I initially wrote the blog post below on March 4, 2012, but – for a variety of reasons – did not post it at the time. Eight months later, our Meeting has been through a lot of pain and difficulty. Attendance among the original group of Friends has fluctuated. We are about to embark on a process of healing and reconcialitaion – at least we are considering it. This seems like a good time to post my original post, unedited. I hope to write additional blog posts on how Meetings deal with sex offenders, how Friends deal with the spiritual dimensions of interaction with people who have committed serious crimes, and how Quaker process is able to – or not – to handle these challenges as they arise in the midst of our Meetings. Your prayers for our Meeting would be most welcome!
March 4, 2012: Once again, I feel called to deal with a difficult topic. I do not intend to be graphic and offensive in my writing, but this is a sensitive topic that may stir up difficult feelings. Dear reader, if you know this to be an area of potential pain for you, I encourage you to consider that you have the freedom to choose not to read this blog, or not to read it at this time. Please care tenderly for your needs.
I did not attend Meeting for Worship this morning. I feel sad about not attending, and my absence was not a protest against anyone or anything, nor was it a statement of any position. However, I was not ready to worship with the Level 3 registered sex offender who has recently started coming to our Meeting. I was surprised to discover that I am also not ready to worship with those Quakers whom I feel could have done more to prepare our Meeting for his presence among us.
How does one prepare for worshiping with a Level 3 registered sex offender? I can’t imagine there is a one-size-fits-all answer to that. But it seems to me that there are several components one might expect. Ensuring everyone’s safety (offender and Meeting members); acknowledging the facts; dealing with the emotions that arise in response to the facts; seeking to know the Divine potential; and aligning one’s will with the Divine potential. I will share my process and where it seems to have worked or not, and I invite others to join in conversation with the idea that, between us, we may grow in the Spirit and come up with something that might be helpful to other Friends and Meetings that may be dealing with this kind of issue.
Our sex offender, whom I will call John Doe or just JD*, has raped a dozen women, served decades in prison, and now wants to attend my Quaker Meeting. A very cursory look online suggests that there may have been some legal sleights of hand that may not have been entirely fair to JD. Part of me wanted to dive into more research – I love gaining knowledge – and I think I was also hopeful that there were extenuating circumstances that would allow me to discover that JD’s actions and motivations weren’t as bad as they appeared at first sight. I did do a little additional reseacrh, but quickly concluded a) given the adversarial nature of the legal system, nothing I read was aimed at presenting the Truth, and b) the details of his actions have no bearing on the condition of my soul as I prepare to worship with him.
So the knowledge I am laboring with is that JD raped 11 women, and statistically the risk of him re-offending is high. What do I do with that?
I am disgusted, horrified, angry, griefstricken, sad, sad, sad, angry. I am grateful that, so far, I got away physically unharmed from three attempted rapes in my youth. I will not thank God for sparing me, because that would imply that God abandoned the others. I am angry with God. I lament the fact that 1 in four or five women has been sexually assaulted. I am scared. Who knows if I’ll be as lucky next time? My mouth and throat go dry, tears well up in my eyes, my stomach knots as I think about my two daughters. Will they be among the lucky ones? I grieve for the many people I know whose lives have been changed by sexual assault, and I feel some shame at my passivity and powerlessness in the face of the many thousands of rapes that happen daily, and the sale of people for the purpose of sex. I am grateful for those who have survived, and I praise God for the healing that many of them have experienced. I am repulsed by the thought of sharing the intimacy of worship with someone who sexually assaulted so many women! I wish JD would just go away. I am angry with those members of my meeting who have encouraged JD to worship at our Meeting. I worry about those in my Meeting who have been sexually assaulted – what effect will JD’s presence have on them? Reopen old wounds? Will they leave?
What do I do with all of these feelings? I acknowledge their validity. Yes, I am angry, relieved, scared, concerned, repulsed, and more. And that’s OK, and it is important to tend to my emotions.
Equally clearly, my feelings are not a good guide for my actions. For that I look to my faith. What are the actions of a person of faith? What are faith communities to do? What does God say?
