A Note from the “No Boys Can Help with Toddlers/No Men Can Change Diapers” Pastor

I’m surprised that he found this blog condescending and offensive and seems to have no objection to how every young man in his church may feel upon knowing that their pastor feels they can’t be trusted with taking care of an infant because they might molest them.

I think a better idea for him protecting the kids is to actually teach them real world scenarios – that most people aren’t a threat, but learn how to identify those that are. If you just blanket statement say “this entire gender can’t be trusted”, those kids are going to be very mistrustful of everybody, and will grow up fearful of those members of society (the entire male species).

He can obviously do what he wants, but I feel very bad for those children going to that church.

I have to give him credit for writing, even though I don’t agree with his policies.

I’ve been reflecting on this rule and how it could relate to my family. I have two very small boys (1 and 3) who are often in the care of a lone young man at my eldest’s preschool. He is an assistant who helps out when we have conferences or events or other situations where parents might bring their kids and need childcare. I don’t know much about him, but he seems like a good guy. More importantly, I trust my son’s school and they trust him. So we’re all good and free from this terrible way of thinking, right? No.

What I would not allow is for my son to some day be that young man. I will never allow my sons to babysit or be Scout leaders. My husband and I do not let neighborhood kids into our house unless I’m home. (My husband is a stay-at-home dad.) There are too many people who are convinced boys and men are dangerous. I never, never want anyone of mine to fall under the shadow of false and hysterical suspicion. That’s a risk I won’t take.

Dear Don,
I still question the NO men/teen boys thing. I mean you are a pastor but you can’t change a diaper because you are too much of a perv to do it or it assumed that you are at least? Does this not offend you? If you had a background check rule that would be one thing but NONE? My husband is a doctor… he can circumcise a boy, but OH NO he can’t put a diaper on him!!! Ummm, really? I am all for keeping kids safe but I have found that people start living up to the expections you have of them, especially children and teens… if you expect all teen boys to be pervs, eventually they all will be because in expecting it you are encouraging it. Personally I feel I need to protect my kids from such expectaions more that the fear.

That was a good response to him Lenore. I found you polite but getting your point across. Well done.

It makes me wonder would the child’s own father not be allowed to change their diaper in the nursery rooms? Like when he comes to pick up his child would he be shooed away from the changing table if he wanted to change his child before they leave? I am guessing not, but you know there is not much difference than their dad doing it and some other dad doing it.

I also wanted to say to the Pastor that none of us want to make fun of you or insult you. I am sure you thought you were doing what had to be done and you had very good intentions. I just think you might want to rethink some of this. Hope it works out well for you and your church. God bless.

I was 12 when my sister was born. I can’t count how many of her diapers I changed, #1s and #2s. And #3s.

So I was both a teenager AND male.

Quite frankly, I find the ‘compromise’ condescending and insulting.

I wonder if you would accept a compromise that rested on the premise that only poor women are the victims of abuse, so women of means have no need for your group. It is a fallacy, but it is not an uncommon one.

Dolly, you are spot-on. The statistics show that the most likely abusers of children are relatives (fathers, mothers, etc, or close friends.) Not strangers.

Becky “Imagine you just went to a church for the first time, and are dropping your 1-year-old off in the child care.” I wouldn’t do this; the kid would be unhappy and probably howl for most of the service. Not a kind thing to do to volunteers. I agree that personal attacks are not reasonable in this discussion, however.

I’ve always wondered why prejudice against males is the only one allowed in society.

What if their insurance company recommended, based on the numbers, that no black people be allowed to change diapers or watch the kids? Would anyone tolerate such a policy?

So why is that any less offensive than barring all males?

It’s always disappointing when simple common sense gets shoved aside by shoddy risk analysis. And for a church to exclude anyone from serving, in whatever way they care to, just seems wrong. How hard was it to come up with the “two people in a room” concept? That’s all it takes. The abuse people fear is only possible when a perpetrator is *alone* with a child. Reading over your policy, you already have that requirement, before you label all men as potential abusers.

I suggest you read it over, call in some parishioners, and get their opinions. See if they find it reasonable or objectionable, inclusive or offensive.

“The insurance company made me do it” is weak sauce, a cop-out.

Cynthia – I have been dropping my 8-year-old son off in church childcares since he was three months old. He was the type to make a lot of noises and wiggle around a lot, so it was much easier to concentrate on the church service with him in the childcare where he could move around and play and make whatever noises (generally happy) he wanted.

As someone who friends who have been abused by church volunteers, and witnessing a youth leader go to jail, I appreciate the pastor taking the measures to insure safety from abuse. This isn’t spreading “worse first” thinking, not when 1 in 3 girls are abused by a person that they know – which statistics show that they are either teenage boys or married religious men and NOT a creepy street person. I’d much rather my kids were over-protected from this horrific crime. And, just because I’m a free-range mom, doesn’t mean I don’t take this threat very seriously. I will not leave my girls with a teenage boy ever or an adult male. You can’t tell by looking at someone if he is a pedophile. In this case, it’s better safe than sorry.

should be :: It occurs to me that, if you are paying insurance in case something happens, and then the insurance company twists your arm into doing things that virtually prevent any thing from happening, then you are being ripped off. Don, you might want to consider telling the insurance company that now that they have made your Nursery trouble-free, you are bidding them a fond adieu…
Jus’ sayin’

