4. Can you imagine this sign
outside the home of your minister / leader of your church, or a church
in your denomination / association?
How does the Biblical principle of ministers/leaders in Timothy
& Titus "must be above reproach" effect restoration to ministry leadership
when a sex offenders is registered with the authorities? When not registered?
What does "must be above reproach" Biblically mean?
***************************
Exchanging Truth for Lies
When the Church allows compromised Christian leaders to explain away
sin, compromise truth, and sin with impunity, we exchange truth for lies.
We become no better than idolaters, people whose credulous adoration of
compromised leaders fulfill what Paul calls exchanging "the glory of the
immortal God for images made to look like mortal man . . . exchang[ing]
the truth of God for a lie" (Rom. 1:22, 25). Unfortunately, although
most Christians sincerely want truth and want to follow biblical ethics,
we too often listen to such lies from our leadership and instead of denouncing
sin and demanding accountability, we parrot excuses like those given here
and allow compromised leaders to continue in leadership.
***************************
I Timothy 3:10—“blameless” the qualifications for leadership
as Deacons and then Elders includes Above reproach-blameless
Translation: “But let these also first be tested, then let them serve,
being blameless.”
Structure: Verse 10 is a complete sentence with two qualifications. The first is that deacons should be tested before they serve in the special office of deacon in the church. The second specifies what the result of that testing must be in order for a man to be qualified to serve in the office of deacon.
Comment: The Greek word means “blameless” or “above reproach.” It is a different Greek word from the word translated “blameless” in 1 Timothy 3:2, but the meaning is identical. This is confirmed in the list of qualifications for elders in Titus 1:6-7 where Paul uses the same word for elders as he uses for deacons in 1 Timothy 3:10. Paul uses this same word for both deacons and elders.
Paul says a deacon must first be tested. The result of that testing must be that the man is blameless or above reproach. If he is not above reproach, then he has failed the test and he is not qualified to serve in the office of deacon. A man may only serve in the office of deacon in the church if he is first tested and he proves himself to be above reproach.
By “blameless” the Scripture does not mean that a man must be sinless in order to be a deacon. To be blameless is to be irreproachable. No one should be able to lay a charge against a deacon and make it stick. To be blameless does not mean that one is able to evade accusation or conviction. Rather, a man is blameless or above reproach when his words and conduct conform to the holy commandments of God in Scripture so that he cannot justly be accused or convicted of any chargeable offense. In the words of John Calvin, “to be blameless means to be free from any notorious fault” (Commentary on 1 Timothy 3:10).
The Scripture says Job was “blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil” (Job 1:1). The people of God should be able to say that about every deacon in the church. The deacon’s reputation should be above reproach. No one should be able to lay hold of him or assail him or reproach him because of his sins, whether in speech, conduct, or doctrine. Every Christian sins until the day he lays down this body of sin at death. Daily sins that are common to all men do not bring reproach and blame upon a person from others because they too are guilty of the same sins. A deacon, like an overseer, must have and maintain a good name. There should be no question as to his integrity or upright character.
John Calvin explains it this way: A deacon “ought not to be marked by any disgrace that would detract from his authority. There will certainly not be found a man who is free from every fault, but it is one thing to be burdened with ordinary faults that do not hurt a man´s reputation, because the most excellent men share them, but quite another to have a name that is held in infamy and besmirched by some scandalous disgrace. Thus, in order that the bishops may not lack authority, he gives charge that those who are chosen should be of good and honorable reputation, and free of any extraordinary fault. Also, he is not merely directing Timothy as to the sort of men he should choose but he is reminding all who aspire to the office that they should carefully examine their own life” (Commentary on I Timothy 3:2).
Conclusions:
When the church tests and evaluates a man for the office of deacon,
the man must prove over a period of time that he is blameless in order
to be qualified for the office of deacon. The man must show that he is
a man of mature character and integrity before God and men. He must show
that he is above reproach.