Early Quakers often got into arguments with their contemporaries about the power of God to conquer sin. I think it’s fair to say that this was the single most contentious issue between Quakers and Presbyterians – Quakers rejected the notion of Original Sin and insisted that God in a very literal sense can inhabit our being in such a way as to free us from the temptation to sin. My favorite book on the subject is Apocalypse of the Word by Douglas Gwyn. It stands to reason that if we allow The Seed to blossom within us, give “that of God” free rein in our conscience and soul, let “Christ Within” guide our words and actions, clearly we can all be transformed into new beings. It doesn’t get much clearer than Paul’s words: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Galatians 2:19-21
Not only did the early Friends passionately believe this, Friends have been active in prison ministry from the earliest days until the present. In the early days, Friends were frequently jailed for their beliefs. As the centuries have gone by, our ministry has shifted to ensuring that conditions in prison were conducive to that kind of transformation in individuals. Prisoners were to be treated with respect and kindess so as to learn how to respect and be kind to others in turn. As psychology and sociology have developed, many Quakers have delevoped programs in the prisons to teach the social and interpersonal skills and sensitivities that would aid prisoners in being transformed.
And of course I agree with this theology. My own faith experience is that “I am dead and Christ lives in me”. I support the ministries in the prisons that seek to bring about inner transformation. I believe in them. It makes sense to me that Quaker Meetings would offer a place for released prisoners to come and worship. They are far more likely to sustain any progress they have made if they are part of a community, and they most certainly can use the accountability and support of a Quaker Meeting. JD claims to be transformed by personal commitment to integrity. He says he is safe and does not present a threat to anyone in our community in his current state.
And yet… I am not ready to worship with him.
In part, I think time will help. My feelings will gradually become less intense, based on past experience. Also, I think my meeting made some mistakes that make JD’s presence harder to accept. It would have been helpful if we had known about JD’s background before he started worshiping with us rather than learning about it after we had worshiped and interacted with him. Also, when a letter did go out to the meeting’s membership, it would have been helpful if it had acknowledged the distress some members might experience or offer compassion and resources to those who might be struggling.
*I will not name anyone, and everything I say about individuals or our Meeting’s process is either a matter of public record or was said by someone in a official capacity. Nothing confidential will be revealed. However, I imagine some of those who appear in my blog may not be happy about my characterization. My intention is to say only enough to be able to grapple with the spiritual issues, and never with the intent to cause embarrassment. When I say something that sounds critical, please try to be generous with the individuals and consider the systems perspective.
24 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 24, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Gone Missing In New York
When someone commits a crime he makes a choice and must live with the consequences of that choice. Someone who is a sex offender made a choice. One of the consequences of that choice is not to be able to be a member of certain types of groups, particularly when there will be people who are much like the victims. Meeting is the wrong place for a sex offender.
If a person has truly “reformed” he will know that meeting is no place for him. There is no requirement that a person must attend meeting. There are other ways to be spiritually nurtured. Just the idea that the offender is attending meeting shows clearly he has not reformed. If he had reformed, he would understand the pain he is bringing to the meeting.
November 25, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Susanne Kromberg
Gone Missing in NY,
I agree with you – a truly reformed person would accept that s/he may have lost some of the options that were open before the crime. Any choice any one of us makes has that result, and I think that the process of “reforming” would necessarily include the process of accepting the doors that are now closed. Having said that, I do believe that Meetings can and should receive persons who have been convicted of serious crimes after they have served their sentence – if proper steps are taken to ensure everyone’s safety and the Meeting can come to unity after an opportunity to process the information. I can also see that there may be situations where a Meeting should say “no, we are unable to receive you” without judgment of the offender or judgment upon the Meeting for being unwelcoming. Some Meetings may be too small, not called to offer the ministry of receiving an offender, etc.
Susanne
November 26, 2012 at 12:12 pm
RantWoman
Susanne, I have more to say about this point but I think it best to say it on my own blog.
November 24, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Kate
Susanne, Thank you so much for your powerful post and your courage to write and share it. This topic has been part of my own journey however from the lens of pastor.
Blessing on your journey, you and your gathering are in my thoughts and prayers.
Namaste
November 25, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Susanne Kromberg
Kate,
Thank you for your kind words, your blessing,and prayers for us!
November 24, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Rich Schiffer
Judas, the disciple who betrayed Jesus, was known to be a theif, and yet he was the one Jesus chose to carry the common purse (to act as their treasurer).
I am not suggesting that JD will eventually betray your meeting.
Neither am I suggesting that JD should become clerk of your Childrens’ Religious Life committee.
I am suggesting that in a situation such as this, one might be best served by considering the nature of forgiveness, and how true forgiveness manifests in our actions and our thoughts.