Unfortunately churches are not immune to litigation, and lawyers cost money whether the defendant is found guilty or not and that is what the insurance company is attempting to protect itself from, the cost of litigation that sue happy Americans are so likely to initiate. I once took children form my church who also happened to be children of a friend, out swimming. The interim pastor of our church had a fit that I was doing this favor for someone connected to the church. She was a working mom with young boys, the boys adored me and she just needed a break for the day, so as a friend, not as a staff member of the church I offered to take them for a day. No big deal. The pastor was not upset that I might have done something but I created the opertunity for her or the boys to say I did something. And that is simply what an insurance company wants to eliminate, any opertunity of an accusation as statistically, males between the ages of 12 and 34 are more likely than females to be accused of abuse of a child.

The idea that you could drop off your 1 year old the FIRST day you went to a church and they would be MOLESTED the very first time, tells me that you have no clue about child molestation.

Molestation by a stranger is rare. 95% of the time (from my own personal interactions) the person molesting is someone close to you.

My father is a jailed pedophile. So do we just go ahead and ban fathers…what about grandfathers? WHAT about the PRIESTS and PASTORS who molest children? I know…why don’t we just ban MALES all together.

I’m MORE cautious with my children being around people they know and have a relationship with then the stranger. I’ve been able to train them about “strangers”…but how do you train them about the person they trust the most…the one who takes advantage of them.

Two in the room, background checks are fine, just an expense somebody’s going to have to shoulder, fingerprinting takes things a bit farther than I like, really not as bad as you think around here, Don. We do know abuse happens, but also that there are better ways to prevent it than to say men and boys are all potential predators.

Diaper changes can be done in fairly open areas, my main goal is usually to keep the other kids out of it, since most infants and toddlers aren’t that concerned with modesty. Even cameras if you must.

Dear Pastor Don,

My concern is more theological. It seems to me that you are letting your insurance company dictate the policies (“practical theology”) of your church. In effect, the insurance company has superceded the Word of God in some aspects of your Church’s life.

The problem is, you can repent of sin, and you can forgive sin, but you can’t insure against it.

The insurance company is trying to protect themselves against paying out for a lawsuit. The cost of that protection is that 1/2 of your congregation is excluded from some ways of ministering to the rest of the congregation, by being told that they are too big of a risk.

Is that a message that Jesus would send to people that he died to save?

I had to chuckle at Pastor Don’s comparison with bicycle helmets. Free rangers being in favor of bike helmets and against treating every teenage and adult male as a pedophile is hardly apples to apples.

First time writer, long time reader.

I would like to say that Pastor Don has been treated unfairly by the commenters. But that’s not true.

When it comes to making a decision about child safety, I always base my decision on how much effect the action will have. Get my kids fingerprinted? No way. If my kids were abducted I have access to their fingerprints from their toys(and their DNA from toothbrushes, hairbrushes, etc). Overly zealous things like fingerprinting kids doesn’t actually change anything. It just scares kids.

Given that the overwhelming majority of abusers are male actually seems to make the pastor’s no males rule seem sane. Not allowing teens under the age of 13 access to the children is another good rule (for those that miss sarcasm, you cannot be a teen younger than 13, by definition).

But as one of the first commenters pointed out, allowing a pastor access to the children is probably the most dangerous thing that the church could be doing. There is a higher percentage of sexual abusers among the clergy than among the general male population as a whole. As such, the church should add the following rule:

“No member of the clergy shall be with a child unless an adult that is not a member of the church, nor a relative, friend, co-worker, or casual acquaintance of a member of the church is present, of sound mind, and has verified that they take responsibility for aforementioned clergy.”

Robin: When you go to a new church the nursery workers are going to be strangers to you at first and to your kids. So it is going to take time to get to know all the workers and them to know you and your kids. Even longer if you are not a regular every Sunday attendee or if it is a large church with lots of people and workers.

So yeah, I end up leaving my kids in the nursery with people I don’t know sometimes. It makes me feel assured to know that at least they went through the little course.

Forgive them Lord for they know not what they do.

The irony is staggering.

Outside the home environment the most likely victim of molestation is a boy and he is as likely to be abused by either gender.

The boys and young men banned from interaction with younger children are themselves the most likely to be abused.

Talk about blaming the victim.

The unfortunate dark side to this irony is that their ignorance actually endangers children and enables those who will abuse. They think they’re being alert but they’re alert to the wrong things. They look in the cellar when it’s happening in the attic.

Churches are families. Pastors are leaders. As the leader of your family what message are you sending to the males about their overall worth with poicies like this? What message in general are you sending to any of your family and how you value them by making these policies.

Instead of reasonable policies that do protect everybody such as two people in a room with children, changing areas in full view, open bathroom areas for those young enough to need help, you have let insurance dictate unreasonable policies. In the process you have sent a clear message maried couples, males, particularly teen males are to be viewed as a threat to children.

What if insurance companies deemed that pastors/preists must never come in sole contact with anybody under 18? What if they said to eliminate any an all potential risk of abuse, you as a pastor must be accompanied by all minors parents everytime you came in contact with them? Seems reasonable to avoid any suspision of abuse and protect you and others in your congregation from potentially lying to protect you against any alligations.

