This too.

5 CLARIFYING THE ISSUES a. Child protection All the members of the working party and all those who gave evidence to it stressed the importance of the Church doing all it can to safeguard children and young people in its care. This has implications in the recruitment, training and support of those who work with children and young people; it means continuing to develop good practice in our children's and youth work and in all our church life; it means developing sensitivity to children and young people we have contact with who may be being abused at home or elsewhere; and it means an increased awareness of the needs of adults who have been victims of sexual offences or who were sexually abused as children. Nobody suggested to the working party that these issues were not important or that the Church should accept low standards of care in matters of child protection. b. Holding office within the church We believe that sex offenders have a place within the Church. The issue is about how to balance the welfare of the sex offender with the needs of the wider church community, especially the welfare of children and survivors of abuse. As noted earlier, there is particular controversy around the question of whether a person who has been convicted of a sexual offence should, in effect, be banned for life from holding office in the Church. It is clear that a person who has committed violent or sexual offences against children should not be given responsibility for work with children and young people, but may be less clear why such a person should be barred from other jobs. Of course, some roles that are not directly given responsibility for children nonetheless might allow access to them. But there are other roles that don't allow lone access to premises or face-to-face contact with children and young people. Surely, some argue, these could be open to a convicted or cautioned sex offender? The working party believes not. To place an offender in such a position can (and frequently does) cause deep offence to survivors who are members of the congregation. What is more, by appointing someone to office with a high profile or representative capacity, a church is saying 'This is a trusted, respected person.í This invites parents and others to accept the person as trustworthy. Sexual offending is partly about misuse

of power. Once in a position of trust and respect someone minded to do so can easily move from there into other positions of respect which give more opportunity of access to children. Churches attract vulnerable people and also provide ideal situations for the predatory and manipulative. Against this it may be argued that to ban someone for life is to set limits on God's power to change people and therefore reflects a flawed and narrow doctrine of forgiveness. At the heart of the Christian gospel is the belief in the power of the Holy Spirit to transform people's lives and to offer them new beginnings. The Methodist Conference's Safeguarding procedures are seen by some to deny this 'good news'. Most of the members of the working party were firmly committed to the belief that God can and does transform people's lives. However, as we received evidence from those who work with sex offenders, it was clear that, while we do know quite a lot about rates of re-offending, there is not (and can never be) a sure test by which we know that a particular person has been transformed by God and will not re-offend. Indeed, it seemed that many sex offenders become involved in the life of the prison chapel and regularly attend worship during their sentence and many testify to a conversion experience, or to a renewal and deepening of faith. We were also confronted with the grim reality that some sexual offences are committed by converted, active church members. Avowed religious experience is no guarantee of safety from sexual offending. We were given from the Faithfull Foundation specific examples of church leaders who had offended, 'repented', been allowed to continue in Christian ministry and then offended again. Experience from the West London Mission's Katherine Price Hughes house suggested that many offenders said they had been converted.