Castrating Sex Offenders

My friend "K" often polls his friends to get various opinions on hot button issues. Recently he asked "Do you feel that men who are convicted of rape, should be physically or chemically castrated?" My initial answer was "Absolutely not." When he asked me why I felt that way this is the answer I presented:

As a Christian I say that what is most needed is forgiveness and healing. There must also be understanding. Simply because the state deems a person a rapist doesn't mean they truly raped a person. The system isn't reliable when it comes to getting the complete or even true story of a sexual offender. Trusting the government to tell us who people are is foolish. The government doesn't exist to love or even sincerely know people. We would be wise to meet people and engage in relationships with them, especially sinners and those who Jesus would call "sick" for they are in need of Christ ("the doctor") and it is the Church who is His body doing his work on earth.

It is through relationships that people grow, change, and are rescued from their evil (if this is untrue then our salvation is a lie and Jesus and His apostles liars for they preach transformation is directly connected to our nearness to God). Rehabilitation happens through new environments, experiences, recreations, challenges, and relationships. I say this as a person associated with an organization who, in the last year, has had the most success with sex offenders not becoming repeat offenders in Clark County, Washington. I know several sex offenders and none of them would benefit from castration. Not only that but the community around them wouldn't truly benefit from it spiritually just as society doesn't benefit from putting scarlet letters on sex offenders. It pulls us apart from one another and creates division and enemies. Castration is barbaric, overly extreme, and the too easy answer of fools. It is the answer of fearful people who don't know how to love but only to fear and fight.

A Christian can not hold a position which demands harm be done to a wicked person or that revenge be taken according to the New Testament and popular early church tradition (here are some quotes). We must practice the extension of forgiveness and love even if it demands we suffer in the process for we are concerned with transformation of other's souls and with imitating Christ who dies for sinners/enemies. We are not concerned with freedom from suffering for ourselves. If we commit ourselves to castration os opposed to loving relationships then we go against the way of the gospel, trusting in weapons and the ways of man instead of the Spirit, power, and promises of God and the victory we have in Christ over sin. After all, love covers a multitude of sins and sexual immorality is no exception.

Clement of Alexandria once stated a very popular belief in the early church. In 195 A.D. he stated, "Christians are not allowed to use violence to correct the delinquencies of sins." We have other methods. We employ the methods of self-sacrificing love. We can not support unChristian methods, even when used by others. We must always protest such things by our loving example and words.

Early Church Fathers on Nonresistance

The following quotes are taken directly in unaltered form from The sections on Nonresistance and Love in A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs; A Reference Guide to More Than 700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers edited by David W. Bercot. *Key: Quote in italics. -Author (Date written, Easter/Western writer) Volume number . Page number in Ante-Nicene Fathers.

They comfort their oppressors and make them their friends. They do good to their enemies. -Aristides (c. 125, E), 9.276

We will not ask you to punish our accusers. Their present wickedness is sufficient punishment. -Justin the Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.165

We have learned not to return blow for blow; nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us. Not only that, but to those who strike us on one side of the face, we have learned to offer the other side also. -Athenagoras (c. 175, E), 2.129

He commanded [His followers]... Not only not to strike others, but even, when they themselves are struck, to present the other cheek... [He commanded them] not only not to injure their neighbors, nor to do them any evil, but also, when they are dealt with wickedly, to be long-suffering. -Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.408

The philosophers will then with prosperity be taken up in a friendly exposure... But not in the manner of avenging ourselves on our detractors. Rather, it will be for the purpose of their conversion. For vengeance is far from being the case with those persons who have learned to bless those who curse. -Cement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.347

The spiritual man never cherishes resentment or harbors a grudge against anyone - even though deserving of hatred for his conduct. -Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.540

Paul does not merely describe the spiritual man as being characterized by suffering wrong, rather than doing wrong. Rather, Paul teaches that a Christian does not keep count of injuries, For Paul does not allow him even to pray against the man who has done wrong to him. For he knows that the Lord expressly commanded us to pray for our enemies. -Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.548

Christians are not allowed to use violence to correct the delinquencies of sins. -Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.581

Hippias [a pagan] is put to death for laying plots against the state. No Christian ever attempted such a thing on behalf of his brethren, even when persecution was scattering them abroad with every atrocity. -Tertullian (c. 195, W), 3.51

If dragged to trial, he does not resist. -Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.110

The practice of the old law was to avenge itself by the vengeance of the sword. It was to pluck out "eye for eye," and to inflict retaliatory revenge for injury. However, the practice of the new law points to clemency. -Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.154