No more leading youth group or even just stopping by, no more kids bringing freinds to church without their parents, not more helping with VBS,leading the egg hunts or helping run the rumage sales, running support or grief groups for anyone under 18, no more childrens bible studies…… because you might encounter children without their parents and the insurance company says you can’t do that.

Just how far would you allow insurance companies to dictate your church policies based or their elimination of any and all risk factors no matter how far off base they are? Is it ok as long as it’s not your professions character isn’t being called into question with the policies?

Do you think Jesus would take the guilty until proven innocent appraoch the insurance companies are taking and you are allowing them to? Would Jesus call it an ok or needed compromise to make someone suspect based on nothing more than their gender and marrital status?

I’m sure you feel justified in your choices. I have to wonder just how many of your congregation feel the same way. Do the males feel relived at being treated as suspect and potential child molesters simply because theyare male? How about the married couples?

I understand how hard this pastor (and others) are trying to keep children safe. The Church (multiple denominations) has been widely criticized and accused of making it easy for sexual predators. But I also have to say that this type of policy that assumes that every male is a potential abuser HAS indeed hurt my son. He has a younger brother, and has always been very good with younger kids. So when the school offered a Red Cross First Aid and babysitting course, he was excited (which was very rarely true of any type of class). He took the class seriously, and was very proud of himself when he earned the Red Cross certification card, showing that he was now a competent babysitter.
But the discouragement that followed was too serious to be ignored. No-one wanted him to babysit their children, while girls (many of whom had done nothing to prepare) were frequently asked. We changed churches (not for this reason), to a very large church. When he asked to volunteer in the nursery (birth-two) where there were ALWAYS adults in charge, he was told they would never let anyone not old enough for an FBI background check to help with children. However, there WERE several girls his age and younger who were helping in those rooms. The message is very, very clear: We don’t trust you because you are a boy. Boys should not enjoy working with young children. The same garbage is often said about young men who want to teach elementary school. Things like: “It just makes you wonder WHY they want to work with little kids.”
Our society constantly sends those kinds of messages to boys, and then when they become Dads, we wonder why they don’t know how to be nurturing. How would they if they’ve been told for years that men don’t do that? Or worse, that you must be some kind of pervert if you want to work with young children. The children NEED both male and female role models. But as someone said, insurance companies are not concerned with what children need, only with limiting THEIR liability.

Becky,

I do think it is a special case because it is a Christian church.

In the first place, members of a Christian church are part of a family of believers. Assuming the nursery volunteers are church members, a whole group of them (teenage boys) should not be treated as suspect. That is an un-Christian assumption, and it is likely to damage these teens’ spiritual development.

Secondly, many forms of over-protectiveness make “safety” into an idol. The pursuit of zero risk is just not right for a Christian. If you live in a community, you will trust people, and if you trust people, sometimes they will sin against you in ways that hurt. That can’t be avoided, except by putting up wall between people.

Maybe we, as a society, should just agree to stop having children. After all, it would appear that the only truly *safe* child is one the who does not exist and, therefore, cannot be harmed by anything that does exist.

@Heather…

I seem to recall Jesus gave a fair ass-whippin to them and their fellow money changing friends at least once.

I do hope I am not offensive, but I do feel a need to chime in here.

Don (the pastor) it is obvious you are in a position of leadership and this means you have to take reasonable protections to protect children–and adults, for that matter. You don’t want there to be a “safe haven” for pedophiles etc, and that’s understandable.

However, let me ask you this: is the city responsible for “making a safe haven for pedophiles” for not screening all men who hang out at parks, because you never know–they might be there to peep at little boys & girls privates. Is Burger King creating a “safe haven for perverts” because they don’t screen who they sell their combo meals to, and theoretically a pedophile could go there, get a 89c hamburger and a free water–and hang out near the indoor playground and watch the kiddies?

As Lenore stated–and she’s a Jew, so I think she can appreciate the church environment–it’s that “worst first” thinking that’s at trouble. It’s the whole mentality that says–PROVE to me you’re not a pervert, otherwise I assume you to be one. And no, “if you have nothing to hide it shouldn’t be a problem for you” is no answer at all. It’s insulting to the 99.4% (or whatever) of us men who would never do any such sicko things to a child that the worst is assumed about us until we prove otherwise. We did nothing to deserve this other than to be born a male–which, by the way, Jesus was born a male.

I go to church myself, and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard it preached that our secular culture has horrible tendencies towards insulting men and fathers in our culture. So much of entertainment TV casts men as mumbling, bumbling jerks who couldn’t shine a flashlight to find their way out of a dark closet, and only the wonderful, perfect, no-mistake-making woman saves him and their unfortunate kids from his total idiotic nature.

Well you, sir, in making such policies, are guilty of the same thing, disrespecting men and what men can & do for our children and all of us in general.

Further, while I can’t assume to speak for how God thinks about everything (and I admit I don’t always act like a church-goer when I curse etc), I think it’s safe to say, based on the numerous teachings I’ve heard over the years, that He would have us assume the best about people until proven otherwise, and then even then offer those who’ve done wrong a chance at a new life, and yes, that includes molesters. I’ve actually read a few stories of men who molested their kids and later in life were really genuinely sorry for what they did–and they actually were successful at repairing their family, even to the point of their now grown children trusting this person with their children, the perpetrator’s grandchildren!