If a man is above reproach, then he may become a deacon. Otherwise,
he fails the test.
Only a man of such maturity, character, and integrity is trustworthy
and will serve God’s people faithfully in the office of deacon and glorify
God in his work (see Acts 6:3-5).
Any man who has a stain upon his character or does not live a consistent,
godly life does not meet this qualification and should not be a deacon.
A man in the office of deacon whose character and reputation are not
above reproach, or whose authority is undermined by a recurring pattern
of sinful behaviour in his life ought to be removed from office.
*******************************************
Biblical Accountability
The Bible clearly states that Christian leaders should be accountable
both to the Word of God and also to God's people, whom the leader serves.
Among the requirements Paul describes for a Christian leader are that he
be "blameless," and "of good behavior" (1 Tim. 3:2). A Christian leader
must "have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into
reproach and the snare of the devil" (1 Tim. 3:7). This does not mean that
the Christian leader is simply good at covering up his sin. Christian leaders
must display integrity and honesty -- they must prove themselves worthy
of Christians' trust.
One would think that our outspoken faithfulness to truth telling would
extend to telling the truth about sin within the Church. And yet at this
point many Christians shrink from truth telling, instead hiding behind
empty platitudes such as "don't judge;" "forgive and forget;" "don't shoot
your own wounded;" "look at all the people who came to the Lord through
this ministry;" etc. Sadly, we have unbiblically acted as though telling
the truth contradicts biblical concern for a sinning Christian leader.
Christians who cry out, "It's wrong to judge," are ignoring the context of the passage (Matt. 7:1-2), which does not forbid judging, but instead insists on judgment according to God's word. In addition, a judgmental criticism of judgement is self-refuting. If it is wrong for a Christian to publicly criticize a Christian leader whose testimony is false or who is immoral, then isn't the critic also wrong for publicly criticizing the Christian? Paul points out this contradiction among some Jews, saying, "You who say, 'Do not commit adultery,' do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?" (Rom. 2:22). One who speaks English to utter the sentence "I can't utter a word in English" has refuted himself. Aren't those who accuse Christian investigative journalism of being the "Christian Gestapo" themselves acting Gestopo-ish?
Assuming that integrity and accountability exclude compassion unfairly brands truth telling as "shooting" and ignores that "the wounded" have been wounded by their own sin.
Christians who excuse false testimonies and immorality by pointing to the "fruits" of a ministry deny Paul's forceful argument in Romans 3:8 that to do evil that good may come is slanderous and contrary to biblical ethics.
To equate forgiveness with absolution from personal responsibility is to cheapen biblical forgiveness and to deny biblical justice.
*******************************************
ELDERS/DEACONS/LEADERS ARE TO BE ABOVE REPROACH...leaders are not perfect...we
all know that and it’s theologically sound...therefore the threshold of
service at the higher levels of stewardship of Elders/Deacons must be that
their sins are minor and Biblically the members of their Church and even
the non-Christian public do not consider them disqualifying. Criminal
Child Sexual Abuse is NOT minor. A minor sin might possibly be a
brief inappropriate expression of desires that belong to God and his wife...e.g.
too long a hug, etc. But when here is touching and beyond, that is
no longer minor or above reproach. By the way, I talked with Jay
Adams about this minor vs major and he is in agreement with my presentation.
You might also note President Clinton only “touched” and did not have intercourse—did
you think his sins minor?
My experience in many “local churches” there are many levels of leadership beyond those addressed as Elders and Deacons. This is a woeful mistake...man has created a class of quasi-leadership between Elders/Deacons and members exercising their gifts in an organized manner. In fact some have unwisely and unbiblically allow non-members (those who have not given witness of their faith by officially [and legally] submitting to the stewardship of Christ’s authority in that local church) in positions of quasi-leadership and membership duties, responsibilities, and benefits.
