Do we support offenders to the neglect of victims?

[prisonchaplain]

A Christian church recently produced a short film entitled GRACE. It features a sex-offender who apologizes for her offense, and describes what led her to it. This offender is a member of the church, and it supported her throughout the court case. They apparently believe that this story demonstrates God's grace, forgiveness, and how churches should help people repent and turn their lives around.

The grandson of Billy Graham, a minister himself, takes issue with the film. He believes the offender offers up too many excuses, and downplays the seriousness of her crime. He argues that churches do far too little to help victims, and that this kind of film only exasperates the discrepancy.

Church's Film With Sex Offender a 'Perfect, Tragic Picture' of What's Wrong in Its Response to Sex Abuse, Says Billy Graham's Grandson

How might LDS wards grapple with this? Are the responses similar or different than the divide described in this article?

[pam]

Is there a link to the actual film?

[prisonchaplain]

It's 7 minutes.

[pam]

After watching the video I think I kind of have to side with Billy Graham's grandson. I didn't really get a sense of remorse no matter how many times she mentioned grace of God.

[prisonchaplain]

My struggle with the grandson is that he seems to create a false dichotamy between ministering to victims vs. offenders. We do both. I help whoever is in front of me. To walk an offender through repentence and then celebrate that journey should not be seen as diminishing the suffering of victims. Yet, that's the message I got from the grandson's response.

[SpiritDragon]

Doctrine and Covenants 64:10-11 states:

10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.

11 And ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds.

I can see there being a disconnect, but I do believe the LDS perspective in general would be in keeping with this passage of scripture that both parties need to move on. For the victim forgiving the aggressor is a crucial step in the healing process and finally being free of the untoward event. This kind of healing requires the healing power that is Jesus' to give.

I do agree with the false dichotomy. One being able to heal and move on should not prevent the other from doing so. One requires the healing power of Christ for sins they committed, while the other needs healing because they were the victim of sin.

Alma7:

11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.

12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

The perspective here being that Christ suffered not only for our sins, but also suffered the pains caused by those sins and has the ability to succor his people.

[prisonchaplain]

After watching the video I think I kind of have to side with Billy Graham's grandson. I didn't really get a sense of remorse no matter how many times she mentioned grace of God.

I just watched the video. It was not intended as a demonstration of repentance. Alicia has gone through about 11 months of spiritual care. The film emphasizes that God's grace can even turn around one who's committed the most stigmatizing of all crimes.

Because this is 11 months later, and because the focus is grace and forgiveness, in the context of a discussion about victims and true repentance, the film seems awkward at best, and inappropriate at worst. Who is this woman to tell victims about Grace? How dare she try to teach us anything???

Yeah, I get why Graham's grandson was off-put. However, if the video is viewed as a testimony to the power of God's grace, and the thoroughness of his ability to forgive, it is a great lesson.

[Quin]

I know of some churches who do. Just like for the perpetrators they provide

- Housing &/or relocation services

- Counseling

- Employment assistance

- Financial assistance

- Education assistance

- Legal assistance (both in convicting their assailant...

AND make sure that the victim never, ever, ever has to spend even one moment of their time with their rapist, attacker, abuser, etc.

...and then later in changing their identity so they can live their lives in peace, without fearing their assailant tracking them down to terrorize them further.)

But most don't.

Most only provide assistance to the sinner and tell the victim to get over it.

Wait. "Forgive".

Same difference, really.

Most churches add insult to injury to victims of violent crimes.

Threatening them with hell & condemnation if they don't forgive their attackers, while doing nothing whatsoever to help them become strong and independent people after what is often years of devastating pain.

It's as nonsensical as telling a criminal to "stop".

But that's the way the pendulum swings.

One of these days, we'll get it right, and help both instead of only one or the other.

Q

[Suzie]

To walk an offender through repentence and then celebrate that journey should not be seen as diminishing the suffering of victims. Yet, that's the message I got from the grandson's response.

I suppose because often times, the victim does not receive the same level of support than the offender perhaps? Or what is worst, the victim is often time blamed partially for what took place?

And of course (and please allow me the hyperbole), I suppose no one wants to hear about a serial child rapist or serial killer who happens to discover "God" inside prison after spending years raping little children or dismembering bodies because in our own rationalization, people like that are beyond forgiveness.

[Just_A_Guy]

Most only provide assistance to the sinner and tell the victim to get over it.

Wait. "Forgive".

Same difference, really.

Most churches add insult to injury to victims of violent crimes.

Threatening them with hell & condemnation if they don't forgive their attackers, while doing nothing whatsoever to help them become strong and independent people after what is often years of devastating pain.

It's as nonsensical as telling a criminal to "stop".

This is a tangent, perhaps; but it's interesting to me how in the LDS Church, the support groups for men struggling with porn addiction and the support groups for the wives of such men work off of the exact same manual, which in turn is based on AA's twelve-step program.

I think we're slowly--very slowly--beginning to see Christ's atonement as being just as much a healing mechanism for victims as it is a reformation mechanism for perpetrators. But honestly, lots of us aren't used to looking at it that way.

[prisonchaplain]

The ultimate model of forgiveness is Jesus on the cross. Offenders cannot look at a cross and imagine that their sins were no big deal. Ironically, in the forgiveness the seriousness of the offenses are revealed.

BTW, I agree that many churches struggle with how to support victims--especially of sex crimes. We say the perp took away her purity. We use words like "deflower." Even though we know they are innocent, we somehow feel they've been soiled. So...we keep our distance, and hope they won't talk about it. God forgive us!

In our realization that this millenia-old cruelty must be corrected, we ought not undermine the much for effective work we do for offenders. Helping them is good. We should do "both/and" not "either/or."

[Jane_Doe]

Society seems to see crimes (and their restitution) as the perpetrator owes this victim—and you’re either on one side of the other.

I’m not sure God sees it that way. I see Christ as the Great Mediator, through the atonement He steps in between the perpetrator and victim. If the victim will accept His help, He offers refuge, healing, and the knowledge/way that things will be made right. If the perpetrator will accept his help, Christ offers the same: refuge, healing, and the way things can be made right.

It’s not help one or the other: Christ helps both, and we should try to do likewise.

[Quin]

The ultimate model of forgiveness is Jesus on the cross. Offenders cannot look at a cross and imagine that their sins were no big deal. Ironically, in the forgiveness the seriousness of the offenses are revealed.

BTW, I agree that many churches struggle with how to support victims--especially of sex crimes. We say the perp took away her purity. We use words like "deflower." Even though we know they are innocent, we somehow feel they've been soiled. So...we keep our distance, and hope they won't talk about it. God forgive us!

In our realization that this millenia-old cruelty must be corrected, we ought not undermine the much for effective work we do for offenders. Helping them is good. We should do "both/and" not "either/or."

Then there's also that horrible truth that most offenders were unsupported victims to begin with.

I think, as a nation, we're slowly getting better with prevention (youth outreach is woefully underfunded and sparse, but at least it exists in some places). And we're slowly getting better with rehabilitation (I feel that griping about that to you might be preaching to the choir)... But I think we're still pretty clueless about what to do in that middle step. AFTER someone has been victimized, they're far more likely to turn to substance abuse or crime. But, both as churches and a nation, we pretty much leave victims twisting in the wind. Or even shove them down the wrong path.

While they still need help, we can't/won't do anything for them.

They have to buy a gun and posse up, get arrested shooting dope or DUI, attempt suicide, etc. before there are any resources for them.

Q