© 2013 The Wired Word
Michelle Knight, 32, is quite small of stature, but she was figuratively 10
feet tall as she read her victim-impact statement in a Cleveland courtroom last
week where Ariel Castro, who had imprisoned and abused her and two other young
women for more than a decade in his house, was to be sentenced.The 53-year-old Castro, in contrast, only diminished himself more by giving a rambling 16-minute statement in which, far from taking responsibility for his wrongdoing, expressing remorse or showing concern for his victims, he declared himself not a monster, as some have called him, but a "normal person" with a sickness. He said he was plagued by a porn addiction.
After the three young women were rescued from their captivity in Castro's house, the investigation revealed that all three had been forced to serve as sex slaves for Castro. Yet in his statement, Castro claimed, "Most of the sex that went on in the house, and probably all of it, was consensual." He denied raping, beating and torturing the women.
He insisted "there was a lot of harmony" in his house between himself and his captives. He further said, "I'm not a violent person; I simply kept them there without allowing them to leave."
Castro captured the three women separately. Knight, who was the mother of a 2-1/2-year-old son when she was snatched, was first, and had been held about 11 years in Castro's house of horrors. His other victims, Amanda Berry and Gina DeJesus, were teenagers when he took them; they had been locked in his house for about 10 years.
Castro delivered his remarks after family representatives for Berry and DeJesus made victim-impact statements on their behalf and Knight gave her own statement. In hers, she said, "I remember all of the times you came home talking about everyone else that did someone wrong. You acted like you weren't doing anything wrong. You said, 'At least I didn't kill you.' You took 11 years from my life, but I've got my life back!" She added, "I spent 11 years in hell. Now your hell is just beginning." She also scoffed at Castro for "going to church every Sunday and coming home to torture us."
Knight refrained from calling Castro names. She said, "I can forgive you but I'll never forget. With God's guidance, I'll prevail and help other victims who may have suffered at the hands of another."
After Castro's self-excusing speech, the judge, Michael Russo, indicated that he wasn't swayed by it. "You made a calculated decision to do wrong," the judge said. Russo also thanked Knight for her "remarkable restraint" while making her statement.
While Castro appeared to be backpedaling in his statement, he had pled guilty to 937 counts, including kidnapping, assault, rape and aggravated murder. The latter charge was based on his beating and starving of one of the women when she became pregnant by him, which resulted in the death of her unborn child. He could have faced the death penalty for that, but saved himself that consequence by pleading guilty to the charges. That made a trial unnecessary and spared his victims from having to testify in open court about their ordeal.
In the end, Russo sentenced Castro to life in prison, plus 1,000 years. He was taken away to begin serving his sentence immediately.
Based on Castro's remarks, several observers with psychological expertise have described him as a sociopath. This label covers a multitude of pathologies, but the key criterion is that the person has "a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience." The concept of having no conscience is not found in the Bible, but within a psychological framework, sociopaths are considered to not usually care about other people, to think mainly of themselves, to feel little guilt, to often blame others for the things that they do, to disregard rules and lie easily. Sociopaths may be well liked because of their charm, but they do not care about other people.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Cleveland Kidnapper Ariel Castro: "I Am Not a Monster." ABC News
"I Am Not a Monster" -- Ariel Castro as Sinner and Sociopath. AlbertMohler.com
Text: Michelle Knight's Statement During Ariel Castro's Sentencing. New York Daily News
The Big Questions
1. In Christian theology, repentance is usually considered a sinner's necessary response to God's offer of salvation. Psychology says that a sociopath lacks a conscience. The Bible, on the other hand, describes people with a "seared" conscience. Either way, without the goad of conscience, can a person actually repent? What differences, if any, are there among "repentance," "remorse" and "contrition"?
2. Does unwillingness to repent mean that a sociopathic person is "lost" and excluded from the possibility of salvation? Since we all tend to excuse our own faults, just as a sociopath does, could it be said that all sinners have sociopathic tendencies?
3. Through what other channels besides conscience, if any, might God convince us of our need for him?
4. Would God allow some people to be born without conscience? If you answer yes, what are the theological implications of that? If you answer no, what are the theological implications of that? Are you motivated, restrained, guided by a conscience? How well does your conscience work? How much are you able to ignore it? Does your conscience, like your muscles, get stronger with use? Weaker without it?
