I am conflicted. Part of me advocates firm, but passive disobedience like the early church. Another part of me would like to see the church elders call on the men in the congregation to grab any police officer who tries to enforce this law on their church and throw the officer out on his ass:
As a matter of first principles, the Church cannot accept Hoyle's implied argument that he, a secular authority, has the ecclesiastical authority to determine who can join a congregation and under what terms. Hoyle has effectively declared himself to be in a position to arbitrate and direct the Great Commission itself, and that is an affront that the Church cannot tolerate. Church leaders who give in will have to answer to Jesus for that in the next life because Jesus did not exclude any class of sinner from being preached the gospel.
Even on the secular side, this law makes little sense as a "security law." Churches do not allow convicted sex offenders to have ministerial authority over the church functions which correlate to their sin(s). Nichols (the guy featured in the article) would not have been given a chance to be put into a position of authority where he could abuse children or teenagers. People like him would not typically have any chance to repeat their crime at church short of a brazen attack that would most likely quickly get them caught very quickly. Furthermore, from a security perspective, creating the perspective that society is even "restricting their reconciliation with God" is invariably going to create resentment and bitterness that will enable recidivist tendencies.
Given the reach of sex offender lists and how many things they cover, the Church cannot afford to let the secular authorities make the decisions for it. Shall the Church be forced to turn away people who got caught having sex as teens or even just peeing in the bushes after a night of drinking in college or on the side of the road on a long trip? The former are very well represented on sex offender registries. Even if the Church were content to write them all off as dangerous rapists, the legislators have been so derelict in properly defining the parameters of the classification that it couldn't be useful to the Church anyway.
As always, one thing remains constant here: a legislator missed a golden opportunity to change the law to make the sentencing guidelines for the dangerous sex offenders actually remove them from society. At some point, the American people need to demand that this security charade end, and the sentences and punishments match the actual severity of what the criminal did.
"I'm not denying him the right to go to church. He denied himself that," said state Sen. David Hoyle, the Democrat who sponsored the North Carolina bill. "If they are a convicted pedophile, they have given up a lot of their rights."I think the church is handling it admirably by recognizing the dangers both in letting potential wolves into the congregation and in potentially turning away lost souls. It's not every day that you see a pastor who takes so seriously the admonishment to be open to seekers, but wary of wolves coming in sheep's clothing into the flock.
Church leaders feel caught between leading houses of worship where broken people can seek help and preventing criminals from exploiting a place of trust.
Joseph Green, pastor of a church that Nichols attended after his arrest, reached out to him while at the same time assuaging the concerns of his parishioners.
"I told him as long as he's honest with me, then we're willing to embrace him and help him focus and get his life back on track," Green said. But, he added, "The Bible talks about wolves coming in in sheep's clothing, so I've got to be watchful over everyone coming into my church."
Most church members were welcoming. "I think everybody deserves a chance," said Shawn Cox, 28, a married father of two who says his faith helped steer him away from drug dealing and crime.
"God turned my life around," said Cox. "I'm not saying that you bring the guy in and put him over the youth program or the youth ministry as soon as he walks in the door. But there's no way he can overcome these things without help and support."
As a matter of first principles, the Church cannot accept Hoyle's implied argument that he, a secular authority, has the ecclesiastical authority to determine who can join a congregation and under what terms. Hoyle has effectively declared himself to be in a position to arbitrate and direct the Great Commission itself, and that is an affront that the Church cannot tolerate. Church leaders who give in will have to answer to Jesus for that in the next life because Jesus did not exclude any class of sinner from being preached the gospel.
Even on the secular side, this law makes little sense as a "security law." Churches do not allow convicted sex offenders to have ministerial authority over the church functions which correlate to their sin(s). Nichols (the guy featured in the article) would not have been given a chance to be put into a position of authority where he could abuse children or teenagers. People like him would not typically have any chance to repeat their crime at church short of a brazen attack that would most likely quickly get them caught very quickly. Furthermore, from a security perspective, creating the perspective that society is even "restricting their reconciliation with God" is invariably going to create resentment and bitterness that will enable recidivist tendencies.
Given the reach of sex offender lists and how many things they cover, the Church cannot afford to let the secular authorities make the decisions for it. Shall the Church be forced to turn away people who got caught having sex as teens or even just peeing in the bushes after a night of drinking in college or on the side of the road on a long trip? The former are very well represented on sex offender registries. Even if the Church were content to write them all off as dangerous rapists, the legislators have been so derelict in properly defining the parameters of the classification that it couldn't be useful to the Church anyway.
As always, one thing remains constant here: a legislator missed a golden opportunity to change the law to make the sentencing guidelines for the dangerous sex offenders actually remove them from society. At some point, the American people need to demand that this security charade end, and the sentences and punishments match the actual severity of what the criminal did.
So much for prison ministries and chapels. Not much point having them if the convicts can't go inside.
You know, it is possible to be a member of a church and participate in church activities and be under the supervision of a church, all without ever going into a church?
The Church is not the building.
It is possible, but pointless. It's like a father trying to have a relationship with a son that he can't see because his bitch ex-wife won't obey a shared custody order, and no cop or judge will force her to obey it.
When my dad was in the Seminary, he told me that part of his curriculum at Divinity School, after Hospital Ministry-101, was visiting and ministering to convicts at San Quentin. Some of them were scary rough, and they had some issues with the warden over allowing actual baptisms to take place. There were convicts who felt they needed it badly, before something "prison-like" happened to them during their incarceration. The warden relented, but that was a looong time ago, don't know the situation today.