Forgiveness, like revelation, is an continuing process, not a one-time event. As we actively seek continuing revelation, we may also apply continuing forgiveness.
I hesitate to support the notion that JD should “understand the pain he is bringing to the meeting” and chose to not participate in worship. I likewise would not support excluding a muslim, even though his presence might offend some who lost loved ones on 9/11. Nor would I exclude an active duty soldier from attending meeting, though his presence might disturb some.
Quakers have been known to be “radically inclusive.” How we interact with those we disagree with is one of the things that set us apart from so many other faith communities.
I applaud your willingness to openly discuss what is clearly an uncomfortable topic. It is a query you are clearly engaging in quite deeply. Put words to your leadings, and speak them clearly. But be open to hearing JD’s words, and listen to them clearly. You may hear that of god within him, or his words may answer that of god within you.
I will hold you in the Light, that you may find the clearness you seek. Peace.
November 25, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Susanne Kromberg
Thanks for your advice, Rich. I agree with much of what you say about inclusivity and forgiveness, and think those are helpful guidelines for discernment, indeed. However, in our situation, those terms unfortunately were used in ways that weren’t helpful, primarily because use of those terms quickly led some people to forget that everyone in our Meeting was trying to find the right balance between inclusivity and boundaries, and forgiveness and accountability. Unfortunately, there were those who framed the question as those who were inclusive (=morally superior) against those who were scared (=irrational).
In retrospect, I think it would have been better to treat this question as a leading, understanding that leadings are good propositions, but nonetheless not necessarily God’s will for a particular group. In this case we might have said, including a sex offender would be a good thing. But is God calling us to do it? Is this the right time? What are the circumstances under which we could do it? Is it a leading for the whole Meeting, or for a few individuals? Can the Meeting undertake something that is a leading for just a few individuals? Etc.
What do you think?
Susanne
November 24, 2012 at 10:26 pm
RantWoman
Thank you!
Thank you for your story and your questions.
Please know that I am holding you and your Meeting in the Light.
A question I love in these situations comes from Becky Ankeny of NWYM: How can I help you carry what you are carrying? I mean that both in a personal sense and in the sense of what can one, anyone, say to another who one knows or imagines is suffering?
I am interested: what do you think could have been done better to prepare the way in this situation? Can an individual or a community always expect that preparation might occur?
Until this moment, has anything in the life of your Meeting felt like an opening to speak of your own experiences? Of questions of vulnerability? Of the spectrum of people’s own experiences or of experiences of others?
Is there ever a good time to have to talk about sex offenders?
Is there ever a bad time for us to try to walk alongside someone resolved to turn away from sin and toward God?
**********
WARNING: some points some may wish to skip.
A couple factual observations:
–At a public Q&A session the person you call JD* admitted to more rapes than he was charged with. Neither number is 11; the number he admits to is greater than 11 or 12 and the number he was charged with is a single digit.
–I believe, without having read the relevant documents, for which links are included somewhere in my blog, that one factor in JD’s situation has to do with successfully suing the state of WA in federal court. Again without reading the document, I believe the issue was legal jeopardy getting in the way of offenders in treatment addressing ALL of their own offenses, not just the ones they got charged with.
**********
I feel really close to this topic for a whole bunch of reasons including things which have happened to people I love and many, many circumstances in my life within my Meeting. Because of how entangled my life is with the person you call JD and the general question of sex offenders at my and your Meetings, I think it best to post a few thoughts that clearly rise here and to post the bulk of the clamor from my own head on my own blog rantwomanrsof.blogspot.com
On my blog, I tend to refer to people by noms de blog. I refer to the person you call JD as The Friend With a Remarkable Story and to his wife as Mrs. Friend with a Remarkable Story; blog posts related in some way to him can also be found by clicking on the tag Remarkable. I refer to another sex offender, Level I as The Safest Sex Offender on the Planet. I think I should say why in my own blog; the tag Safest at this point includes comments specific to him, survivor stories, once in awhile a child /vulnerable person safety observation.
Again Thank you!
Again I am holding you and your Meeting in the Light.
(RantWoman)
November 25, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Susanne Kromberg
Dear RantWoman,
Thanks for your thoughts, prayers, and questions.