5. Christianity understands all humankind as sinners. That doesn't mean that humans are bad in every sense, but that everything in us has been tainted by sin. That's the primary reason all persons need to be saved. How is a person who recognizes he or she is a sinner different from a person who does not acknowledge his or her sinfulness? Is Ariel Castro in a special class of sinners? Why or why not?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Psalm 51:4-5
Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are justified in your sentence and blameless when you pass judgment. Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me. (For context, read 51:1-17.)
Psalm 51 is commonly understood as a prayer of repentance by King David after he had sinned by committing adultery with Bathsheba, but it also serves as a model prayer for repentance after anyone's sin.
In the lines above, David acknowledges that his sin ultimately is against God. He also says that he was "born guilty." Some Christians understand this to be a reference to how a sinful nature has infected humankind ("original sin" or "inherited sin"). Others interpret it as an expression of how deeply guilty David felt. In any case, the key in this prayer is that the one praying makes no excuses, but acknowledges that the transgressions are his own doing and that he has sinned against God.
Questions: At one point in his statement, Castro said, "I just want to apologize to everyone who was touched by these events." But he also asked people to "do some research on people who have addictions." In what ways is that different from the language and spirit of the Psalm 51 prayer? What, if any, points of similarity exist between the two? What would a real apology in the Castro case sound like? Discuss what words you would have liked him to use. Have you ever received (or given) an apology that did not sound like an apology?
Micah 3:4
Then they will cry to the LORD, but he will not answer them; he will hide his face from them at that time, because they have acted wickedly. (For context, read 3:1-4.)
The Hebrew prophet Micah made this statement about God's non-response to a certain group of people who "have acted wickedly." Micah was not talking about enemies of Israel, but leaders of Israel (see v. 1). That's perhaps a reminder that the wicked are not always outsiders, but can be right beside us -- or can even be us.
Question: God's non-response to the wicked indicates that wickedness itself is a barrier between us and God. How does God overcome that barrier?
Matthew 12:31-32
Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (For context, read 12:22-32.)
Jesus made this statement to some Pharisees who accused him of being in league with Satan after he cured a demoniac, not only of his demon possession, but also of his deafness and inability to speak.
Jesus refers to a sin, "blasphemy against the Spirit," that "will not be forgiven" -- in common parlance, the unpardonable sin. That refers to resisting the Holy Spirit so that God's offered forgiveness cannot be received. Hence, it is the sin of sins, making pardon impossible.
Question: Could it be that what psychology describes as a sociopathic person's lack of conscience is actually that person's steadfast resistance against the Holy Spirit? Explain your reasoning.
Romans 2:14-16
When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all. (For context, read 2:12-16.)
1 Timothy 4:1-2
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will renounce the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared with a hot iron. (For context, read 4:1-4.)
In the Romans 2 passage, Paul refers to how conscience can work even in the hearts of people who don't consider themselves to be under God's law. Paul says, in effect, that there's a rudimentary moral sense "written on the hearts," of all people -- a conscience that accuses or excuses them in specific situations. Paul wasn't, however, suggesting that this judgment by one's conscience was sufficient for salvation apart from Jesus Christ. Quite the contrary, he is asserting that the knowledge of "natural law" (the law as discovered in nature) enables every person to realize his or her own sinfulness.
In the 1 Timothy passage, Paul speaks of those "consciences [that are] are seared with a hot iron."
Nowhere does Paul speak of people who have no conscience, and he likely would not describe a person identified today as a sociopath as being without a conscience; he would likely speak of that person as having a seared conscience.
Questions: What perspective does Paul's discussion of conscience give you on this human faculty? What happens to fabric or skin that is "seared with a hot iron"? What happens when a conscience is seared this way? Paul uses words like "deceitful," "hypocrisy" and "liars" to describe this condition. How do deceit, hypocrisy and lying contribute to the searing of the conscience?
1 Timothy 1:15
The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners -- of whom I am the foremost. (For context, read 1:12-16.)
When the apostle Paul identified himself as the "foremost" among sinners, he was no doubt thinking in part about his pre-conversion actions when he was known as Saul, where he persecuted Christians (see Acts 8:3; 9:1-2). But he was probably also thinking about his post-conversion actions or thoughts where he felt he had failed to do God's will. (In fact, he wrote about that; see Romans 7:14-25.)
Still, we probably wouldn't say Paul was the foremost of sinners. But he apparently felt a lot of guilt about what he had done and how he continued to fall short of his heavenly calling. That's different from the perspective a sociopath would take about him- or herself. And that, of course, is the problem when it comes to talking about sociopathic individuals being redeemed: They supposedly don't usually feel any guilt.
