Comment by James C Schultz on 8th mo. 23, 2012 at 10:00am

the problem is your meeting took two different courses of action.  Originally not recognizing the problem and finally opting for transparancy.  Which one was fatal?  Probably the lack of consistency and as you point out a lack of full communication in the meeting.  This is a big problem for all meetings with children.  Unfortunately my meeting doesn't have children but hopefully will someday.  I hope others who have dealt with this question will give us the benefit of their experience.

Comment by Stephanie Stuckwisch on 8th mo. 24, 2012 at 11:09am

My heart goes out to you and your meeting.

I am still living in the aftermath of my own meeting's experience of dealing with a sex offender. If handled with care, there are lessons to be learned, healing and continued life in the Spirit.

A query came to me, and I will freely admit to having no answer to it, - If a lack of boundaries is considered a sign of psychological pathology in a person, why do we consider it healthy in a faith community?

As meetings, we believe that we can be all things to all people at all times. As individuals, we know that personally attempting such a feat is a recipe for exhaustion and failure.

I now believe that, when our communities are faced with conflicting needs and truths, we need to use the same discernment that we use to help an individual Friend determine their leading:

Is it good?

Is it ours to do?

Is it now?

The answers may not be what we want or believe they should be. They will be different for each meeting and will be different at different times for the same meeting.

If we open ourselves up to God's will and not the logic of the world, we will be given the wisdom and strength follow our collective leading. I believe that is what it means to be a Friend.

My own meeting will be embarking on a task of reconciliation and healing this fall. There are already signs of hope. Although one couple has withdrawn from meeting, two families have returned. We have new couples attending. Visitors are commenting on the feeling of depth in our worship.

No matter how bad the mistakes, if a meeting turns back to following our Guide, there is still life in the meeting.

Comment by Ken Baxter on 8th mo. 24, 2012 at 3:26pm

Your meeting has gone through a challenging, tough situation. Sure there could have been better outcomes but realize that, as humans, we often fall short of doing the best thing try as we might. Sincere as we might be. Jesus taught forgiveness and turning the other cheek but I am sure he also would expect us to take care of our families. I understand how this could split a meeting in your circumstances.  It's too bad the folks who left didn't stay around and work toward a solution and there would be solutions that would work for all if people were willing to sustain discussion. Maybe it was a test. How would the adults respond to the challenge of dealing with some of the most despised and lowest in our society?? Some of those who need the Grace of God perhaps even more than the rest of us. Perhaps it would be worth considering what crimes one could have committed and still be accepted at meeting. Where do we draw the line? That gets inane fairly quickly.

What God tells me is that every human is entitled to attend meeting as long as they don't disrupt. One's very presence is *not* a disruption.  I further think that God sends challenges our way and this split may be a blessing as your meeting self-examines and addresses issues and heals.

Forward with Grace,

Ken

Comment by Julie DeMarchi Heiland on 8th mo. 24, 2012 at 7:57pm

I follow QQ from time to time because my husband, Martin, is still a Quaker and because, I suppose, morbid curiosity causes me to stare at the decline of Quakerism like a train wreck. That said, I doubt the problem of sex offenders attending a church or place of worship is isolated to Quakers, but Quakers seem to attract a disproportionate number of people with significant problems. Ok, that's probably an understatement.

As a parent of four, I would have a hard time knowing there was a sex offender in my midst. Not because he is not a child of God, too, but because sex offenders are not cured. I don't pretend to know why. They are repeat offenders. They do not stop.

The fact that your meeting was going through trying to figure out how to deal with the sex offender issue and yet certain individuals in your meeting chose to keep the identity of others a secret is simply inexcusable. The fact that sex offenders, known to some, wanted to take kids on an outing is downright horrifying! I, too, would have fled the meeting as quickly as possible.

The bottom line is that liberal Quakers need to stop bending over backwards to protect offenders and start bending over backwards to protect the innocent. I know your meeting has tried to be fair to both, but it has been my experience that all too often, liberal Quakers err on the side of being ultra-inclusive of those who cross the line legally, socially, psychologically, you name it. I've seen it over and over and over and over again.

The issue of children in liberal Quaker meetings is another matter altogether. There are very few with more than a handful in our area. Meetings are shrinking dramatically every year. When they attract new attenders, they rarely keep them and the ones who walk through the door typically are childless and over 50. But that's a whole other topic.

Comment by Julie DeMarchi Heiland on 8th mo. 24, 2012 at 7:59pm

Oh, I just remembered one other thing. The communication problem isn't merely a communication problem. It's a problem of people not knowing each other outside of meeting, not being involved in each others' lives. If they were, I'd venture to say none of this would've happened.