First a quick practical note: You may be right that JD raped a different number of women that what I described. As I wrote above, I only did a cursory review and the number 11 was what I saw most consistently. I quickly discovered that The Truth was going to be quite hard to establish, though, so I abandoned the project. You may also be right that I would find JD to be a remarkable man if I got to know him (I am doubtful – when someone claims himself/herself to be remarkable, as JD has done, it just makes me suspicious). I think it is important for Quaker Meetings, as we seek to determine whether or not to allow a sex offender to join worship, not to enter into determinations of guilt, personality traits, or “remarkability”. I don’t want any church or Meeting to get into the business of declaring people to be “good” or “bad”, or vouching for them. That is not our expertise or role or calling, in my mind. This is especially important since the vast majority of rapes and assaults are committed by someone who is known and trusted. What is important, then, is to create safe procedures so as to minimize any opportunity for harm to be done in the context of Meeting.
Let me try to answer some of your questions. I think there is such a thing as a good time and a good procedure. Ultimately, I think my Meeting came to a good procedure: we asked JD to not come to Meeting while we concluded our discernment process. A group of volunteers (myself included) offered to worship with him in his home until the Meeting reached unity. However, upon learning that his participation would have some as-yet-to-be-determined-conditions, he withdrew from our Meeting.
Our Meeting went ahead and completed the process so we would be ready if/when there is a next time. Any sex offender who wishes to come to our Meeting would probably be expected to participate on designated Sundays of the month, known to all, so that those who found it impossible to worship in the same room could know when the sex offender would be present.
I think it is far easier to have the discussion without a known sex offender in mind – it depersonalizes it and avoids the risk of the Meeting’s decision being a vote of confidence or no-confidence in the offender and/or his/her supporters in the Meeting. I think a lot of pain and confusion can be avoided that way.
Susanne
November 25, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Ran-from-an-unsafe meeting
Thank you for posting about this most difficult topic.
I have attended numerous Quaker meetings in various states and am aware of how difficult it is for meetings as a whole when someone threatening or deceitful or otherwise hurtful comes and joins in, even when the problem is less extreme than the question of whether to include a serial rapist. Meetings can get tangled up in a wish to be “Quakerly” and, as a result, tuning out the cries and concerns of level-headed attenders who have good reason to be leery.
As for Quakers being “radically inclusive,” Friends historically had regularly written other Friends out of meeting for far lesser offenses than being a serial rapist.
Part of trying to be Quakerly, is often a wish to be even-handed, fair to all parties and proceeding as if all things are equal when they are not. A person who puts their life on the line in a war with the sincere and noble intention of safeguarding a nation (even though I don’t see war that way), is hardly equivalent to a man who helps himself to 11 women’s bodies in such a violent and degrading way, a man whose repeated crimes reveal him as someone likely to keep doing it. A Muslim who was not personally involved in the crimes of 9-11, and wants to attend meeting, is hardly the equivalent of a serial rapist. To say we must welcome them all not only puts the women and girls at risk of being raped, but further hurt by Friends regarding their leeriness of the criminal as un-Quakerly and unfounded. Perpetrators can pick up the lingo to sound harmless and well-meaning, all the while manipulating those most wishing to be “Quakerly” and loving to all.
I have seen repeated cases of hurtful people being coddled at the expense of their victims or likely victims, all in the name of “honoring that of God” in in the perpetrator. George Fox’s references to “that of God” have to with confrontation, not coddling a person no matter how they hurt others, and expecting those hurt to swallow their pain in Quakerly silence. In Fox’s writings, “That of God” in us brings us face-to-face with our own wrong doing, not to shame us or threaten us with hellfire after we die, but to start us down a better path and offering the grace to help us walk it. This means each person taking responsibility to respond to that searching light within.
A rapist may indeed reform by the grace of this light, but statistically, this serial rapist is likely to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, talking all the Quakerly lingo to seem less threatening. If indeed he has reformed, there is no way for the meeting to determine that. No way at all.
At the risk of feeling un-Quakerly, Friends face the question of letting this man face the isolation wrought of his own vicious treatment of women and girls.
How is it “Quakerly” to have more compassion for him than for those driven out by his presence? An individual Friend may decide to worship with this rapist elsewhere, if so moved. But there is no way to include him in the larger community without disregarding the anguish of and threat to other attenders and deciding for them that they will be welcoming this rapist every First Day and sharing potluck suppers with him, etc. in situations where he could pick up personal information to continue his crimes, if that’s what he means to do. I wouldn’t want such a person to have access to the meeting directory, much less to situations where he could learn more about people’s personal lives. Meeting for Worship, above all, should be a time when Friends should not have to be careful about what they say, for the sake of their own safety.
