Letter: Church’s support of sex offender was hurtful

Published 1:30 am Tuesday, July 7, 2026

Editor,

The recent letter from Tarly Shupe defending the decision to support a man, Christopher Blunt, who pleaded guilty misses a critical distinction. He is not “the accused.” He is guilty because he admitted his guilt in court. Continuing to describe him as accused minimizes that reality and diminishes the harm experienced by his victims.

I was there when members of Trinity Lutheran spoke on his behalf. I sat beside a dear friend, one of the victims, and witnessed the pain on her face as those stood to offer support for the man who had admitted guilt. Regardless of attempts to redefine the word “support,” that is what it felt like to those victims. It sent a heartbreaking message about whose suffering mattered most.

The claim that this was not about defending his actions rings hollow when people publicly vouched for his character and innocence despite his guilty plea. For the victims, watching a church rally around the man who caused their trauma was another wound inflicted.

This case also highlights why separation of church and state is important. Courts exist to determine guilt based on evidence and rule of law. Religious communities are free to offer spiritual care, but they undermine justice and trust when publicly advocating for the guilty over those they should protect.

Compassion should never trump accountability. We can believe in forgiveness while still standing unequivocally with victims. In this case, that balance was lost, and it will not soon be forgotten.

Kristen Zipp

Portland