Men of old were used to requiring "eye for eye, and tooth for tooth" and to repay evil for evil, with usury! ... But after Christ has supervened and has united the grace of faith with patience, now it is no longer lawful to attack others even with words, nor to merely say "fool," without danger of the judgment. ...Christ says, "Love your enemies and bless your curses, and pray for your persecutors." -Tertullian (c. 200, W,) 3.711

If someone attempts to provoke you by physical violence, the admonition of the Lord is at hand. He says, "To him who strikes you on the face, turn the other cheek also." Let outrageousness be worn out by your patience. Whatever that blow may be, joined with pain and scorn, it will receive a heavier one from the Lord. -Tertullian (c. 200, W), 3.712

For what difference is there between provoker and provoked? The only difference is that the former was the first to do evil, but the latter did evil afterwards. Each one stands condemned in the eyes of the Lord for hurting a man. For God both prohibits and condemns every wickedness. In evil doing, there is no account taken of the order. ... The commandment is absolute: evil is not to be repaid with evil. -Tertullian (c. 200, W), 3.713

Christ plainly teaches a new kind of long-suffering, when He actually prohibits the reprisals that the Creator permitted in requiring "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." -Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.370

The Lord will save them in that day - even His people - like sheep. ...No one gives the name of "sheep" to those who fall in battle with arms in hand, or those who are killed when repelling force with force. Rather, it is given only to those who are slain, yielding themselves up in their own place of duty and with patience - rather than fighting in self-defense. -Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.415

[Celsus, a pagan critic,] says, "They also have a teaching to this effect: that we should not avenge ourselves on one who injures us." Or, as Christ expresses it: "Whoever will strike you on the one cheek, turn the other to him also." -Origen (c. 248, E), 4.634

We revile no one, for we believe that "revilers will not inherit the kingdom of God." And we read, "Bless them that curse you; bless, and curse not." Also, "Being reviled, we bless." -Origen (c. 248, E), 4.654

Do not willingly use force and do not return force when it is used against you. -Commodianus (c. 240, W), 4.212

When a Christian is arrested, he does not resist. Nor does he avenge himself against your unrighteous violence - even though our people are numerous and plentiful. -Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.462

We may not hate. And we please God more by rendering no return for wrong. Therefore, we exhort you to make satisfaction to God. Do this while you have the power, while there yet remains in you something of life. ... We do not envy your comforts, nor do we conceal the divine benefits. We repay kindness for your hatred. In return for the torments and penalties that are inflicted on us, we point out to you the ways of salvation. -Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.465

The Christian has departed from rage and carnal contention as if from the hurricanes of the sea. He has already begun to be tranquil and meek in the harbor of Christ. Therefore, he should allow neither anger nor discord within his breath. For her must neither return evil for evil, nor bear hatred. -Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.488

Even our enemies are to be loved. -Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.546

Do no one any injury at any time; provoke no one to anger. If an injury is done to you, look to Jesus Christ. And even as you desire Him to forgive your transgressions, also forgive others theirs. -Theonas of Alexandria (c. 300, E), 6.161

Religion is to be defended - not by putting to death - but by dying. Not by cruelty, but by patient endurance. Not by guilt, but by good faith. For the former belongs to evil, but the latter to the good. ... For if you wish to defend religion by bloodshed, tortures, and guilt, it will no longer be defended. Rather, it will be polluted and profaned. ... And, therefore, when we suffer such impious things, we do not resist even in word. Rather, we leave vengeance to God. We do not act as those persons who would have it appear that they are defenders of their gods, who rage without restraint against those who do not worship them. -Lactantius (c. 304-313, W), 7.157, 158

If we all derive our origin from one man whom God created, we are clearly of one blood. Therefore, it must be considered the greatest wickedness to hate a man - even if he is guilty. On this account, God has forbidden us to ever contract enemies. Rather, they are to be eliminated, so that we sooth those who are our enemies by reminding them of their relationship. For, if we are all inspired and quickened by one God, what else are we except brothers? ... Therefore, they are to be considered as savage beasts who injure man, who - in opposition to every law and right of human nature - plunder, torture, slay, and banish. On account of this relationship of brotherhood, God teaches us never to do evil, but always good. -Lactantius (c. 304-313, W), 7.172, 173

When we suffer such ungodly things, we do not resist even in word. Rather, we leave vengeance to God. -Lactantius (c. 304-313, W), 7.158

The Christian does injury to no one. He does not desire the property of others. In fact, he does not even defend his own property if it is taken from him by violence. For he knows how to patiently bear an injury inflicted upon him. -Lactantius (c. 304-313, W), 7.160

We do not resist those who injure us, for we must yield to them. -Lactantius (c. 304-313, W), 7.182