As for forgiveness, I have encountered a number of Friends who forgive criminals for the crimes committed against other people. The question of forgiveness is one for the women this man has raped, not for Friends who want to feel good about being a forgiving community.
November 25, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Susanne Kromberg
Dear Ran-from-an-unsafe-Meeting,
I can say a hearty “Amen” to most of your comments. Perhaps I am a tad more optimistic about the possibility of including an offender in Meeting, although I confess not to have seen a Meeting that has succeeded yet. If it were ever to work, it would probably require a lot more time than I have seen anyone willing to devote to the process so far. I’m thinking years. With no guarantee that the outcome would be to the offender’s liking – the process would have to develop without taking control away from survivors of assault. Still, I’d like to think it possible.
Susanne
November 26, 2012 at 12:56 am
Ran-from-an-unsafe meeting
I’m not pessimistic about including all criminal offenders from a Meeting, but certainly would not allow a serial rapist to partake in community worship and events. There’s the concern for the threat of his access to women and girls at the meeting as well as for the discomfort of those who have already been assaulted. Friends so moved can worship with the man elsewhere. Let Friends offer any compassion and companionship they can, elsewhere, but this man has forfeited his right to mingle where trust and safety are fundamentally required for the spiritual and social intimacy typical of Friends meetings to flourish.
In your post you address the process of how this man came to be welcomed by a few to Meeting without the knowledge or consent of the rest of the meeting, who would be affected by his inclusion. Such unilateral, or limited-group decisions on serious matters usually blow up. It is much harder on everyone to try to take back privileges granted than to decide soundly in the first place as a whole Meeting. Friends are generally a compassionate people, so it is understandably hard for them to turn away anyone, even when that someone sends up obvious red flags.
I could give numerous examples of well-meaning individuals granting what amounted to license, even giving keys to the building, to strangers without even basic caution or without consulting anyone who might be affected. In some cases, Friends at the meeting were physically attacked and damage was done to the property as the “poor, lonely person” demanded more and more and got denied. Calling the police is abhorrent to most meetings, but that’s what some have had to resort to after injury and damage were done and the person who committed those crimes wouldn’t leave.
It isn’t always a matter of someone with a criminal record. I had a friend who went to stay at a small Friends meeting that let Friends who were graduate students rent rooms upstairs. At the time, she was the only tenant. One night a member of the meeting gave a “poor homeless man,” obviously drunk, a place to get out of the cold, upstairs at the meetinghouse. This compassionate Friend went home to his own safe bed. “Ann” spent the night barricaded in her room while this drunken man pounded on her door and screamed to get at her. It took her more than a week to convince the meeting to put him out. Meanwhile, she had to stay someplace else and found that she could no longer even walk about the neighborhood without fear of him.
I won’t go into other incidents here, but just thank you again for posting this topic.
November 26, 2012 at 12:38 pm
RantWoman
To Ran from an Unsafe Meeting
I am really sorry about the experiences you report about other Meetings.
1. I have some strong opinions about safety and encounters with the holy spirit and lack of hireling ministers and utter clueless and oblivious lack of even basic pastoral skills orientation for people who think they are destined / entitled for whatever reason to certain roles in Quaker Meetings. As you can perhaps tell from the tone of my characterizations, these opinions verge on rant and belong in my own blog and ONLY after trying to labor further with the offending parties in my own Meeting.
2. I have more to say about this, but I think my point of view belongs in my own blog.
November 26, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Susanne Kromberg
Dear RantWoman,
With great misgivings, I have edited your comments. I apologize if this is hurtful to you. The material I removed went into more detail on the particulars of JD’s case, and describe why some people think JD should be treated differently from other sex offenders. My reason for removing this material is that I don’t think Quaker Meetings should put themselves in the situation of determining the level of threat a sex offender constitutes, for all the reasons I mentioned above. Furthermore, my post was intended to generate discussion about Quaker Meetings and Quaker responses – not to focus on one particular sex offender. I encourage anyone who may be interested in the particulars to go to RantWoman’s blog.
Susanne
November 26, 2012 at 4:02 pm
RantWoman
Friend Susanne
I stand by my comment that I can see why this particular individual comes across as arrogant even though that has not been my impression. I think that is an important thought for people involved in offender re-entry to think about.
Many Friends’ meetings have connections with Alternatives to Violence programs. I do not know that many Friends Meetings have the same experience with a prison worship group as your and my Meetings but I think connection to either or both increases the likelihood that one’s Meeting might be called to interact with the question of an offender worshipping with you. My impression, correct me if I am wrong: this ministry and history seems not to be as alive in the minds of Friends in your Meeting as mine.
For better or worse, eloquent theology or no, in my Meeting long Quaker ties including connection with Alternatives to Violence have been strong factors in the Meeting’s willingness or not to be involved with different situations. Another factor has been legal and therapeutic / treatment elemnts of the whole process.
At one point as all of JD’s release unfolded, I specifically and independently reached out with inquiries about AVP participants and re-entry within Meetings. I did not reach out very widely and I got back nothing that would address several of the points your post raises.
One of the questions that rises for me from your original post is what it is or is not possible to know and prepare for in advance. But some of the emotion in this reply stream might illustrate reasons people with no legal obligation might or might not speak up .
Another question that rises from what I know of the situation who might articulate a request for help and how such a request / discernment might be formulated by people from different perspectives. I am more comfortable speaking of facts and processes that are at least somewhat widely known than I am of private conversations and emails.
November 26, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Susanne Kromberg
RantWoman,
I had never thought that supporting an AVP program might lead to an offender seeking to join a Quaker Meeting later. Presentations I have attended never mentioned that link, and I imagine many Meetings would be surprised to think that there might be a sense of obligation to welcome an offender into the Meeting after participating in an AVP program…
I think the process for deciding on whether or not to allow an offender to attend should go through the normal business procedure. An informed Meeting seeks a consensus decision. In my Meeting’s case, of course, the offender starting attending without giving advance notice. In that situation, we asked him to hold off on coming back until a decision had been reached.
As I have said a couple of times, I believe it is better for a Meeting to devise a process before an offender shows up and makes a request to attend. That way, the decision can be reached without it going into a personal investigation of a particular offender’s integrity or lack thereof, and that would also avoid the painful possibility of those bringing forward a proposal to feel like their integrity/judgment is at stake. It would be good for a Meeting to decide ahead of starting a process that making a decision that would drive anyone out of Meeting would not be acceptable; neither would an absolute insistence on or denial of the possibility of an offender attending.
If an offender is given the opportunity to attend, it seems like a number of practical steps could be taken: support would be offered to survivors of assault, the offender would not get the directory, attenders of the Meeting would be notified, the offender would not be invited to social events in members’ homes, the offender might attend only on particular dates that would be advertized ahead of time, the offender would have to be in the company of a member of Overishgt/M&W at all times while on Meeting property, to name just a few things off the top of my head.
Prime consideration would have to be given to those who already are members of the Meeting, rather than someone who is not a member.
Susanne
November 26, 2012 at 11:31 pm
Joe
Dear Friends – a question. There may be lots of people in your meeting who are guilty of lots of things, some they’ve not even admitted to themselves. Some might be sexual crimes. How do you know you are safe with the people-that-you-know?
It is a very difficult situation. I know that sexual offenders are often looking for ways to exploit weak situations to get to victims. On the other hand, I do hold to the idea that somehow an offender looking to be at a meeting is a good thing. And that being open about who he is and what he has done is a good sign.
But I can totally understand your position. I don’t know what I’d do in that situation.
November 27, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Susanne Kromberg
Dear Joe,
Good questions. In my mind, we should adopt practices that focus on everyone’s safety. Most assaults are committed by people who are known and trusted. Focusing on the “bogeymen” or “stranger danger” has never made any sense to me at all. Having said that, a level 3 sex offender is considered to have a high likelihood of reoffending, and that would warrant an extra level of precaution.
At a more philosophical question, you are asking about weighing two good options that are mutually exclusive: One is the good of keeping people safe (requires some restirctions). The other is the good of supporting good habits among potential reoffenders, in the hope of helping prevent possible future assaults (requires no restrictions for fear of being seen as punitive). In each situation, it really is a question of which is the more likely scenario and which is more urgent. It seems to me that the need for safety in a concrete situation such as my Meeting’s is going to outweigh the hypothetical potential good.
In each Meeting, I think a normal business process that allows Friends to deliberate and pray until they reach unity is what is called for.
Susanne
November 27, 2012 at 8:26 am
RantWoman
Hi Susanne
Thank you for asking me to clarify my comment about relations to AVP. Probably it would be helpful to try to make a distinction between circumstances unique to your and my Meeting and the general case.