Do not misunderstand me–I am NOT saying that your church should let convicted molesters work in the nursery. I am not saying that convicted molesters should walk the streets. What I am saying is this–when you take things so far as to assume that any male in your church is presumed to be a pedophile & thus not allowed to change a child’s diaper, you are walking a LONG ways from this whole forgiveness thing and trusting/loving your fellow man. Nowhere in the Bible can I read where God commands preachers to not allow a man to care for a child.

By not allowing a man to change a diaper, besides disrespecting men like secular culture too often does, you frankly are making diapers unnecessary. Those men who aren’t allowed to change diapers, it doesn’t matter–who needs diapers when you are so busy yourself covering your ass?

(And please don’t take offense to my usage of that word, it’s in the Bible, although–granted–in a different context.)

God, I think, calls on us to take risks–reasonable ones, anyway, rather than assuming a CYA (oops, an acronym, sorry!) disposition. If we follow your logic, there will be no more marrying, no more male and female pairings. Why? Because of rape. Why should a woman take a chance on a man who may rape her? By not dating at all, she protects herself from that.

I see this as no different.

Think about this too–the story of the 5-10 and 1 talents. The 5 & 10 talent persons were praise for taking their talents and making something of it. The 1 talent person, who buried their 1 talent, was criticized for not using it to further things.

To me, frankly you’re behaving much like the 1-talent person, burying it in the ground to prevent anything from happening. Yeah, nothing’s happening all right–no growth, productivity, learning, no living really. But hey–at least it didn’t get hurt what with it being protected in the hole it was buried in.

LRH

Taking care the little boys is really a difficult mission. I am still single and afraid of getting married, maybe having baby and taking care of them would be a big headache for me at that time.

Police officer here, so will have to be unnamed.
I have been involved in the prosecution of six sex offenders in my 19 year career. Five were pastors. Five were fathers. One was a family friend. All were community pillars. Two were successful businessmen. Four were over fifty. One had previous criminal convictions (marijuana at 17). Two had had drunk driving convictions. Three were binge drinkers. One was an every day drunk. All were married, three for the second time. None were atheists. None were teenagers. None had the support of their spouses in their behaviour. I can’t surmise anything about anybody outside of the felons from this brief information. Can you?
I have three children. They are free range. They know how to identify danger, and how to respond to it. No-one would be more surprised than I if they had to use this knowledge.

I look at this from several perspectives. First, I realize the minister and church are being paranoid far beyond what the evidence would support. I also realize that they are being incredibly insulting to the men and boys of their own church. Their logic is faulty, they premises are wrong and their policy demeaning to a large percentage of their own congregations.

But then I look at this as an ex-Christian, now confirmed atheist. And I know that many of the atheists I know started exploring their views on theism seriously only when the church did something awful to them. So, to the degree the policy pushes people away from theistic doctrine and dogma, I have to find it a good thing.

My guess is that a policy like this will do very little to make the children any safer than they already are. But it may just insult enough men and boys that over time it will increase the numbers of non-believers. And I would find that a good thing.

Pastor Don didn’t start the fire. Churches nowadays have an extraordinary difficult time of it. Clergymen, more than any other single group of people (more than even adolescent males!), are seen as “guilty until proven innocent” in popular culture. Anyone who will disagree has obviously not had the bad luck I did when I accidentally turned the channel to an episode of “Family Guy”, which was featuring a vile joke about a (of course!) pedophile priest. I later learned my 12 year old nephew watches the show. I’m sure he won’t be the only 12 year old boy who does so. Lovely message to be raised with, wouldn’t you agree? If you missed that “Family Guy”, maybe you’ve seen the comedian on Leno making clergymen pedo jokes, or perhaps Leno himself doing so. I know I have. And I don’t watch any of those programs regularly. The “about those priests – wink wink, nod, nod jokes” are everywhere on television.

We all know how CSI has affected people: Child abductions happen so often on that show (and its ilk), people have started taking precautions in REAL life – no leaving a child in a car while you go in to pay for gas. “Didn’t you see that CSI episode where the mother turns around for one minute and the kid is gone? I’d rather be safe than sorry. I don’t let my child out of my sight.” Does anyone imagine that the endless “banter” on television about all clergymen being pervs doesn’t equate to people taking it as the rule, and not the exception, in real life?

In fact, the idea that all clergymen are simply closet pedophiles is so widespread — How widespread is it?!! — It’s so widespread, that there’s been commentators (and there has been more than one) on THIS VERY BLOG who have stated as much. This blog! The blog that encourages folks to think through knee-jerk reactions of fear of pervs and boogeymen. The very people who claim they can get behind that message, have averred in their comments that our suspicions of child molestation should be laid at the doorstep of clergymen. The real perverts. If even commentators to this blog think such things, what can be inferred of the population at large? Worse. Church=perverts, perverts=church. It must seem to churches that they could never do enough to assure people that they and their children are safe at the church. And who can blame them?