WE DO NOT KNOW THE OUTCOME OF RIGHTEOUSNESS...it is an act of faith to follow God’s Word and allowing God’s hand in other’s life. Often those who know of sin (major not minor) fear exercising Church Discipline...this is not man’s/woman’s domain...it’s God’s. If a person is disturbed by being faithful to God then it’s strong indication for instruction, correction etc. 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Those in leadership should be aware of these consequences 1 Timothy 5:20 and act accordingly. To have agreed to be an Elders and not considered this passage would be folly.
LEADERSHIP VS MEMBERSHIP...the issues of “broken, contrite heart, grace, forgiveness” etc. Are issues of heart standings with God and the Body of Christ...not positions of leadership. You identify an “elder” who violates God’s Word with one who has repented of a major sin—but both are disqualified from Biblical leadership! The contrite broken hearted one (if this is the case) is righted with God but not qualified for leadership-- The other is unrepentant, and disqualified from leadership, and quite possibly should be treated (after a thorough Church Discipline process) and if remains unrepentant—to be treated as a non-believer. Again, neither, at this time are qualified for leadership.
*******************************************
Christian Leadership
The objections against revealing a Christian leader's sin seem to imply
that it is possible for one to have a valid Christian ministry or profession,
and yet have a private life of corruption. However, the Bible explains
that it is not possible for one's sinful conduct to have no negative effect
on one's profession of godliness. Titus 1:6-8 summarizes the same qualifications
for a Christian leader Paul gave in 1 Timothy 3, but goes on to condemn
one who says he believes, and yet whose works deny his profession of faith:
To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled. The profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work (1:15-16).
To attempt to combine immorality with godliness to produce spiritual
fruit is completely contrary to scriptural teaching. In fact, Paul ranks
it with "profane and vain babblings" and warns Timothy to avoid "contradictions
of what is falsely called knowledge" (1 Tim. 6:20).
In addition, Jesus openly rebuked Peter when Peter argued against Jesus
going to the cross (Matt. 16:22, 23). Paul writes Titus that it is the
responsibility of the church to hold the leader accountable for his sin:
"Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith" (Titus
1:13). Paul also commands Christians to rebuke sinning leaders publicly,
"Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also
may fear" (1 Tim. 5:20). Paul took his own advice, as recorded in Galatians
2, and publicly rebuked Peter "before them all" (Gal. 2:14).
If we neglect to uncover sin within the Church, we rob the Church of the integrity it should expect from its members. The Church becomes weak through compromise, and the leader becomes weak because of his or her immorality. Fallen leaders betray the trust of those they lead. Maturity in the Lord, which is an essential part of qualifying one for spiritual leadership, can be confirmed only by an established pattern of resisting sin and walking faithfully with God, family, and others.
First Thessalonians 5:21-22 commands us to "test all things," and Paul commended the Bereans for "searching the scriptures" to test what he himself had taught them (Acts 17:11). The Christian whose life is characterized by truth telling must support spiritual leaders whose lives exemplify Christian maturity, and must hold those leaders accountable. If a Christian leader is chosen whose life is bound by immorality, the Christian has the obligation then to expose that sin publicly since the leader is public and his actions impact the church he leads.
Fallen leaders damage the trust relationship established between them and their followers, a relationship mirroring the trusting relationship we are to have with the Lord. In addition, they break the trust relationship Peter tells us to have with the world; that is, we are to live so that even the world will note our trustworthiness and be unable to speak against us, but will, instead, glorify God (1 Peter 2:12).
It is unethical for Christians to cover up for leaders who have achieved their position through false qualifications or stories, or who are living immorally. Can the Church claim a higher ethical standard than the world when we adopt a "code of silence" worthy of the most pernicious organized crime conspiracy or even some suspected invisible satanic ring?
Some people in society have a greater responsibility for honesty and integrity than others. This does not mean that it's less wrong for one person to lie than another, but a public leader has a greater responsibility because the consequences of his failure have greater ramifications. A lay person who has a mistaken medical opinion will not affect the lives and health of as many people as a doctor with a misunderstanding of medicine.
