If you agree that a person is more than the worst thing they've ever done, and that repentance, transformation, suffering, and the state of the soul matter, then we agree with that principle.
Agreed.
We need to stay in our lane! The questions before us are: is she guilty of murder? Has the sentence been carried out? That is, has justice been done?
To talk about all this other stuff is besides the point. My 5 yo granddaughter has learned to attempt to side step justice by coming up with excuses. Just recently, her mother told her not to eat candy. 1 minute later she opened up a piece of candy. I spoke as the voice of justice in establishing the relevant facts?
- Did you mother tell you not to eat candy?
- Did you eat candy?
Simple. And loaded with gravitas, the weight of sin. Knowing I disregarded all her excuses, she cried under the weight of truth.
I think this is where I'm confused.
You agreed that a person is more than the worst thing they've ever done, and that repentance, transformation, suffering, and the state of the soul matter.
But you also said the only relevant questions are whether she is guilty and whether the sentence has been carried out.
If repentance, transformation, suffering, and the state of the soul genuinely matter, then they cannot be "besides the point." They become part of the point.
That's one reason I keep returning to the adulterous woman. If justice were simply a matter of establishing guilt and carrying out the prescribed punishment, then Christ's response would have been very straightforward:
- Did she commit adultery? Yes.
- Did the Law prescribe death? Yes.
End of discussion.
Yet Christ did not stop there.
He confronted the hearts of the accusers, exposed hypocrisy, and gave the sinner an opportunity to repent:
"Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her."
"Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."
Christ clearly did not view guilt as the only relevant consideration. He cared about what the sinner would become, not merely what the sinner had done.
I'm not disputing Christina Pike's guilt. I'm not arguing that actions should have consequences. I'm questioning the idea that once guilt is established, everything else becomes irrelevant.
After all, if repentance, transformation, suffering, and the state of the soul matter, then the Christian discussion cannot end with "Did she do it?" Christ certainly didn't stop there.
The reason I keep bringing up repentance, restoration, and salvation is because Christ kept bringing up repentance, restoration, and salvation.
So when I look at Christina Pike, I see someone who is guilty of a terrible crime, but also someone who has endured thirty years of imprisonment and remains a human being made in the image of God. Christianity teaches us to see both realities at once.
Justice and mercy are not opposites. The Christian view of a person never ends with their worst act, and I don't think Christ's view did either.