Friends from your and my Meeting have worked together for a long time through AVP; not everyone involved with AVP at this point is a Friend, and the number of people active in Meetings might be smaller than in the past. Your Meeting and mine also had people involved in the Monroe worship group. This includes JD’s wife who at some point transferred her membership from your Meeting to mine and at least one other person who has previously moved back and forth between our two Meetings.
My blog will be tough going for people wanting clear timeline because the chronological order of entries does not match the chronology of events. I will try to write a chronology at some point. In the meantime, I will try to supply search strings to help people find relevant entries. Put Monroe in the search bar to collect various important information related to JD, sex offenders at my Meeting, and other facts related to the Monroe worship group.
Hundreds of inmates with AVP experience are released every year and very few of them go on to worship with Friends. I agree that our Meetings’ history of collaboration does not automatically carry a presumption that a Meeting must receive a sex offender. My understanding is just that JD showed up at your Meeting partly because of knowing someone from there but that the person he knew did not even know he planned to come. JD’s home is closer to your Meeting than mine: I would consider the distance walkable but I am kind of a pedestrian maniac.
The other set of facts that it would occur to me to elaborate at some point is a number of circumstances specifically related to JD’s release and the issue of advance notice. There is some very oblique material about that on my blog tagged Remarkable. I have some opinions about how JD presented himself at your Meeting compared to mine and about restimulation but I feel like I want more facts in play before I spell out what I think.
I asked JD at his Q&A at our Meeting whether to his knowledge he had ever talked to anyone who had experienced sexual assault. He said in fact that he had had conversations with more than one AVP facilitator and that both sides had found the conversations healing. I pressed for details but he did not elaborate. By the time of the Q&A at our Meeting, he also had come to understand the issue of restimulation for others a lot better and the point of my Meeting’s every other week regimen with the other known offender in our community. JD specifically offered, if that would be helpful to observe the same regimen. Our Meeting wound up NOT accepting this offer partly because the known offender who has been with us for a long time is coming to the end of his DoC supervision and lots of things are getting revisited because of that. I will try to post more about that soon but some pieces are either mentioned obliquely on my blog or still confidential and being seasoned.
In terms of your interest in Quakers in general, here are some situations I know of:
Put cabaretic into either the search bar on my blog or into Google to find Kevin Camp’s blog about an offender who had participated in a Conservative Friends worship group in prison. The offender wrote Kevin’s Meeting before his release but the Meeting lost the letter. Various other things went badly. For instance the Meeting had not been doing insurance industry best practice background checks on everyone who works with children and they learned someone with an offense in his past was involved with their children’s program. There were other problems of transparency. The offender has withdrawn his request to worship there.
Put La Jolla into the search bar on my blog to find a statement on harassment developed at La Jolla Meeting in San Diego in connection with a series of improprieties within the community. I am not clear to post more than that but I can email a contact there and see whether that Friend is interested in participating in this conversation.
Prior to my Meeting’s experience, a known offender asked to worship at Multonomah. I know few details except that request also had divisive effects.
Last summer at the Pacific NW Quaker Women’s Theology conference, someone from Multonomah MM talked about someone from their congregation who was convicted of a sexual offense outside the Meeting and in an OR women’s prison. This sounded like an easily marginalized person and ambiguous circumstances.
Someone from Northwest Yearly Meeting spoke of a pastor at a Friends Church who turned himself in for inappropriate relations with a teenage daughter he and his wife had adopted from another country.
What would be helpful to the conversation you hope to have from any of these examples?
Do you understand current practices in our Quarterly and Yearly Meetings as far as child safety and activities of known offenders? What would you find helpful to talk about with respect to this?
November 27, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Susanne Kromberg
RantWoman,
I have spent more time and energy on this process than I care to, so I’m not really eager to investigate other Meetings’ processes. I think it’s fair to say that most people in my Meeting feel emotionally battered and bruised over our process. I’m not sure that more information is what I’m looking for. Success stories, perhaps?
The irony in our situation is that my Meeting did arrive at unity. From a results perspective, our process was a success! However, emotionally and spiritually, we feel wrung out. The biggest failure was that we forgot to love each other, and how to attribute good motives to each other. Friends on both sides of the debate threatened to leave Meeting if we didn’t reach the “right” decision. Friends made public accusations of prejudice and bigotry, and used pretty low tactics.
And, of course, whatever spiritual journey we might have embarked on with JD never did happen.
Instead, we get the spiritual journey of seeing ourselves fail so badly in the call to love one another, and to try to heal our community and our bruised souls.
Susanne
December 12, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Heartgarden
Frederick Monthly Meeting (Baltimore Yearly Meeting) has spent years working through these issues. They have had people come from prison including sex offenders and pedophiles and from the community at-large later going to prison for child molestation.
We had a group of Friends offering prison ministry without being willing to be accountable to the meeting. These same Friends would put pressure on the meeting to help people coming out of prison needing support. It is absolutely the case that there are very little supports in place for ex offenders coming back into the community.
During some of the most difficult period, I was clerk of Ministry and Counsel. At the same time, I was learning that one of my children experienced incest. I learned this in bits and pieces over time. In hindsight, I should have stepped aside. However, I was also worried that people were not taking our children’s safety seriously.
I saw this in many ways. Our meeting lacked adequate sensitivity for people who had been molested or raped. A small core insisted: All are welcome. They meant with no rules. A midweek evening meeting with no access to children was established, but again, was viewed as an attempt to create rules. Attempts to have chaperones for the offenders at Quaker events failed during this time as the responsibility wasn’t taken seriously.
When I raised my family situation with some women at the meeting, I was told to get therapy. But no pastoral care was offered to me. When I saw a pastoral counselor in the community, she was involved with training clergy in the Catholic church as their tragedy was unfolding and suggested I explore the shadow side of Quakerism, just as she had to come to terms with her own faith tradition’s failings.
After several years of this pain, I left and joined a meeting with better boundaries. While I do not know of anyone who has been molested or raped at the meeting, I could not stand by. Since then, I understand that they have come to an agreement that they find workable.
After all of this, I can say that somehow these events formed me. I attended the School of the Spirit to find support and learn more about Quaker theology and the spiritual life. Later I would attend graduate school and obtain my Pastoral Counseling degree. I work as a pastoral counseling in the community and see the damage done by dehumanizing behaviors.
And in the process, I am so done with faith communities that cannot set reasonable boundaries. Good boundaries are a sign of love.
November 29, 2012 at 10:59 am
RantWoman
Friend Susanne,
What rises today:
–Be tender with YOURSELF about what all this brings up for you personally; consider whether extra prayer or support for you because of your specific experiences would help about your feelings about how things happened in your Meeting.
Personally, I have things in my life that always, always sooner or later get stirred up when my Meeting has to talk about sex offenders. I think other people do too. A person with professional background to pick up on the issue commented about a whole bunch of people in the room getting restimulated during one presentation. But people come to the presentation voluntarily. NMost people who speak up talk about how trying to talk about the offenders in our Meeting creates lots of space for different experiences and spiritual situations.
For myself, I appreciate the gesture of people trying not to restimulate people’s issues, but I a little bit think it’s playing God to assume one can always avoid this. I do not even always know what from Meeting Life or otherwise is going to restimulate something. It matters a great deal just to have language to name the situation. To be honest, Becky Ankeny’s “How can I help you carry what you are carrying?” or What reminds you most of God’s presence? or Would it help just to sit in worship with this hard thing? go a lot further than tiptoeing around on eggshells about things where results might be completely unintentional.
An example that is real for me right now: I think it is the responsibility of people in certain roles to be able a little to talk about issues of coomunity safety. But the “it’s REALLY important to talk about” which arises from my experiences is just stomping on the nerves of someone with “I really would rather not talk about it” reflexes. If you have energy, please hold that thread in the Light as I will your Meeting.
–The remember how to love each other piece sounds highly topical. In my experience, just doing that sometimes draws God closer. Be tender with each other; I think there are LOTS of learnings from the situation but start by trying to remember how to love each other.
To all: This exchange has made me think to try to write up a whole bunch of things on my own blog but it won’t happen right away. I moderate comments and they come to me first as email. I welcome questions and if you would prefer I NOT post something you write, please feel free to say so.
In the Light
December 1, 2012 at 11:57 am
Discipline: Sex Offenders and Quakers Part II « Susanne’s Quaker Musings
[…] dealing with wrongdoing emerged again during my Meeting’s deliberations this spring over a Level 3 sex offender who came to my Meeting, and several Friends’ insistence that he attend without any […]
December 12, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Susanne Kromberg
Here’s an interesting Quaker way of providing support and accountability for released sex offenders: http://www.quakersintheworld.org/quakers-in-action/86