An individual in a position of public trust surrenders his privacy regarding his suitability and trustworthiness. He has asked the public to trust him for specific reasons or qualifications. Those reasons and qualifications are open to public scrutiny. If the leader is trustworthy, they will withstand examination. If he is not, close examination will reveal their inadequacies. Christians who are committed to truth must preserve this fundamental right and obligation to know in whom they are asked to trust.
*******************************************
1 TIMOTHY 5:20
The New International Version seems to have correctly said, "Those who
sin
are to be rebuked publicly, so that others may take warning."
John Calvin: Commentaries: 1 Timothy 5:20
Used by permission only to PeaceMakers.net
"1 Timothy 5:20. Those that sin rebuke before all. Whenever any measure
is taken for
the protection of good men, it is immediately seized by bad men to
prevent
them from being condemned.
Accordingly, what Paul had said about repelling unjust accusations he
modifies by this statement, so that none may, on this
presence, escape the punishment due to sin. And, indeed, we see how
great and diversified are the privileges by which Popery surrounds its
clergy; so that, although their life be ever so wicked, still they are
exempted from all reproof. Certainly, if regard be had to the cautions
which are collected by Gratian, there will be no danger of their being
ever compelled to give an account of their life. Where will they find the
seventy - two witnesses for condemning a bishop, which are demanded by
the disgusting bull issued by Pope Sylvester? Moreover, seeing that the
whole order of laymen is debarred from accusing, and as the inferior orders,
even of the clergy, are forbidden to give any annoyance to the higher classes
of them, what shall hinder them from fearlessly mocking at all decisions?
It is therefore proper carefully to observe this moderation, that insolent tongues shall be restrained from defaming elders by false accusations, and yet that every one of them who conducts himself badly shall be severely corrected; for I understand this injunction to relate to elders, that they who live a dissolute life shall be openly reproved.
That others also may fear. Wherefore? That others, warned by such an
example, may fear the more, when they perceive that not even those who
are placed above them in rank and honor are spared; for as elders ought
to lead the way to others by the example of a holy life, so, if they commit
crime, it is proper to exercise severity of discipline toward them, that
it may
serve as an example to others. And why should greater forbearance be
used toward those whose offenses are much more hurtful than those of others?
Let it be understood that Paul speaks of crimes or glaring transgressions,
which are attended by public scandal; for, if any of the elders shall have
committed a fault, not of a public nature, it is certain that he ought
to be privately."
Alexander Strauch Biblical Eldership 1.800.477.3239 Chapter 9
Used by permission only to PeaceMakers.net
Disciplining an Elder
How should an elder be treated if an accusation of
sin is found to be true? Verse 20 provides the answer: “Those who
continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all.” Some expositors
think that verse 20 begins a new subject regarding the treatment of sinners
in general, but this view is incorrect. Such a break in thought would
be too abrupt and unexpected. Furthermore, it is clear that verses
19-25 deal with the topic of elders, particularly the sin of elders.
The clause, “those who continue in sin,” translates
a present active participle (tous hamartanontas). The New American
Standard Bible rendering stresses the persistent nature of the sinning.
There is disagreement among commentators, however, as to what is implied
by this present tense participle.
Some commentators believe that only those elders who stubbornly persist in sin after private warnings are to be publicly rebuked and that repentant elders need not be rebuked publicly. This interpretation, however, misconstrues the point of the passage. A more accurate interpretation recognizes that the contrast is made between elders who are innocent (v. 19) and elders who sin (v. 20). The elders to be publicly rebuked are those who are found guilty of sin as proven by witnesses (v. 19).
The elder’s disposition toward his sin is not the issue here. The issue is: an elder’s sin demands public exposure. Paul gives no consideration as to whether or not the elder is repentant. The present tense participle should be rendered “the ones who sin,” not “those who continue in sin.” The participle describes the “present guilt” which has been substantiated by witnesses (v. 19). To add the condition that a one-time-occurrence of sin or the sin of a repentant elder is not to be publicly rebuked is to distort Paul’s instruction. The passage teaches that a proven, public accusation against an elder who has sinned (or is still sinning) must be publicly exposed and rebuked.