If anyone should be so shameless as to inflict injury on a good and just man, such a man must bear it with calmness and moderation. He will not take upon himself his revenge. Rather, he will reserve it for the judgment of God. He must maintain innocence at all times and in all places. And this commandment is not limited to merely his not [being the first to] inflict injury on another. Rather, he should not even avenge it when injury is inflicted on him. For there sits on the judgment-seat a very great and impartial Judge. -Lactantius (c. 304-313, W), 7.183

Why do contests, fights, and contentions arise amongst men? Is it because impatience against injustice often excites great tempests? However, if you meet injustice with patience, then no virtue can be found more true. ... In contrast, if injustice... Has met with impatience on the same level as itself... It will ignite a great fire that no stream can extinguish, but only the shedding of blood. -Lactantius (c. 304-313, W), 7.184

In what respect then, does the wise and good man differ from the evil and foolish one? Is it not that he has unconquerable patience, of which the foolish are destitute? Is it not that he knows how to govern himself and to mitigate his anger - which those are unable to curb because they are without virtue? ...What if a man gives way to grief and anger and indulges these emotions (which he should struggle against)? What if a man does not fulfill the duty of virtue. For he who ties to return an injury desires to imitate that very person by whom he has been injured. In short, he who imitates a bad man cannot be good. -Lactantius (c. 304-313, W), 7.184

When provoked by injury, if he returns violence to his assailant, he is defeated. -Lactantius (c. 304-313, W), 7.172, 185

"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." That is the expression of justice. However, His injunction that a man who is struck on the one cheek should offer the other also - that is the expression of goodness. Now, are justice and goodness opposed to each other? Far from it! Rather, there has only ever been advancement from simple justice to positive goodness. -Disputation of Archelais and Mans (c. 320, E), 6.216

Loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the thief, the ungodly person, and the adulterer. Not as far as he sins (in respect of the action by which he stains the name of man), but as he is a man and is the work of God. -Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.426

Our religions commands us to love even our enemies, and to pray for those who persecute us... For everyone loves those who love them. It is unique to Christians to love those who hate them. -Tertullian (c. 212, W), 3.105

What else is the preservation of humanity than to love a man because he is a man and the same as ourselves? ...If it is contrary to nature to injure a man, it must be in accordance with nature to benefit a man. And he who does not do this deprives himself of the title of a man. -Lactantius (c. 304-313, W), 7.175

Ripped Apart by Wolves

The 2nd letter of Clement is not written by Clement nor is it a letter. It is the first written sermon we have outside of the New Testament though. This is a dearly loved piece of literature in church history. Often it is overlooked due to it not being canonized. The reason for it not being canonized is because of authorship. However, the Church has typically accepted it as inspired by the Spirit of God. You'll recognize familiar words and, of course, unfamiliar. Remember that John stated Jesus said and did more than was recorded in the Gospels and that all he said and did could never be contained. With that said, enjoy.

2 Clement 5

Wherefore, brethren, having left our sojourning in this world, let us do the will of him who called us, and let us not fear to depart from this world. For the Lord saith, Ye shall be as lambs in the midst of wolves. But Peter answered and saith unto him, What, then, if the wolves rend the sheep? Jesus saith unto Peter, Let not the lambs after that they are dead fear the wolves; and do not ye fear them that kill you but can do nothing more unto you, but fear him who after ye are dead hath authority over body and soul, even to cast them into hell fire. And ye know, brethren, that the sojourning of our flesh in this world is but short and for a little while, but the promise of Christ is great and wonderful, even the rest of the kingdom which is to come, and of eternal life. What, therefore, shall we do that we may attain unto them, except to lead a holy and just conversation, and to deem the things of this world to be alien unto us, and not to desire them? For while we desire to obtain these things we fall from the right way.

Laying Bricks

In March 1622, Rome surprised many -people by recognizing Isidore as a saint. He founded no order, nor did he write a single book. He was a simple farmworker who spent his life tilling the land, mostly for the same wealthy landowner. With his wife, Maria, he bore a son who died in childhood. Isidore knew the hardship, toil, and sorrow that are very familiar to many. He went to worship daily and prayed continuously in the fields, displaying the simple and profound faith shared by campesinos around the globe. It was said that angels could be seen assisting Isidore in the fields as he plowed. Though he had very little wealth, he became known for generosity and hospitality, especially to the stranger or the lonely. He died on May 15, 1130.

Jesus, we believe in your kingdom coming. Even amid pain and despair, we believe that with each brave prophet — with each unknown disciple who stretches her arm as a bridge between a broken world and a holy kingdom — you are laying another brick for the New Jerusalem. Amen.

(the above was taken from Commonprayer.net)

Sometimes our lives seems pointless. They aren't. Nothing is pointless. Everything contributes to the future. Everything can be a part of a beautiful eternity. Not everything that exists or occurs on earth is a part of God's desire or plan but he can make everything that exists or occurs work for his purposes and desires. He uses the most pointless seeming aspects of life. Yes, even the most pointless seeming lives, pointless seeming people. You and me. Brick by brick he builds Jerusalem. The Holy Spirit is the mortar binding us together. The beauty of God's Spirit is that she can bind bricks together even if they are separated by thousands of miles and years. All things are held together in Christ Jesus by his Spirit. He is growing and building and he invites us to be a part of his work with our daily lives, even in the most pointless aspects. May you see the significance of every task, every word,every thought, every relationship, every moment of your life.

1Corinthians 10:31 - "So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."

The Holy Spirit As "She"

I, at times, refer to the Holy Spirit of God (one of the three persons of the trinity which consists of Father, Son and Holy Spirit) as "she". This turns a lot of heads, perks ears, and lifts eyebrows nearly every time I do it. Why? Because it is unfamiliar language? Yes, in part. Because it sounds fallacious or heretical? Perhaps. But is it heretical or even fallacious? I submit that not only is this practice not veering into incorrect theology but is greatly beneficial to Christians, especially male Christians.

First, we all have to admit that God is not a man. He is not a man as male humans are men. Jesus Christ was fully human and a male, yes, but God (the Godhead) is not a man. He does not have a penis or any other aspect that culminates the definition of a male. A person of God is man (but also God) but God in One is not a man. Man was made in the image of God. Male and female He created them (Genesis 1:27). Both men and women reflect who God is by their very nature. That means God can not be confined to one of their created natures. Therefore we must confess that God, being other and greater than humans, transcends gender. He is neither male nor female for he is beyond. He is other. He is God. Or, as he once stated to Moses, "I Am." Many refer to God as tertium quid which means "third thing." He's completely different from us.

Even though God transcends gender we often refer to God (and all three persons of the Trinity) as "he" in scripture. Why? Well there are several good reasons I'm sure but the most obvious would be culture. In a world dominated by men (sadly this is still true today) it only makes sense to call God "he". Yet we know that He is not in our image but we in His. This is true of both us fellas and us ladies. We're all in His image. But we have this longstanding tradition of referring to God as a "he". I observe this tradition. Why wouldn't I? Scripture started the tradition! We have to do what we can with what we've got. Now we have to ask if there is tradition of referring to God or any of His persons as "she". Jesus Christ is not a "she" and certainly the Father is not a "she" but what about the Holy Spirit?

First, we need to rewind a tiny bit. Jesus Christ was a man. He was male. He was human. Right? Right. But he is also called the Wisdom of God (Proverbs 8:22). That's interesting. At the same time, the Spirit of God is also often looked upon as the Wisdom of God. For many through time there is a deep connection between God's Wisdom and Spirit. Throughout the Proverbs Wisdom is referred to as a woman, a female, a "she". Interesting again. But Jesus isn't a woman. He isn't just the Wisdom of God and yet He is still the Wisdom of God. But let's not forget, for what it is worth, this connection exists. But what of the Spirit? The Spirit is not like Jesus Christ. Spirit is not human, not male. So would it be wrong to refer to the Spirit as "he"? No. Scripture does this at times. What about "she"? This requires more examining of God and tradition. I would suggest here that referring to Spirit as "it" is insufficient and treating a personal being as impersonal.

God is like a father in many ways. God is also like a mother in many ways. He gives us life and births us (in Him we are born again), nurtures us, comforts us, feeds us, and so on. He's a working father and a stay at home mother all at once. He provides all we need. We are his children, born of him, protected by him, raised by him. How does much of this nurturing occur? Through the Spirit of course for she is our helper. The more feminine (as traditionally defined by culture) aspects of God seem to line up with the activity of the Spirit. In fact, this is so true that early Church Fathers such as Origen and Jerome stated "My Mother, the Holy Spirit, seized me." This answers our earlier question of whether there is tradition of God being called "she". Church fathers certainly referred to a person of the trinity as "she" and there are scriptural connections to the concept of God being feminine even though scripture refers to the Spirit as "he."

At the end of the day, I can find no reason why it would be any more wrong to deem the Holy Spirit "she" as opposed to "he". At the least we can say that "she" is more appropriate than "it." At the same time, "he" is entirely appropriate and more common. Again, the authors of the scriptures chose to use "he" when speaking of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit shouldn't be confined to either "he" or "she" it seems according to tradition as we've seen in Origen and Jerome. For many Christians this is a practice that could help remind them of the important role women play in creation and the way they reflect Creator God who gives us life. This may be uncomfortable for many, especially men, but I have found it to be incredibly enriching. Perhaps we all ought to try it from time to time, in the write context (when referring to the feminine aspects of the Spirit).