God and Sex Offendors
October 3rd, 2006 by Stephen
After a sex attack on a child made national news a few years ago, someone who knew I was a Christian asked me:
How would his God view the guy who did it? Would he forgive him? After all aren’t we encouraged to turn the other cheek?
If the man were to repent, then yes. No one can sin so much that God cannot forgive them if they turn to him. None of us are really any better then this man. I have to say that some of the responses I saw about this issue troubled me slightly.
What was being suggested was that a man had done something so henious that the enormity of the act required that we as a society should have acted in a manner that is inhuman toward this man.
We all have feelings of anger and the want for vengeance, but what are we really suggesting? That an inhuman act requires an inhuman act in return? That child sex abusers should be disected and lobotomised (two of the suggestions that were made)? Does that really make us any better than them?
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leads to a sightless toothless world, where only the opticians and the dentists benefit.
I think that there are two things we try and do when we incarcerate people. The first of these things is retributive punishment, and is important so long as the punishment does not dehumanise our society. The second thing is protection of the public.
In the case of child sex offenders I would agree that long prison terms are usually more appropriate, but based on the second principle: that of protection of the public. These people should be locked away or otherwise closely supervised for as long as they are likely to be a danger to the public.
However, I am disturbed by the current undertone in our society that seems to suggest that witch hunts and ensuing vigilante attacks on people are somehow justified, based only on the fact that the subjects of these attacks were at some time found guilty of some child sex offence.
As I undersatnd it, there are many types of child sex offenders, and many types of offence. Certain predatory types will reoffend, given a chance, and we need better ways to protect society from such people. Others may perhaps never reoffend (perhaps because they offended when under the influence of some mental illness). In such cases, I think our society (but maybe not our legal system) lacks compassion and the willingness to forgive.
Don’t think for a minute that I feel that child sex offences are in any way okay, or anything less than the gravest of crimes. Every such offence is a crime against humanity. I am just concerned that we don’t dehumanise the victims in our attempts to ensure sufficient retribution. I don’t think that is helpful, for them or for us.
And if a child sex offendor turns to God, then why shouldn’t God forgive him of his sins? Christ suffered for that sin, and Christ suffered for the victim. The slate is clean, and they too can know God as Saviour, Lord and Father, as can you.
That would not, of course, in any way reduce the need for a long prison sentence – such things being concerned with humane retributive justice for the sake of the victim, and protection of the public.
Surely wasn’t it Jesus who went ballistic when a few bullies prevented young children from hearing him. Surely he would feel the same today.
Yes indeed. But note that he was angry with the religious people – his own disciples in this example. Jesus had much less of a problem with sinners than he did with people who should have known better, but acted like they didn’t!
Consider the woman caught in adultery. The law said that this woman could legally be stoned. The pharisees had interpreted this to mean that the woman could ransom her life, and thus escape with just a fine. Jesus, however, went a step further. He pointed out that we are all guilty of countless sins and crimes. He knew that deep down, each one of us is a monster of depravity. So he saved the woman, by saying that he who was without sin could cast the first stone.
Jesus’ answer to the woman’s crime was forgiveness. It remains his answer still.
As to why God did not prevent this act: do you want God to force you and everyone else to make the right choice every moment of every day? The world is fallen – there is a fix, but it is up to you whether or not you apply it, and choose to follow God, or whether you prefer to continue without Him.
Stephen, some of your views on the punishment of criminals bring questions to my mind. Questions regarding how you came to these opinions. Did you first seek the answers to crime in the Word? Or have you formulated them based on your own thoughts?
For example, you say “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leads to an eyeless and toothless society” Well, that is true most likely. But certainly it is also true that this is what the Word prescribes. In fact even worse, that we pluck our own offending member from our body if it sins. Now, I think this means, to explain how bad sin is for us, and that we ought to pluck the sin from our bodies and put on the new man. But those who are without Christ deserve the fullest extend of God’s law. It is only through Jesus that we are spared that law and what it requires.