Comment by Kevin Camp on 8th mo. 24, 2012 at 8:29pm

I can't disagree with much of what you've said, Julie.

The sex offender who contacted us, requesting to Worship at the Meeting, claims to be cured. He underwent extensive therapy, plus mandatory rehabilitation programs while in jail. I can't claim that he or anyone is truly cured, but he stated directly to us that he knew that a return trip to jail would probably cost him his life. Sex offenders often are treated roughly in prison and sometimes murdered by other inmates.

Liberal Quakers tend to be afraid of confrontation and Meeting discipline, yes. And, people really don't know each other beyond First Day and maybe a committee Meeting. That's the fallacy of many liberal houses of worship. The Evangelical community does a much better job of tending its flock.

Comment by Julie DeMarchi Heiland on 8th mo. 24, 2012 at 8:36pm

Yeah, to me it would've been a red flag that this guy claimed he was cured. Not that it's an exact parallel, but it's somewhat like an alcoholic claiming s/he is cured. 

Comment by Kevin Camp on 8th mo. 24, 2012 at 8:40pm

I'll be honest. If you ask my girlfriend, who is also actively involved in the Meeting, she'll swear he's turned over a new leaf. Some Friends are not so convinced. I can't say for sure.

The dealings with the sex offender were handled by two specific committees. I wasn't there, so I can't be more detailed. Part of the issue is that the entire Meeting wasn't really given the opportunity to face this issue as a whole. Instead, it was farmed out to a few Friends in positions of leadership. But that's another issue altogether with our Meeting.

Comment by Howard Brod on 8th mo. 25, 2012 at 2:38pm

Julie,

I certainly respect your opinion based on your experiences. But I would be amiss if I let your comment remain unchallenged, regarding Quakers attracting people with significant problems. I have been associated with a number of both liberal and conservative Quaker meetings, and I have found the opposite to be true. I have also been associated with churches from a variety of denominations. So I have a wide experience to draw upon. I find that in many churches, it is difficult for people to be authentic - no matter how much they interact with others in the church. Everyone seems to be pressured to put their best face forward for the church setting. I think what you might be missing about Quakers is that the testimonies of simplicity and integrity translate to being authentic; thereby exposing the true self within the activities of the meeting. For many, the meeting community is a safe place in which to be honest about oneself. And the practice of unprogrammed, silent worship, with its innate objective of "going within", only reinforces the feeling of a safe place to bare all.

This being the case I have found the meetings I've been associated with to be a haven for exceptional people - not perfect - but people willing to journey through life in truth with others. This is a strong foundation for a trusting and loving spiritual community.

I do not doubt that there are times that things are challenging for meeting communities due to this "baring" of it's members/attender's true selves. But I can't help but think this was Jesus' vision of a spiritual community joining together in Spirit and truth.

Again, different from your experience, I have seen virtually no tolerance in the Quaker meetings I've known for those who want to hurt others through their actions or words. After laboring with the offenders, I have seen many a meeting swiftly respond to restore the sense of safety in the meeting community.

Comment by Patricia Barber on 8th mo. 26, 2012 at 6:19pm

It's amazing how frequently I have read of this same scenario being played out again and again and again in Quaker meetings and beyond in other worship communities. Yet very few congregations or meetings have sat down and thought through the eventuality and put in place a process BEFORE the offender arrives. Too often a worship community finds itself in the position of "having to make it up as it goes along" which is disastrous. If there is a policy already decided upon by the meeting as a whole, with a clear process to be followed, a lot of these "car wrecks" can be avoided. As Quakers we are bound to the belief that there is that of God in everyone and thus we have to meet all who come to our doors with a spirit of love and hope, if not immediate acceptance. This does not mean we should be naive or place the innocent in danger but it does mean that everyone - meeting members, parents, the offender - have a VERY clear idea of what the boundaries are and how the presence of that person is monitored. And if the offender puts one toe over the boundary, the meeting must have the determination to ask that person to leave.

On a broader level, there needs to a clear process for every person who has regular contact with our children. How long should a person be attending meeting before he or she is permitted to teach FDS? How often do parents have the opportunity to share their concerns and desires for their children within the meeting? Is there a trusted and seasoned Friend ensuring the safety of the children at all times, regardless of who is attending a meeting? 

It's an uncomfortable subject for any group to discuss, let alone Friends who seek to be the channels for God's love to all of humanity, but it is critical that we do it. 

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page