I suspect that at the same time I am writing my response, there are several others crafting their own.  If it were me in this situation, I would start by looking at my motives.  I’m going to start by thinking this as a fight. 

Who will I be fighting? The press, the public my church?

Who am I fighting for? Christ, the lost, the janitor, my church?

Why am I fighting? To defend my decision, to see other come to the church, to defend Christ’s love?

Once I can honestly answer these questions, I think the course of action will reveal itself.  I don’t think Christ ever intended us to fight the press for our pride, or just to defend loving others the way he wants us to.  That really needs no defense.  Just my 2 cents.

This is hard to comment on, since I’m not in the situation.

I think you should stand by your decision, but responding might not be in your church’s (or the janitor’s) best interest.

I think that the best way to shield this man (who should be a priority) from the hatred of the community, and to show him the love of Christ, is to love him enough to be above the name calling and judgement of the world.

Your reputation might be at stake in the short-term, but it will pass. What is really at stake here is your new employees eternity.

I think that employing this man is a beautiful picture of grace - no wonder there’s persecution! I will be praying that this man recognizes this grace, and that it becomes irrestible to him.

Please excuse the anonymous post, but I read here regularly and post comments occasionally.  There is usually more to stories like this than the media airs, the media will distort things to either make the church look bad or look good depending on their agenda.

What were the sprcific circumstances of the guys “sex” conviction?  Was it with children?  How long ago was it?  Does he have any contact with children at the church, or does he only perfom janitorial duties when no one is there?

I’m sure the media has or could have found out all these facts, but they chose not to air them.  Probably because they mitigate the claims against the church.

I say this because I was convicted of a “sex” offense.  Would you consider hiring me?

When I was quite young I was engaging in inappropriate sexual activity with a consenting adult in a secluded, although public, area.  We thought we were quite alone and no one would discover us.  We were wrong and were arrested and convicted of “public lewdnes”.  Today, a couple of dozen years later, I have to put that conviction on any application I make and hope to have a chance to explain the circumstances.  If I don’t get a call in response to the application I have to ponder whether it is due to lack of qualification or due to a teenage indiscretion.

So again, would you consider hiring me?  Most wouldn’t.

I love children and would never do anything to harm a child, but I strictly avoid any contact with the child care facility at our church.  Specifically to avoid putting my church in the position of having to defend itself against such accusations.

Do I think this church should respond?  That depends on facts not in evidence, what are the circumstances of the man’s conviction?  If in retrospect the decision was a sound one?  IF so, then they should defend it. To not defend it is to leave this man hanging and to allow the media to tarnish the reputation of the church.

I agree with the above comments by everyone. I would recommend a letter to the editor. Short and sweet.

I would also recommend having a more lenghty letter ready if someone (concerned citizen, neighbor, etc) contact the church with concerns. But I would keep those letters just for the people who personally contacted the church. No sense in making the story bigger than it is.

I’ve got to agree with the one who said no response might be the best response. Arguing “our side” is pointless mostly - my argument is better than your argument doesn’t make it right. If it’s right, it’ll work out - just be sure it’s right.

I would think they’re doing the right thing from what little we know. Be confident in that, and just live life together as a church committed more to changing lives than to “being right”.

Just as a matter of caution.  Check with your insurance company to see if by hiring this man you put the church in danger of not being covered in case of a lawsuit. For some insurance companies if use a volunteer or hire a person whom you know to have been convicted of a sex crime, you void any insurance coverage you may have if a lawsuit develops in relationship to the actions of that person.  Just a caution.  It is sad that it is that way when you are trying to help the man turn his life around but a lawsuit could take the church under financially.

I have worked with offenders for seven years. I applaud congregations to help ex offenders transition back to the community. I work with a faith based group that does inprison reentry programming and follow guys to the streets for a year. This is our advice for a church where a sex offender wants to go: Make sure the leadership team knows that he is a sex offender. The offender in question should always have a “buddy” accompany him to the church building and every where he goes. That is for his protection as well as any one else.
I would never advise a church to hire a sex offender for a janitorial position that would put him potential private contact with a child. That is dangerous for all parties involved.

Leave it to the professional to provide the most level headed, unemotional advice.  Thanks Kirk. 

Can’t speak for the rest of today’s advisors, but I am wired to always want to say something . . . anything . . . which (I think) will make things better somehow . . . but I’m sure sometimes make things worse (yes, I admit to being a dead horse beater too often).

The comment about stakeholders is good advice for some less-than-crisis situations too. 

Wendi

I do not know the details to offer much advice, nor do I want to get into whether the hiring was a good or bad thing, but I can say this: if you believe that the press is purposely misrepresenting you, and they will not print letters to the editor, you may have to bite the bullet and buy an ad in the paper.

[sarcasm]Perhaps since this is the unforgiveable sin, the one that God cannot and will not change the heart of the offender, .....[/sarcasm]

As a parent, I would want to know, too. But as a human being, I’ve got no real problem with the hiring in good faith with guidelines for his and our protection, as someone else has pointed out.