I don’t blame you Don. What you’re doing is the natural response to the deluge of paranoia that’s so rampant these days. This is the atmosphere you find yourself in, and reacting to. This is the way it is these days. But we all know, sometimes, the “way it is”, isn’t right. And we need to say so. Even when it’s uncomfortable. Especially if it’s uncomfortable. Because if it’s uncomfortable, you can be sure that most folks won’t.

Why not discuss the issue with your congregation? If you are feeling conflicted (if we don’t do this everyone will think we don’t care about child abuse, if we do do this, we tear at the fabric of humanity that makes our lives worth living), tell them so. Maybe when you open up dialog, you’ll find more of you don’t like it. And maybe you can discuss raising some funds to switch to another insurance company. And maybe you can ask that retired couple to come back. And maybe you can ask some teenage boys if they’d like to volunteer a little time to play with children (roughhousing is GREAT for kids). And maybe you will build the kind of community you want for yourself and your church.

Good luck with everything Don. Keep us posted if there are any updates.

The best volunteer in the nursery at my church is a teenage boy. I feel very comfortable with him watching my young daughter. Also, my daughters are frequently babysat by a friend’s teenage son, who is an excellent babysitter. Get to know the person. I know these two kids and they are really good kids. If I weren’t comfortable with them, they wouldn’t babysit my kids. And if I weren’t comfortable with a teenage girl, she wouldn’t babysit my kids either. Men (and teenage boys I guess) might be more likely to sexually abuse kids, but it’s still a very small percentage of men (and teenage boys), and there are plenty of other kids of abuse that are also very damaging that women (and teenage girls) are more likely to commit, statistically. You can’t just read statistics. You have to get to know the person.

“I wonder, would all of you critics feel the same way if this was about a day care facility? or what about a drop-in child care at a community center? ”

No, I wouldn’t, but not because I’m biased against the church. I’m a Christian myself. But because day care facilities and drop-in centers have sole care of kids for more than an hour or so at a time, not an hour in a building where the parents are a few yards away.

But even then, policies like “no married couples” and “no men changing diapers” and “no teenaged boys (but girls are okay)” would be objectionable. Still, in a longer-term setting where the parents are off-site, a few more restrictions or requirements would be reasonable than in a place where you’re leaving your kid right down the hall for a brief period.

Don, more props to you for wanting to keep your congregation safe. I’ve always attended churches that are small and consisting of the community. Yes, incidents happen. Yes, we had sex offenders pop up. Precautions are good things, and I can imagine all the more important in a larger congregation.

But it looks like it’s become more about the insurance company hoops than actual safety.

I like the idea of addressing the congregation with this. Find a happy medium.

For myself personally, I was set off by something that’s a particular bugaboo of mine: the tendency in many modern churches, especially evangelical and other Protestant ones (which is what I’m familiar with), to engage in practices and policies that negatively affect or exclude older members, and then take the position that the older people “can just deal.” Somehow the concessions are always made for the sake of children and younger people, and the older ones are left in the cold. (I’m not saying Don is doing this but the situation did sort of hit that trigger for me.) There needs to be more consideration for *all* people in the church.

My comments have been misinterpreted. Of course when you drop your child off in a nursery at a church you’ve never been to before the attendants are strangers to YOU. What I was talking about was that they are not strangers to the rest of the church. You have to trust that who ever is in charge of the nursery is not pulling people off the street to help them! In our church we have a small rotating list of volunteers that work the nursery. We are lucky to have a paid worker who is also trained as an EMT, but that’s not why we hired her.

If you can’t trust someone to watch your child for an hour while you are in the building, please just leave them at home or take them into the service with you.

Pentamom, I’m not sure what you saw in my comments that made you read I was “giving Pastor Don a pass”. I was (I hope) giving my understanding.

But if I have a pass to give — or take — then I don’t give one to the mindset of “if anyone’s a pedo, it’s you pastor buddy, so get off your high horse” that has been displayed here.

It would be highly ironic (but not in a funny way) that so many of those type of comments get posted — and allowed “to pass” — and no one connects the dots and points out that it is because of EXACTLY the attitudes displayed in those posts, that churches, and thus Pastor Don, are doing what they’re doing! I mean, duh. (And I don’t mean duh to you, of course.)

No, sorry, Tuppence, I didn’t mean to imply that you were giving him a pass. I sort of started off responding to you, and then went off in my own direction. Sorry.

“But if I have a pass to give — or take — then I don’t give one to the mindset of “if anyone’s a pedo, it’s you pastor buddy, so get off your high horse” that has been displayed here. ”

Absolutely. If I can defend myself for taking on Pastor Don but not those people, it’s because I long ago adopted an online policy (which I don’t follow as consistently as I’d like) of only arguing with people who seem to be open to reason. People who go straight to the “pastors as pedophiles” thing aren’t generally operating on reason, but on something that comes from somewhere else.

Thanks for the response Pentamom. Your policy is a wise one, and one I myself followed in the past. It’s just (as explained above) I thought this particular subject necessitated “having to go there” this one time.

On the note about “OMG, pastors = pedophiles!”, not that some people will listen (and I think we know who they are), but given the numbers, from the earliest accused offense to the last, out of all Catholic priests active in that period, only about 4% were ever accused of anything sexual (and not all of it involved minors).

