Replies

I hope you’ll excuse me for commenting, but as an attorney I’ve actually worked with a sex offender, and had to research the matter to work the case. The fact is, most who technically classify as sex offenders have about the same tendency to relapse to criminal behavior as any other criminal behavior. I know that’s not what you’ve probably heard, but that’s the reality. In fact, many are Romeo-and-Juliet cases, where there was ordinary sexual attraction between two ordinary young people but the age of one party made it a sex crime by legal definition. One unfortunate fellow got on the registry because he got drunk and took a leak in his own backyard, but it so happened some neighborhood children saw him in the act.

However, when most people think of a “child molester,” they are thinking of one of those profoundly disturbed personalities who cannot rely on normal inhibitions to prevent their abuse of prepubescent children. Unlike the Romeo-and-Juliet situation, or the awkwardness of improvisational latrines, this is a personality defect that places them in a special high risk category, and in fact many jurisdictions are recognizing and separating these risk categories so they can be handled with greater economy and effectiveness.

How does all this relate to Newt and forgiveness? Simple. There are very few of those who live among us who are really warped enough to present an ongoing risk of child molestation. But Jesus said we were all in the risk category for adultery. Anyone who has done it in their heart (you know who you are) has done it as many times as Newt or more. The difference between those secret adulterers and Newt would be that Newt was honest enough to follow through and get the divorce.

Do you remember the parable Jesus told of the prodigal son? Remember the “good” son? He was as self-indulgent as the “bad” son, but he justified his self-indulgence by superficial compliance with the Father’s will. Yet he lacked love. And when the “bad” son, who at all times was honest about his desires, repented and came home to the Father, the Father received him with love. If the “good” son were truly “good,” he would have shared in that love and joy of a sinner coming home. But he could not. All he could think of was himself.

Now I can easily picture the “good” son lecturing the Father about how he should never again trust the “bad” son with any of the serious responsibilities of sonship. I can hear him saying things like “Dad, he’s proven he’s a bad seed, he’ll never be anything different, and you should never trust him again.” And from a strictly human, materialistic point of view, he might even be right. But see how the Father treats him, gives him a welcome home party, a sacrifice, a ring, all insignia of full redemption, full acceptance as a son, with all the privileges and responsibilities that entails.

Jesus didn’t come to save the righteous, but only sinners. And as CS Lewis says, nothing God does is a sham. Conversions, if God has anything to do with them, are real conversions. But if there is no conversion, no transition from brazen sinner to repentant son, then there is no Christianity at all. It is the very thing Jesus died to provide, the possibility of complete transformation, by an exchange of death for life, old for new, punishment for forgiveness. It is the very heart of the Gospel.

Therefore, if one looks only at the errors of the past as the sole determinant of the future of a human soul, one has denied the miracle of the new birth. Put another way, if there is no conversion, no true changing of one’s ways, then there is no Gospel, no good news at all, no basis for forgiveness, no hope in the resurrection, no looking forward to the Second Coming and the redemption of all things, because we all set our path irreversibly into the darkness on the day we committed our first sin. Like my crim law prof used to say, you buy the bit you buy the bridle. The rejection of the possibility of conversion has serious consequences, and those who choose to live in a universe with no true conversion must accept the logical consequences of that position.

For my part, it is an empirical matter. If Newt falters in some significant way, his claims of redemption can and should be held to a high standard of proof. But if Newt demonstrates by his life over a reasonable period of time that he has had a true change of heart in these things, and I think he has done this, who am I to challenge a work of God? Why would I not rather praise God and be joyful that He has brought yet another lost sheep home? Time will tell, but by his performance so far, I accept his claim of redemption, and would gladly trust him to fulfill the duties of the presidency with faithfulness to God, to the American people, and to the founding principles.