Furthermore, 1 Timothy 5:20 is not simply an example of Matthew 18:15-17 (Christ’s teaching on discipline) in action. First Timothy 5:20 provides additional biblical instruction on church discipline, specifically the matter of a church leader’s sin. Of course, if an elder refuses to repent, he would be disfellowshiped from the congregation according to Matthew 18.
Paul’s instructions go on to add that an elder who has been proven to be guilty of sin by witnesses is to be rebuked before the church. The imperative verb “rebuke” translates the Greek word elencho, which is a rich term conveying the ideas of “exposing,” “proving guilt,” “correcting,” and “reproving.” In this context, “rebuke” includes the ideas of public exposure, correction, and reproof. After Timothy’s departure from Ephesus, the elders would be responsible to rebuke any sinning elders.
The context indicates that the sin to which Paul refers is serious. It is “sin” that is the problem, not merely a leadership blunder or minor shortcoming. Witnesses are required to verify the truth of the charges (vv. 19,20) and a public rebuke is demanded, which would not be required of minor offenses. Since verse 20 is written in very general terms, Paul’s instruction covers various degrees of sin, circumstances, and consequences. Godly wisdom, counsel, and prayer will guide the local church and its spiritual leaders in implementing this instruction in individual cases.
Paul specifically requires the guilty elder to be rebuked in “the presence of all.” This means public exposure before the entire congregation, not just the council of elders. The major point is that an elder’s sin must be publicly exposed, not hidden or swept under the carpet. A spiritual leader’s sin must be treated with great concern because it has grave ramifications; it can lead more people astray and can cause the unbelieving world to mock God, the church, and the gospel. If the world sees that local churches take sin seriously, especially in the discipline of sinful leaders, then it will believe that Christians mean what they preach. Furthermore, only when the discipline of an erring church leader is made public is there any chance of controlling one of the most divisive forces in a church: rumormongering, gossip, and misinformation.
Public rebuke of an elder who sins fulfills another important purpose: “that the rest also may be fearful of sinning.” Not only is the public discipline for the correction of the sinning elder, it is also for deterring others from sin. “The rest” seems to refer to the other elders, but the entire congregation would also experience some measure of fear (Acts 5:11). The phrase “of sinning” is not in the original text, which reads, “so that the rest also may have fear.” The fear the elders would experience includes not only the fear of sinning, but the shame of public exposure. To see the sin of a fellow elder publicly exposed before the church would produce a fear of sinning and of its shameful consequences (Deut. 13:11). God uses such fear as a powerful deterrent to keep people, especially church leaders, from sinning.
A Call to Courageous Obedience and Justice
No part of Christian ministry is more difficult than investigating and disciplining sin, especially the sin of a church leader. One can easily think of a thousand clever excuses for evading the discipline of a church leader. This is particularly true if the leader is rich or a prominent member of a powerful or large family within the church. At heart we are cowards, afraid to take action, afraid to disturb the balance of church politics. We’re afraid people will leave the church or that the offerings will decrease if we follow through with discipline.
Knowing the human propensity to avoid such harsh realities, Paul dramatically charges Timothy (and the church) to comply with his instructions in verses 19 and 20. The absolute seriousness “to maintain these principles” is underscored by Paul’s use of the first person singular verb, “I solemnly charge,” and the mention of “God” Himself, the Mediator “Christ Jesus,” and the elect “angels” of God--all who see and will someday judge. Furthermore, Timothy is to execute “these principles” justly and righteously. There is to be no discrimination or favoritism shown when dealing with accusations or sin.
“Without bias” means without “prejudgment” or “discrimination,” that is, without judging someone guilty or innocent before the facts are known. “Without bias” seems to refer particularly to verse 19. It is possible to be prejudiced toward those who accuse an elder of sin, or toward certain elders, so we are to guard ourselves against such prejudices. The second term, “partiality,” may refer primarily to verse 20. Showing “partiality,” that is, “favoritism” or “preferential treatment,” to prominent leaders is a common practice in the world. So when listening to an accuser or rebuking the guilty, all proceedings are be done “without bias” and without “partiality.” This is an important requirement because God, Christ, and the angels see and will someday judge the proceedings.
Despite this forceful appeal to act, the public discipline of church leaders has been, until recently, almost unheard of in most churches. The practice of covering up church officials’ sins and the trick of quietly moving the offending official to another church is not uncommon. Sadly, the predominant reason churches are beginning to discipline sinful pastors is not because they fear and honor God, but because of the proliferation of multi-million dollar lawsuits against churches by people who have been hurt and abused by sinning pastors.
The failure to publicly discipline church leaders
demonstrates a grievous lack of love for God and His Word. It reveals
that we do not fear and serve God, but want to play church games.
No matter how difficult or unpleasant such discipline may be, we must “maintain
these principles” in obedience to God. The fear of God’s judgment
and assessment of our stewardship is to be our constant motivation and
encouragement in all such difficult matters.”
Alexander Strauch Biblical Eldership 1.800.477.3239 Chapter 9
pages 218-222
*******************************************
When it comes to Christians criticizing Christians, the battle lines are drawn. But are the lines biblical? Is it wrong to publicly evaluate the teachings of a Christian pastor, expose the immorality of a Christian leader, or tell the truth about a popular Christian media figure?
Evangelicals warn people about the false teachings and practices of the cults, which claim compatibility with Christianity and yet deny cardinal Christian doctrine. Our standard is truth and our judge is Scripture. Yet when apologists turn to false teachings within the Christian church, some evangelicals apply a different standard. Frequently heard objections include, "Jesus said it's wrong to judge," and, "Criticism is unloving and divisive." Christians who voice these protests fail their own test -- they criticize and judge other Christians for criticizing and judging other Christians. Furthermore, these critics fail to understand that without such scrutiny, Christians are misled into heresy and duped by those whose public ministries promote false teachings and/or hide private immoral behavior. Careful, biblical criticism expresses true Christian love and affords essential safeguards to faith.
Good discernment and moral accountability should be practiced among believers. The Old Testament establishes this pattern. Instructions concerning false prophets in Deuteronomy 13:1-5 assume the prophet arises from the congregation of Israel. People are admonished to banish idolatry from their families: "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend..." (v. 6). Deuteronomy 13 instructs the Israelites how to practice good discernment within their communities: "You must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly." If the community is idolatrous, it must be dealt with publicly (v. 14). Psalm 50:18 states that one who sees a crime and doesn't report it has moral culpability.
The New Testament continues the theme of good discernment within the believing community, most notably when the Bereans test Paul's teachings (Acts 17:11) and the Thessalonians are commanded to test all things (1 Thess. 5:21-22). Judgment is not excluded, but unrighteous judgment is. Jesus declared: "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment" (John 7:24).
Jesus expelled the money changers from the temple, denounced the Pharisees and scribes, and rebuked the teachers of the Law. He reprimanded Peter in front of the other disciples (Matt. 16:22-23). Paul followed Jesus' example, naming false teachers in the church (2 Tim. 2:14-19) and openly criticizing Peter (Gal. 2:11, 14).
When immorality occurs in the church (Titus 1:15-16), the Bible says to deal with it truthfully and constructively. The procedure for public leaders caught in false teaching or immorality is for them to be rebuked publicly "so that the others may take warning" (1 Tim. 5:20). A congregation member who sins privately against another Christian is not to be exposed publicly unless he (or she) persists in sin, in which case he is to be rebuked before the church and we are to "treat him as you would a pagan or tax collector" (Matt. 18:15-17). Paul followed this procedure concerning the Christian who persisted in sexual immorality (1 Cor. 5:3-12), and affirmed that judgment belongs to the church.