This is obviously 4% more of priests than we want to be acting badly, and I’m not about to defend the policy choices that kept the abusers in a position to harm children again – but it’s far from the majority of them! Most people, no matter what their profession or calling, no matter how moral they are in other areas, are uninclined to pedophilia.

@Robin – Yes yes yes. When I first went to the church we now attend, the people seemed nice but I did not know them. And when my son grew too restless to stay in the service, my husband remained and I and my son went together to the nursery. I hung out and chatted with the nice women there, he played, and by the end of it he had had a good time and I knew the women who were helping in the nursery that day much better, too.

Although I’d have happily left him with them anyway, because I knew the church knew them, except my son didn’t want me to go since everyone else was also a stranger to him.

Yes, I missed a good part of the service. But I also got to know a couple of people, and help my son to be comfortable with them as well.

Melissa Taylor If you mean what you say when you said you will never leave your kods with any male, then frankly you are NOT a free-range mom as you say you are. Frankly you’re guilty of sexism. Not all men are pigs & not all women are witches either.

LRH

@Larry Harrison: Your first comment on here was very well written. Thank you for that voice of clear reasoning.

I personally am not Christian but am often astounded at how many Christians who claim to be Christians are fearful, untrusting, and unloving (if you don’t agree with their ideas) people.

To Don, if you ever read this, you’ve dumped so much onto the men in your congregation. Were I a man, I’d find a new church. As a woman, married and a mother, I’d find a new church – no matter how many people I knew – simply because I would take offense for both my husband and my son.

If we’re going to treat all men as child molesters then why have sex with any of them? We don’t need any more children if the other half that makes them is going to be predatory to their offspring and the offspring of others. Why get married? Why bother with men – since all of them are criminals, in your book.

It’s idiocy of the highest order to break down the fundamental human unit – family – because some stupid insurance company told you to. If we can’t trust one another, can’t trust in the family unit, can’t have a father that cares for his children and other children – well, then, why have children at all.

Personally, I would never make rules that malign my entire gender as a potential pedophiles and then defend them on a blog.

And let’s not forget that ultimately the effect of these rules and attitudes is to make more work for women. Nobody profits!

I think the diaper changing issue can be easily solved by not having any nursery worker change a diaper, regardless of gender. That’s our churches policy and I rarely, if even, get called to change a diaper, but when I do it’s really no big deal. With that issue off the table, the rest of it seems to work itself out. We have male nursery workers, and because we have so many kids we have to maintain the legal ratios in our state, most classrooms of all ages have a minimum of three people anyway, so married couples work together often. When I pick up my daughter from the nursery here are usually at least four or five workers on duty. At the same time I think a lot of churches function out of fear. They are a major lawsuit target, more so than daycares or other childcare facilities. Because of this they often feel the need to take extra precautions. I think it stinks, but at the same time comments on this blog alone prove how quickly people assume guilty until proven innocent when it comes to sexual abuse accusations within a church. Who can blame them for being extra cautious, even sexist, if their insurance companies present statistics and policies that will protect them.

If you don’t like it, Pastor Don, how about, instead of changing church policies, you change insurance companies instead?

And I do think that this is an area where sensitivity goes right out the window, and it is open season on religious leaders when it comes to talking about child molesting. The actions of a very few seem to make people think they are entitled to say or suggest anything they want about a whole group, or at least not care how they come off.

Don, I am not sure what your background is but this from Luther’s Small Catechism is particularly instructive with regard to your policy that assumes all men and teenage boys are perverts just waiting for the opportunity to molest someone:

“The Eighth Commandment.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

What does this mean?-

We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, think and speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.”

Can you really say that your policy “thinks and speaks well of the men and boys of your flock? Your statement that its the insurance companies falt is a complete cop-out. Your are the pastor of the flock, you are their spiritual father. What you endorse matters much and teaches the members what is good, right and salutary.

pentamom, that’s the (sad) point I wanted to make.

nd I do think that this is an area where sensitivity goes right out the window, and it is open season on religious leaders when it comes to talking about child molesting. The actions of a very few seem to make people think they are entitled to say or suggest anything they want about a whole group, or at least not care how they come off.

@Pentamom – JUST like PASTOR DON is doing. Isn’t that ironic.

I don’t accept that it is ok to attack this pastor, even if we disagree with him.

Unfortunately, he’s got a problem, and biggest part of the problem is that his church HAS to have insurance. That means the church is likely to have him — and the congregation — over a barrel.

You see, nothing stops parents from filing lawsuits. And one acceptable reason to a lawyer, to file a lawsuit is that such policies have not been enacted. (I know at least one person who sued an organization for not having such policies, WHILE CONTINUING TO LEAVE HER CHILD otherwise unsupervised WITH A DIFFERENT YOUTH LEADER in the same group she was suing.) Parents can sue for the lack of background checks, even if the background check would have shown nothing. And they might win, too. There’s a good chance that even if they don’t win, they could bankrupt the church, the pastor, the head of youth programs, and anyone else they felt like naming, with legal fees. Not every organization has deep pockets, like the BSA or the larger churches, but lawyers cost money. And when individuals are named as not supporting such policies, they can have their lives destroyed too.

That’s the sad part.

