davidould.net

non angelus, sed anglus!

how not to handle paedophilia - Brisbane

Paedophila, or sexual abuse of any kind, is a tricky subject for churches. In general we want to speak a word of grace to offenders of all stripes, after all the Cross guarantees forgiveness for all no matter what the offense - as the murderer crucified with Christ found out to his eternal benefit.

But some actions generate long-term consequences. So, for example, we have a gentleman in our congregation who has served time for a financial misdemeanour. He is a valued and respected member of our church family but has decided that he is no longer eligible for any leadership role. Nor would he be offered one, for leaders in the church must be blameless. This is only sensible and godly Christians understand this immediately.

In a similar way my church boss in London, just before I got married, spoke some serious words to me. If my marriage were to fail, he said, and if it were in any way my fault (which it would surely be) - well, then I was to resign any formal position I held in Christian ministry. Christ’s name could not be associated with such actions and if I had any integrity I would recognise that as well. And I do.

More than this, there is also the matter of caring for those who are susceptible to various failings. You don’t hold AA meetings in a pub for obvious reasons, nor should those who struggle with paedophiliac tendencies be in any contact with children beyond that which is absolutely unavoidable - for their own sake, as well as that of the children.

In none of those cases are we talking about withholding forgiveness. Rather, these restrictions are in place to protect the weaker brother and to maintain the reputation of Christ. And that’s why the following story from Brisbane’s Courier Mail is so distasteful:

Holy Trinity Anglican Church sweeps priest’s sins under carpet
BRISBANE’S Holy Trinity Anglican Church has been dubbed the “Unholy Trinity” after it has been revealed a pedophile, an alleged pedophile and a practising priest with his own seedy past are leading its Sunday services.

Following revelations in The Courier-Mail this week that convicted pedophile priest Robert Sharwood, who was released from jail only three months ago, has been allowed to sing in the choir with children, it has now been discovered that Canon Barry Greaves, who will stand trial on child sex charges in August, participates in bible readings.

Their role in the Fortitude Valley church has been approved by the Parish Council, headed by rector Trevor Bulled, who was convicted of indecent behaviour in a public toilet almost 20 years ago.

Fr Bulled was stood aside by the Anglican Church in 2001 during an unrelated police investigation after his bluecard was confiscated, but was cleared and reinstated three years later.

When asked to comment this week on the church’s decision to allow a convicted pedophile to sing in its choir, Fr Bulled replied: “Most certainly not”.

He then added that Sharwood was a suitable distance from children.

But he refused to respond to ongoing attempts to contact him regarding his own criminal history.

Brisbane Anglican Church Bishop John Parkes defended Holy Trinity this week, claiming the ministry had done an extraordinary job helping the most vulnerable and damaged people in our society.

“They’re caring for . . . damaged people. I would hate to see the church ever turning its back on anybody, however grievously they’ve offended,“ he said.

He said there were appropriate safeguards in place to protect the rest of the congregation.

Bishop Parkes said he had confidence in Fr Bulled and referred to his past conviction as an “old matter”, although conceded it was unfortunate.

But Bravehearts executive director Hetty Johnson said she was “appalled” the three men all had active roles in the church.

“It’s the ‘Unholy Trinity’ and a window of what’s been going on for generations ā€“ they’re afforded more time and compassion and forgiveness than the victims,“ she said.

A hearing of the church’s professional standards association today will determine whether Sharwood should be defrocked.

If true, this is madness. Not just on the part of the leadership of that parish but the men themselves. No doubt we should be “caring for ... damaged people”. Indeed, the church is just the place for such people - we follow the lead that our Lord gave when He consorted with prostitutes and tax collectors. But this is more than “caring”. This is allowing people who have a proven track record of wrong doing or allegations of such against them to continue to exercise positions of authority or be put in situations that compromise their own integrity and that of the church in general. It’s just downright foolish.

You don’t sit with an alcoholic in a booth of a pub and claim that they are “a suitable distance from the bar”. No, you don’t invite them in in the first place and if they do come and sit down you tell them, for their own good, to get up and leave and not even flirt with the temptation.

Posted by on 03/01 at 04:40 PM

There is no doubt that persons who have any sort of sexual offence, child abuse or criminal history need to be carefully considered in terms of “up-front” ministry in church, whether liturgical or otherwise.
It is always wiser, for the protection of the vulnerable and indeed for the protection of the person concerned, to ensure that they do not have the apparent endorsement that such leadership implies.
Nevertheless, how do we ensure that they are still welcome into the congregation or the curch as repentant or potentially repentant and forgiven sinners, just like the rest of us, whilst still ensuring that the vulnerable are protected?
To have them in the church and at the same time to protect people is the harder road. Just mechanisticaly excluding them entirely is the easy cop out.
Is it being argued that they don’t even get invited to church at all?
I’d like to see the scriptural warrant for that.

Posted by on 03/03 at 07:42 AM
Thanks Philip,

I’m certainly not arguing for exclusion or lack of an invite. I’m suggesting being far wiser, as you say, about which situations they may serve in. This serves to maintain accountability and “blamelessness” and also protects the individuals themselves from further unnecessary accusation and any potential temptation.

All of this needs to be done, it seems to me, in a context where we teach both ex-offenders and those that come into contact with them that the gospel is for all, for all people and all offenses. I’m quite convinced, for example, that churches should be at the forefront of welcoming and inviting ex-offenders when they move into a community. Jesus was quite happy to reach out to prostitutes and tax-collectors despite the social exclusion it brought from some corners.

Posted by on 03/03 at 07:52 AM
I thought that’s what was being said but just wanted to be sure.
Sadly, but understandably, there are some shrill voices who would just exclude offenders per se, from the Church, even from society. They express the deep hurt of those who have been abused or those near and dear to them.
Whilst we cannot and should not ask the abused victim to forgive, they have to make that journey if they can over time themselves and with God’s healing help, we must as Christians (in my estimation) balance judgement and consequences (not vengence) with forgiveness. I take it that’s what distinguishes us as Christians from others.
Not easy issues.

Posted by on 03/03 at 08:17 AM

Page 1 of 1 pages

<< Back to main

Statistics

This page has been viewed 107940 times
Page rendered in 0.8010 seconds
Total Entries: 877
Total Comments: 3530
Total Trackbacks: 96
Most Recent Entry: 11/19/2008 01:28 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 11/18/2008 01:54 pm
Total Members: 5
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 10
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 11/20/2008 04:43 pm
The most visitors ever was 96 on 07/01/2007 09:30 am