HI folks, maybe it’s time for more details.  I am the source of the article.  This is happening in my church.  Thanks to Todd for placing it on MMI.  I really appreciate the input and wisdom MMI readers provide.  I am a regular reader and occasional poster, but am posting under a different email address to maintain some confidentiality.

I appreciate everyone’s initial comments.  Now here’s “The Rest Of The Story.”

Much has happened since the article was published.  But first some background:
The individual mentioned as a “part-time employee who is also a registered child molester” was not an employee of the church but was doing some custodial work as part of a “work-fare” program administered by the county.  It seems the county has a “Don’t ask/don’t tell” policy regarding such things and makes no attempt to notify those to whom their clients are referred.  We found out about her conviction by checking a sex offence registry website.  After the article came out, the county asked us to certify in writing that she would have absolutely no contact with children.  While she was closely supervised, we didn’t feel we could go that far, so we asked the county to reassign her. 

The other individual is a life-long member of the congregation, now in his mid 40’s.  He has always been active in areas of volunteer ministry in the church, mostly in the adult music programs.  He is well-known and greatly loved in the church.  About 8 years ago a situation arose which resulted in him being convicted of “annoying a minor.” It was based primarily on inappropriate Internet material that was seen by students in his middle-school classroom.  The family of one of the kids in the class pushed this through the courts.  The prosecution portrayed him as a sexual predator and asked for a 2 year prison tem.  The judge disagreed and sentenced him to 36 months probation, citing the fact that no children were touched and that no effort was made to be alone with children.  The individual completed probation with no problems, and this is the only violation of any kind on his record.  Because of his status as a low-risk offender and the successful completion of probation, he is not required to be listed on sex-offender websites. 

He was being considered for the “Facility Manager” position and people generally felt really good about having him on staff.  He was told he had been chosen for the job, at which point he gave 2 weeks notice to his employer.  On his last day at his old job, the article came out.  At about the same time, the church became aware of insurance questions.  In light of that, the job offer was retracted.  Of course, he and his family are devastated and feel that the wounds of the whole trial and conviction have been ripped open so that salt could be rubbed in.  And he is unemployed.

Initial investigations indicate that hiring him could result in the church’s liability insurance being dropped.  The company that issued the church policy specializes in insuring churches and is the main insurer for our denomination.  That company’s underwriter (Lloyd’s of London) has a “zero-tolerance” approach to convicted sex offenders regardless of high-risk or low-risk status.  However there is some uncertainty over whether the church policy specifically makes such a statement.  It’s being looked at.  It would seem to me that if the policy does not specifically exclude such a category, the company could not deny coverage.

We are not in a good place right now.  There is still strong support for hiring the individual, but the insurance issue is a sticking point.  The general opinion is that we know this individual well enough to think risk is no greater than with any other candidate.  I suspect a few might disagree, but they’re not speaking up.  Others think we need a blanket policy excluding anyone ever convicted of any sex offence from employment so that the community will see us as safe.  Of course that would exclude one of our own who already quit his job because of our offer of employment.

The pastors and church leadership are looking for options on how to proceed, including the possibility of other insurance.

Any thoughts?

My first response is “What Would Jesus Do?” I know this saying is used way too much in our world, but how did Jesus “hire” his disciples?  Do you think he was concerned about what the community said?  My goodness, he “hired” a tax collector of all things!  “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Matthew 9:12 Jesus’ first concern was God’s will.  If God was guiding him, then he knew that God would provide.  What is the church’s purpose?  Is it to do what the world wants us to do?  Is it to do what the insurance companies tell us to do?  No, it is to do God’s will and to share the Gospel to the nations.  I know this sounds simple and your church is in a sticky situation.  However, if you and your staff have prayed and you know that it is God’s will to hire this man, then do it!  I think I would rather face God knowing that I had done what He asked than worry about what the community or the media says.

Psalm 64 is my favorite and maybe you can share it with this poor man faced again with judgement from the world.  I can’t even imagine what he and his family must be feeling at this moment.  The “sex offender” cases these days are like the modern witch trials.  I am so amazed by the world and how they attack even those that are falsely accused, but then again why should I be amazed by what the world does.  There seems to be no justice or trying to find the truth when it comes to the world.

“Hear me, O God, as I voice my complaint; protect my life from the threat of the enemy. Hide me from the conspiracy of the wicked, from that noisy crowd of evildoers. They sharpen their tongues like swords and aim their words like deadly arrows. They shoot from ambush at the innocent man; they shoot at him suddenly, without fear. They encourage each other in evil plans, they talk about hiding their snares; they say, “Who will see them?” They plot injustice and say, “We have devised a perfect plan!” Surely the mind and heart of man are cunning. But God will shoot them with arrows; suddenly they will be struck down. He will turn their own tongues against them and bring them to ruin; all who see them will shake their heads in scorn. All mankind will fear; they will proclaim the works of God and ponder what he has done. Let the righteous rejoice in the Lord and take refuge in him; let all the upright in heart praise him!” Psalm 64

Well, your church HAS to have its insurance… This is the best example of being between a rock and a hard place I’ve seen in a LONG time…