach children's sunday school unattended, that would be ridiculous to allow that.

 

[quatona]

So if someone has a gun and a free will he has a right to kill others?

No, that´s not what I said nor meant.

 

[quatona]

If you don't, then I will look at you with a disappointed expression because you failed to use your own free will to stop it.

Since 1. I don´t believe in a god and 2. I think "freewill" is a nonsensical concept anyways, I am only playing devil´s adocate here. So no need for this disappointed expression on your face.

Where are you going with this? That it is unethical to interfere in someone else's free will, even if that someone is hurting another person?

I was trying to make a point about a theologically problematic doctrine.

 

[wanderingone]

Ummm.. he's "allowed" in and there's no following him around... and just as you don't leave your kids alone with anyone; especially someone you've just met you don't leave them alone with him.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

With strict controls, I can't see why not.

 

[Nathan45]

God has given him the "freewill" to molest children. So who am I to limit his "freewill"?

do the people who would limit his free will have free will also? then they can limit his free will...