Christian leaders are accountable to God's people, whom the leaders serve, and should be "above reproach," "respectable," and "able to teach" (1 Tim. 3:2). A Christian leader who is a false teacher or immoral should be rebuked to encourage reform (Titus 1:13), and cannot separate his ministry from his life, expecting God to bless his preaching while privately he sins; he is "disqualified for every good work" (vv. 15-16).
Telling the truth about false teaching or immorality in the church corresponds with the ethics and truth which are to characterize the church. The church is the "salt of the earth" and "the light of the world" (Matt. 5:13-14) only if characterized by truthfulness (v. 11) and righteousness (v. 16). The Christian leader has an obligation to "hold firmly the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it" (Titus 1:9). No Christian is happy when false teaching or immorality arises, but we cannot neglect responsibility for doctrinal and moral accountability.
Christians sometimes are uncomfortable with criticism within the church because they assume that public criticism, since it is painful, is also destructive. On the contrary, the "pain" of biblically conducted confrontation produces individual growth (1 Tim. 4:16), encourages others to Christian maturity (1 Tim. 5:19-20), promotes church strength (Eph. 4:15), and preserves the church's reputation in the world (1 Pet. 2:12).
*******************************************
Sex offenders must display signs
Associated Press
Posted on May 20, 2001
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas - A judge has ordered 21 convicted sex offenders to place signs in their front yards reading "Danger! Registered Sex Offender Lives Here."
The signs were given to offenders Friday along with bumper stickers reading "Danger! Registered Sex Offender in Vehicle." State District Judge J. Manuel Banales ordered them posted immediately.
Authorities will conduct spot checks on offenders' homes and vehicles,
said Iris D. Davila, supervisor of the probation
department's specialized services for Nueces County. Gerald Rogen,
president of the Corpus Christi Criminal Defense
Lawyers' Organization, said the signs are unconstitutional. "It's a
return to the days of the scarlet letter," Rogen said. "This
is just madness. We will have vigilantes out destroying property."
Rogen said he's contemplating what can be done legally to block Banales' action.
Banales called about 55 registered sex offenders to court to be given new conditions of their probation. Forty showed up, and 21 were given the bumper stickers and 18-by-24 inch signs.
"The whole idea is that everybody is looking at you," Banales told the 20 men and one woman. "You have no one else to blame but yourself."
The offenders who were not made to display signs were ordered to send letters to each neighbor within three blocks of their homes.
Each of the offenders had previously been given a long probation term instead of prison time for offenses ranging from aggravated sexual assault to indecency with a child.
District Attorney Carlos Valdez said Banales' action is a practical way of implementing what the state's sexual offender registration act is supposed to do.
Texas law requires offenders to register with local law enforcement agencies and have their names and photos posted on the Internet. The Department of Public Safety also sends postcards to neighbors of offenders considered high risk.
Valdez said the law doesn't go far enough.
"What the legislators were afraid to do, this judge is doing," he said.
"The question for public officials is a balancing test,
balancing the rights of the defendants and the safety of the community.
I would rather err on the side of the community."
Defense attorneys and civil libertarians called the judge's new requirements unfair and dangerous. Diana Philip of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas said the signs will lead to harassment of sexual offenders and relatives.
"This particular form of sentencing doesn't do any good for the community and could create a volatile situation for offenders," she said.
Gilbert Garza Canales, who received 10 years probation for aggravated sexual assault of a child in 1992, was among those told to place a sign in his front yard.
"What about my family? What if someone attacks me or my wife?" Canales
said. "I'm the one on probation, not my wife."
******************
May we have the faith/courage to walk in Christ's light--and give warning
"...the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually
immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars - their
place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
Revelation 21:8
Index of articles about clergy sexual abuse
recommended reading about clergy sexual abuse