I read one of your posts against the death penalty, and really cannot agree. Scripturally speaking, death is what is due those who are without Christ and commit heinous crime! Just read the Old Testament to discover that. If you are not in Christ, you are under the Law, therefore the Law can be justice, and criminals without Christ ought to be brought that justice accordingly. It is true that in the end, after this world we will all come before the Throne of Judgement, at which time our eternity will be determined and our sins exposed and true justice meted out. But the Lord has made it available to us to have some form of justice here on earth in our societies, and it is clearly explained it the Old Testament. I think if we were wise enough to follow God’s Law in this regard, we might find crime was less of an issue. I mean just think! If you were caught stealing you would have to repay and lose an arm or hand. I think that is pretty drastic and pretty deterring.
You mention how it is “inhuman” but it is SCRIPTURAL, and how can that be wrong? Mercy and justice go hand in hand, and mercy comes only to those who Trust in Him.
Now you are likely wondering how we can know if they are in Him? Well, I would wager that any person committing child sex acts most likely does not know Him. To know Him is to love Him and to Obey His commands, one cannot be both full of the Holy Spirit and a child molestor.
Mrs Meg Logan
Thanks for your comment. I agree that this is a difficult subject, and it should be no surprise that people disagree on it, but I’ll try and deal with your concerns.
You asked whether I formulated my opinion from the Bible or my own thoughts. As honestly as I can say, I believe all my opinions on such matters are derived from the Bible and my understanding of what it teaches. I cannot say that I am uninfluenced by cultural pressures and other events – unfortunately we all are influenced by such things a great deal, and we do not notice the influence (because if we noticed it, we would not be influenced!) Thus I have honestly tried to derive my beliefs from scripture, and yet I know that people can disagree with me who have been equally honest and careful.
You say that the word prescribes an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. However, whilst that is indeed the Old Testament teaching (Exodus 21:24), by Jesus’ time, as I said, the pharisees had long since interpreted this as a means for levying fines. If someone were to knock out someone else’s eye, it would benefit the victim more to receive a payment from the offender then to see the offender’s eye removed. Thus a fine would be paid to the victim.
The threat of the physical punishment if the fine was not paid ensured that the fine was levied at a rate commensurate with the gravity of the offence. That is to say, if the offender was not willing to pay much of a fine, the victim could insist on the physical punishment instead. This threat ensured that the offender paid what the eye was really worth.
Now Jesus did not say that we should go back to the old system. The pharisees laid a trap for Jesus, saying that Jesus was teaching adherence to the law rather than the teachings of the pharisees. With the woman caught in adultery, they wanted him to either agree with the above teaching of the pharisees, or else demonstrate his lack of compassion by stoning the woman. (Something that would not normally have happened).
But Jesus’ answer was so much greater than they could have imagined? Jesus looked into the hearts of these pharisees and knew their evil deeds were every bit as heinious as the deeds of the woman they brought to him. He knew that the only answer was forgiveness. His answer was to forgive the woman and not demand any judgement under law at all. Regardless of whether she was a follower of Christ or not. We presume she was not.
But what did Jesus actually say about Exodus 21:24?
The Bible teaches forgiveness, and that is what Christ demands of us.
I don’t disagree with humane retributive justice, and the protection of our society through incarceration (as I say above). But forgiveness is what we need to find within ourselves – individually and as a society.
You seem to suggest that someone who is not a Christian is therefore under law in a sense that the message of forgiveness does not apply. Sorry if I have misunderstood this – but Jesus’ message of forgiveness was given for Christians, irrespective of who we must forgive. If a man takes your coat, then he is probably not a Christian. But we are still enjoined to give our cloak also. It is for our benefit and our healing that we are enjoined to forgive. That is why it is in the interest of the victim, and their healing, that we do not treat the offender inhumanely. The victim needs to find forgiveness for the offender (however long that may take).
Thanks for your comment.
Stephen
Interesting, and convincing. Thank you.
I would ask one other thing… if the victim is not a Christian, then how should the social law be?
I still think the death penatly is useful and wise. I haven’t seen how non-Christians are to handle this. But I suppose it really doesn’t matter, because we SHOULD all be Christian.
Thanks for explaining that to me with scripture, see Im so easily convinced! lol
Mrs Meg Logan
I don’t think the social law needs to be different if the victim is not a Christian, because forgiveness is still what they must discover for their own healing. This is, I think, what went wrong with the shooter in the Amish school. He could not find forgiveness for something in his childhood, and as a result his anger and hatred festered and grew into something much worse than the precipitating event.
If we still disagree on some points, that is not a problem – so long as we continue to consider the issues. I’m glad what I said made some sense to you.
Many thanks for your input.
Stephen