This post is about protecting children with accurate information…..

You may have seen a startling statistic shared online:

“93% of sex offenders are religious.”

For Christians, parents, Survivors, and people trying to make churches safer, a number like that deserves attention. But it also deserves accuracy.

The research behind the statistic is real. The way the statistic is sometimes repeated is not quite accurate.

MYTH: 93% of all sex offenders are religious.

FACT: In a large study of 3,952 men who admitted sexually abusing children, 93% described themselves as religious.

That distinction is important.

The widely cited figure comes from research by Gene Abel and Nora Harlow involving thousands of adult men who admitted sexually abusing children.

It does not establish that 93% of every sex offender everywhere is religious.

It tells us something more specific, and perhaps more thought-provoking:

Most of the men in this particular study saw or described themselves as religious. Described themselves.

Researchers were not independently determining whether these men were devout Christians, regular churchgoers, clergy members, Bible readers, or active members of congregations.

“Religious” was a description of identity.

And that raises a question faith communities need to sit with.

How people see themselves is not necessarily how they behave.

MYTH: People who sexually abuse children usually see themselves as evil people.

FACT: People can maintain a positive identity while doing terrible harm.

This may be one of the most important lessons buried inside that 93% statistic.

We sometimes imagine that people who commit terrible acts must walk around knowing exactly what they are.

Human psychology isn’t always that tidy.

Someone may sincerely think:

I am a Christian.

I am a good father.

I help people.

I love my church.

I am respected in my community.

And still cause devastating harm.

People can compartmentalize. They can minimize what they have done. They can blame someone else. They can redefine their behavior. They can convince themselves that one part of their life has nothing to do with another.

That is why self-description cannot be our safety system.

MYTH: If someone appears deeply religious, we can assume they are safe.

FACT: Faith is not a substitute for safeguarding.

Someone may pray beautifully.

Someone may know Scripture.

Someone may sing in the choir.

Someone may preach.

Someone may volunteer every week.

Someone may have been part of the congregation for thirty years.

None of those things tell us whether that person respects children’s boundaries.

Character must also be observed through behavior.

How does this person respond when a child says no?

Do they seek unnecessary private access to children?

Do they respect physical boundaries?

Do they encourage children to keep secrets from parents?

Do they repeatedly create situations where they are alone with particular children?

Do they become angry when ordinary safety rules apply to them?

Do they expect their reputation to exempt them from accountability?

Those questions tell us something religious reputation cannot.

MYTH: The 93% statistic proves religion causes sexual abuse.

FACT: It does not.

The research does not establish that religious belief causes people to sexually offend.

Nor does it prove that religious people are more likely than nonreligious people to abuse children.

Those are entirely different research questions.

There is, however, separate peer-reviewed research worth knowing about.

Researchers Donna Eshuys and Stephen Smallbone studied 111 incarcerated adult male sexual offenders. Among their findings, offenders who maintained religious involvement from childhood into adulthood had more sexual-offense convictions, more known victims, and younger victims than other groups in their sample.

The researchers cautioned against assuming that religious involvement necessarily protects against sexual offending.

Again, that does not mean religion caused the offending.

It means something simpler:

Religious involvement should never be treated as proof that someone is safe.

MYTH: A predator would never want people to think he is a good Christian.

FACT: Sometimes a respected identity can provide extraordinary trust.

We have to be careful here.

The Abel-Harlow statistic does not tell us whether the men deliberately used religion to deceive anyone.

Some may genuinely have considered themselves religious.

But we also know that people who groom children and communities can cultivate trust.

And religious communities contain something predators value enormously:

access built upon trust.

A respected person may be welcomed around children.

Parents may lower their guard.

Children may be taught to obey them.

Questions about their behavior may feel almost unthinkable.

And when someone finally speaks, people may respond:

“But he is such a good Christian.”

That sentence should never end an investigation.

Neither should:

“But she loves those children.”

“But everybody knows him.”

“He would never do something like that.”

“She has served this church for twenty years.”

“He knows the Bible better than anybody here.”

Those are statements about reputation.

They are not evidence about what happened.

What Should Christians Take From This?

Not suspicion of everyone.

Not fear of church.

Not the belief that Christianity produces predators.

Something much wiser:

Faith should make us more committed to protecting vulnerable people, not less willing to believe that harm can happen among us.

Jesus repeatedly turned toward people whom powerful institutions overlooked.

Children deserve that same seriousness.

Churches should have written safeguarding policies. Adults working with children should be screened. Private access should be limited. Reporting procedures should be clear. Children’s boundaries should be respected. Allegations should be handled according to law and professional safeguarding practices, not quietly managed to protect reputations.

And no person’s spiritual status should place them above those rules.

Not the pastor.

Not the bishop.

Not the elder.

Not the beloved volunteer.

Not the biggest donor.

Not the person everybody trusts.

Especially not the person everybody trusts.

The Real Lesson Behind the 93%

Perhaps we have been asking the wrong question.

The question isn’t:

“Can someone who appears religious be dangerous?”

Of course they can.

Human beings are complicated creatures capable of extraordinary goodness, terrible contradiction, deception, self-deception, repentance, denial, courage, and harm.

The better question is:

“Have we built communities where children remain protected regardless of who the adult happens to be?”

Because a strong safeguarding system does not require us to determine who secretly has evil intentions.

It assumes something much more realistic.

We cannot see inside another person’s heart.

So we create boundaries.

We listen to children.

We take disclosures seriously.

We investigate concerning behavior.

We refuse to confuse charisma with character.

And we never ask a child to compete against an adult’s religious reputation for the right to be believed.

Faith does not require us to abandon discernment.

Faith should give us the courage to practice it.