The further sad part is that policies like these are really what it apparently takes for female survivors of male sexual abuse to feel comfortable. And that scares me even more. Because it’s not just about what could happen *in the setting*. In their minds, any teen boy is potentially ‘grooming’ all children around him to recruit them as sex partners later on. *shudder*

I did skip over Paul C, which from the brief quote posted by Tuppence was atrocious.

That said:

“WHAT about the PRIESTS and PASTORS who molest children? Taunya R”

Pastors and priest DO actually molest children occasionally. Several have been convicted. The Catholic Church has paid out MILLIONS to settle lawsuits about this. Do we have to pretend that this did not occur?

“I have been involved in the prosecution of six sex offenders in my 19 year career. Five were pastors. Anon”

If that is, in fact, true, I fail to see how that is in any way attacking Pastor Don. They are facts that reflect poorly on the ministry, but facts nonetheless (if true).

The fact remains that the biggest sex offenders in church are the ministers and youth directors, not the nursery volunteers. I don’t think that means that a minister is in any way more likely to molest than any other profession, but if you are going to be molested in church (unlikely), it is most likely to be by the minister or youth director. So it does seem ironic that ministers are making up rules to protect children from people who are not known to be large perpetrators of abuse of children.

It’s been stated by many here but I think it bears repeating so that hopefully Pastor Don, if still reading, will reconsider his position:

The policy that he’s implemented, as well as his justification for doing so, are immensely damaging, to both his congregation AND the welfare of the children he means to protect, as they reflect a default assumption that male+teenager=automatic pedophile suspect. It is true that most pedophiles are men (studies have shown that roughly 10% of pedophiles are women), but the reverse – most men are pedophiles – IS NOT.

As a pastor, Don has a huge responsibility to foster and care for his community, which includes men AND women – how is he supposed to do this with a mindset that assume the men in his congregation are suspected pedophiles until proven innocent? How are men and young boys to be encouraged to take a greater role in the nurturing on the community’s children if they’re being given the explicit message that they’re not trustworthy simply by virtue of their sex? Religious communities often decry how secularization is “destroying families” but with a protection like this, Don’s policy is doing fine setting his community members against each other with no need for assistance.

Not to mention, this puts further burden on mothers and women in the community for childcare – is this what Don wants, the reinforcement of that tired old canard that “women handle children best” and therefore men don’t belong in the raising of children except to provide love and care at a distance? Does he wish to teach the children in his congregation that men are automatically to be distrusted with children and that it is women to whom the primary responsibility must fall, rather than on both parents equally (and a larger community of friends and family of both genders by extension)?

I’m a woman who owes much to the men who took on caretaker roles over much of my young life – my father, an older brother, male family friends. Some of them changed my diapers, some of them taught me how to wrestle and basics of self defense, some taught me how to make the perfect pesto sauce. And yes, I did have a handful of near-misses with one man who had been a friendly neighbor – while still scary to contemplate years later, that one man doesn’t change the positive influence and care that the majority of adult men made in my life as a child.

It’s an unimaginable loss for both the children and the men – adult and teenaged – in Don’s congregation as men and teenaged boys will likely declined involvement because they might be too afraid of being pegged as suspected pedophiles simply because they might like to share in caretaker duties and/or are good with kids.

Actually, Tuppence, I don’t think that I do get your point since I didn’t see insults in any of the posts except PaulC. But we will leave it at not understanding each other.

I am a retired male. At one time I imagined that I would like to volunteer to work with young children. In my particular case there was a slightly selfish motive as my grandchildren live very far away and I don’t get to see them often. However, the fear of men dissuaded me from even trying to pursue that goal. I lost and I think the children I would have been involved with lost. There is no difference between this and racism.

To those who feel uncomfortable with this being about church and say we’d react differently if it was a childcare centre. Well,no, I wouldn’t. My kids’ childcare centre has two young men working at it. They change nappies, they cuddle the kids when they’re sad, they play football and chasey and my boys absolutely adore them. I am eternally grateful that when my husband and I can’t be caring for our kids they are having a diverse caring experience – men and women, young and old.

As I’ve mentioned in other comments, one of these young men and a local teenage boy are the most frequent babysitters for my pre-school sons. Does it occur to me that my children might be abused in these situations. Unfortunately it does, in our society, how can it not? But my response is to talk to my kids, watch their behaviour and then put those fears aside because they’re obviously unfounded. It’s my responsibility to take care of my kids. To assess risks dispassionately. Not to keep those young men out of my house just in case.

Finally, as a teenage girl I worked with a number of teenage boys in my church. We taught Sunday school and led youth groups. One day we got a new minister who decided that nobody was fit to volunteer in the church (even to arrange flowers or mow the lawns) if they hadn’t completed and particular six week Bible course. People who’d been giving their love and time for decades suddenly felt that they weren’t good enough in the eyes of our church leader. It split our congregation and I was among those who left. What Pastor Don is doing is even worse. This will hurt these teenage boys. If we’re all about protecting children, then who’s taking care of these boys?

It’s great that his church has a support group for those women who were abused. But as horrible and traumatic as it was for those women, I’m willing to be that most (if not all) were abused by a family member or very close family friend and not the church nursery’s baby sitter.

I want to weigh in on this from a perspective that I haven’t yet seen here. I am the mother of a one year old boy. I was molested by a woman (my mother) and two teenaged boys when I was young. However, that does not mean that I will not leave my son with a woman or a male teenager.