Question: Far from the feel-no-guilt outlook, some people go the other way and feel guilty about things over which they have no control and for which they are not responsible. At its extreme, such an outlook can also be a personality disorder, though such persons are not usually a threat to others. They might have a greater leaning toward depression and suicidal tendencies, however. How do you determine the boundaries of appropriate personal guilt?
Luke 15:17-19
But when he came to himself he said, "How many of my father's hired hands have bread enough and to spare, but here I am dying of hunger! I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands.'" (For context, read 15:11-24.)
This is the prodigal son's reasoning after "he came to himself" and realized that if he didn't go home, he was likely to die in that far country. We should not miss, however, that this reasoning is a rehearsed speech to make to his father. We can almost hear his mind working: "Here I am starving to death while even my father's lowest servant never goes hungry. Here's what I will do: I'll go home and tell the old man I'm sorry. I'll say I'll be one of his servants, but I bet he'll take me back into the house. He never could say no to me."
Worded like that, the prodigal's plan seems less like repentance and more like a scheme. We have no way of knowing his intent, but the very fact that he rehearses a speech should make us suspicious that he's planning to say whatever he has to say to regain access to his father's house and three square meals a day. It's at least possible his admission that he had sinned is less than genuine.
Notice, however, that when he arrives home, his father doesn't even wait to hear his full speech (compare verses 18 and 19 with verse 21). He embraces his son and kisses him based solely on the fact that his son has returned. The son speaks his confession, but the father does not respond to the words. The father also does not ask his son if he has learned his lesson. He does not tell him, "I told you so." He does not set down any conditions for his son's re-entry into the family. Instead, he gives him a ring -- an emblem of family membership -- and he orders up a feast to welcome the young man home. Perhaps the father is thinking that no matter what the boy's motive in coming home, the fact that he has come home means there is at least an opportunity, a chance, for the family relationship to be fully restored.
The father is the hero of this parable, and he represents God. In the church, we have long preached a conditional sort of acceptance by God: God stands ready to forgive you and welcome you back, but only if you truly feel remorse and actively repent. This parable, however, may give us another picture, portraying a God who says, "You're welcome even if you're not fully repentant."
This doesn't mean that the prodigal was necessarily changed. It's possible that he later left home again, this time taking the family silver with him. If there's lasting repentance in this story, it may only have come after the close of the parable, when the son made the decision to stay home this time and truly start living like he belonged to his father's family. In any case, this parable reminds us that it's not our repentance that opens the door to relationship with God; it's God himself who does that. Our lasting repentance shows in our decision to stay in God's family thereafter and live like we belong there.
Questions: What personal invitation do you hear in this parable? What challenge do you hear?
For Further Discussion
1. We said earlier that Christianity understands all humankind as sinners. The term some Protestant reformers used for that understanding was "total depravity"; other reformers used "original sin." Both terms mean that all of us, no matter how good we are, are tainted by sin. In light of how you understand Christianity today, are all humans "totally depraved," or just sociopathic ones?
2. Respond to this: In one of his books, C.S. Lewis said that in the end, there are only two kinds of people, those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "Thy will be done."
3. Respond to this, from theologian W.T. Purkiser: "The human predicament, then, is the reality of sin. This is foundational in Christian theology. Among the four great focal themes of the Bible and of revealed religion -- God, man, sin and redemption -- sin is seen as the ugly intruder."
4. Comment on this: In the 19th century, some members of the group sometimes known as the Dunkers, and later as the German Baptist Brethren, who are today known as the Church of the Brethren, held to a belief they called "universal restoration," which is different than "universalism." Universalism says every person will be saved. Universal restoration says there is no limit to what God can do, but there is a limit to what God will do.
5. Castro attempted to depict his evil-doing as "sickness." How do you respond to that?
6. We don't have details of the persecutions Saul/Paul wrought on the early Christians. Acts 9:1 says Saul was "breathing out threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord," but there's no evidence that he personally killed anyone. He did, however, approve of the murder of Stephen (Acts 7:59--8:1), and he rounded up other Christians so that they could face the same sort of rage that led to Stephen's death. Would you call the pre-conversion Saul "depraved"? Why or why not?
Responding to the News
This is a good time to remind ourselves that final judgment is God's prerogative, not ours.
Closing Prayer
O Lord, help us to make the message of salvation clear and plain, and to present it in ways that are inviting. Help us to back our presentation of the gospel with the example of our life, lived in faithfulness to your word. In Jesus' name. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment