The first of this month, a treatment provider posted an op-ed about his invitation to his clients to attend his
My comment on the article included the suggestion that he find another church, one that actually practiced the Christianity that they professed.
Yesterday a rebuttal op-ed appeared, written by one who, if he has any affiliations or experiences that would give him insight into the issues involved here, chose not to reveal them.
He begins with erroneous information, calling the former offender who wished to attend church a “child molester” when there was nothing in the original article to indicate what the offense had been. He goes from bad to worse by citing ridiculously high recidivism rates for former offenders from two studies that have been denounced by all other researchers, and indeed even by the author of one of the studies, as not applicable to the general community of registered offenders. He ignores the large body of research all consistently reporting the re-offense rate of registrants in single digits--and most of them, low single digits.
But none of this bothers me as much as the actions of the church. They seem woefully ignorant of the basic tenets of their faith--forgiveness and redemption. They have every right to act to protect their congregation, but the safeguards in place are designed to do that. They even have the right to refuse church attendance to whomever they wish. However, they do not have the right to do that and then continue to call themselves Christian.
If they reject a penitent sinner, one claiming the forgiveness and redemption offered by the founder of Christianity, then they reject Him and forfeit the right to call themselves by His name.