Pastor Don – It’s great that you have a support group for people like me. However, in my case – as in most!, those who hurt me were members of my family. They were not strangers or members of my church. They were people that I knew and trusted. However, the way to heal is to move on with life and to trust again. Without trust life is not worth living. I hurt for the poor males who have been inadvertently maligned by these policies, particularly the teenagers.

As a matter of fact, male teenagers make better babysitters for children. This is straight from BC Women’s Hospital, my first aid course for new parents, and numerous teachers that I’ve worked with. Why? Because they play with the kids and are less likely to be on a cell phone. That doesn’t mean that I would never use a female teenager as a babysitter, but it certainly puts things into perspective doesn’t it?

As an abuse survivor your comments upset me. I don’t like that you’re using people like me to justify your actions. I hope that you reexamine them closely and think about what you want to be saying to the world about your community, your church, and your religion.

Why are men and boys being penalized? There are female offenders out there too.

Do background checks on caregivers. Check the offender registry. Find an insurance company that isn’t going to get the church sued for sexual discrimination.

I dunno……
Seems to me half the female population out there woulda thought they’d died and gone to heaven over men and boys actually acquiring sensitivity and child-caring skills….first-hand, voluntarily, and outa the goodness of their lil’ doggie hearts. (imagine that?.)
But we have to instead, punish the 99.8% of the male half of the population for what the other .2% (and that is a VERY liberal estimate) has, is, or will be capable of commiting?
It’s a shame that this is all messed up with religion, because that just creates two messes, and complicates the whole damned thing all to hell.

Why not just lock all the males in zoos, and only let them out to procreate, and kill foreigners?

This is just really sad. As someone who has always identified as a feminist, I have to say that it is things like this which makes me feel like there needs to be someone out there fighting for men to be able to retain some of their rights.

Talk about sexist.

It sounds a bit like some other societies where women are forced to cover up completely lest they tempt the men folk. In good ol’ USA you gotta keep the kids away from the men folk because, well, you just never know, do ya.

If we don’t trust our society to at least make room for our children and allow them space to exist, maybe we need to shake things up in our society, rather than hide the children?

Don: “But statistics show that child abusers go to places with least resistance and are more likely to be someone with whom the child is well acquainted.”

Yep. That’s why all children should be raised far, far away from their family. For their own sake. In fact, rotate them between foster homes so they don’t get too “acquainted” with anyone.

Here’s an easy solution to keep your church from becoming a “Safe Haven for sex offenders”: Get rid of the kids. No more day care. Your insurance company will thank you.

Ps- I’m not sure what the insurance company said to you, but they use risk analysis to produce rates. If you disagree with one, ask how they determined it. The choice to not follow their recommendation would likely result in a higher premium, not termination of coverage. In this case, the money would probably have been a better deal compared to the publicity.

Really, there is no other name for these odious policies than plain and simple sexism.

I don’t think the Pastor has thought through just how damaging this is. In a single stroke, it tells men that they’re seen as all being potential predators of the worst possible sort, and it tells women that is their job to take care of the babies.

I’m sure the insurance company would love to trot out all the statistics on gender and sexual abuse etc… but one thing those statistics don’t show is how our society brings about the problem with the way we demonize men.

Growing up, I know I’ve seen thousands of little things. Commercials where men are incompetent boobs around children until the super mommy fixes things. Tv shows where men are portrayed as raging engines of uncontrolled destructive lusts. Movies with much the same. Men are constantly being told how uncontrollable and dangerous we are. (and when we are controlled it’s usually through our perceived inability to resist a woman’s sexual advances.)

Women on the other hand are told that they have almost no sexual desires (really has only changed in media in a very short time and not in most of it), that their role is domestic. So many times I see the powerful career-driven female characters dropping everything to have a baby and play mommy. They’re shown they have to be scared of the big bad men out there, and that they need to tame one to be their protector, but they always have to be on guard for themselves and their children because any male is one step away from becoming another monster. (Yes there are aversions to these stereotypes, like there are to the male ones, but you can still find them fairly often.)

These things hit our subconscious constantly, and when we ourselves are not like that we often find ourselves questioning why not? Never mind that most others of our gender have the same questions. And I’m sure a handful of aberrant personalities take this in and become predators. But the vast majority of us do not. We aren’t the stereotypes being handed to us. We shouldn’t be made to feel like that by these fear-mongering policies. We shouldn’t have to look at something like that and think it’s ok that we’re being treated unfairly because of the minuscule possibility that one of the sick predators might show up there.

I’m not a churchgoer but if I were, I’d want my church to have some faith in the good natures of its parishioners.

Dear Don,
I appreciate your comments and have raised the subject before about churches trying to protect and the need for that to be so. yes we are fingerprinted as volunteers on top of lots of different policies.. No-one forces us to be, we do it to help the system which by the way will not be beaten no matter how dumb anyone thinks it is. I was beaten down with the naysayers who had plenty of opinion but all the negativity came from people who don’t even profess to know where churches are coming from. They just think they know how we should operate. It’s tough but some of us appreciate your comeback.

p.s. lenore did you once write column at ad age i still have a few winning t shirts one for theme park EASTWOODS ..LET US MAKE YOUR BDAY