Is it forgiving versus forgetting?
"We are not going to cut him off," says the Rev. Michael Clark, pastor of accused BTK killer Dennis Rader. "I could tell that he was relieved. He is still a part of the body of Christ -- and that is something some people will have a hard time hearing."
Rader, charged with 10 brutal killings over the past three decades, remains president of the Christ Lutheran Church Council, although he will eventually have to relinquish some church leadership positions, Clark says.
I was leaving church recently and walking near me was a young man charged with robbing a bank. He is out on bond awaiting trial. I was glad to see him there -- and wanted to say so, but wanted to respect his otherwise near anonimity. He was a good kid who had a lapse in judgment, say those who know him.
I believe in forgiveness and repentence but I don't think Rader should be in a faith leadership position in whatever house of worship he attends. Is it forgiving and not forgetting -- well, yes.
Comments (4)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
This raises interesting questions. There are many unknowns, I think. For instance, we don't know if Rader has expressed remorse, though we have heard rumors of confessions to police.
I can't help wondering if this pastor is standing by Rader based on the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty." This man has been charged, but he has not been tried or convicted.
One other thing this reminds me of. A story from a book called "Bodies Under Seige."
"Gilles de Rais supposedly sodomized, mutilated, and murdered more than 700 children. At his trial he told of his usual procedure..." of murder and so forth. "At his trial de Rais repented, and the bishop of Nantes was forced to receive him back into the church."
It seems very possible that Rader could be very similar to this person, in that he might express remorse, but you'd always have to wonder. Personally, I expect his tenure as council president to be short-lived. I can't speak to his status as a "member of the body of Christ."
Posted on March 9, 2005 8:14 AM
OK, I can see not putting him out of the church because yes, he is "innocent until proven guilty" but I don't know that I would want him ministering to me or whatever until all of that was worked out.
Posted on March 9, 2005 11:53 AM
"Innocent until proven guilty...". Is that not a moot point, morally speaking, if the accused described in detail his guilt? We are not discussing WHY he did what he confessed to doing, only his guilt or innocence. Seems to me if the man admitted his guilt, without pressure from anyone to do so and gave details to prove his guilt, we have no moral obligation to dismiss his confession and wait until a jury proves his guilt? Maybe I'm missing something here but I can't wrap my brain around what it might be. Anyone care to enlighten me?
Posted on March 14, 2005 6:37 AM
I think it's a legality thing, Yvonne. This fellow might have talked to police when he was arrested, but we don't know the details, and the reports I've read all say that this is unconfirmed. But until he's tried and convicted, his status is "innocent" as far as the government is concerned.
Really, I would expect Rader, if he's been open with the police, to plead guilty and have done with it. Unfortunately, he sounds like a control freak sort of person, and just as likely to plead innocent by reason of insanity, just to drag out the process in court and extend his days of media attention.
But I agree with you. If the pastor of his church can reliably determine that Rader has confessed, I would think he was morally obligated to at the very least rescind the man's position of authority within the church. That would just be common sense.
Of course, the church isn't going to announce much about its internal dealing to the public, and who could blame them? Still, it's an interesting story so far.
Posted on March 14, 2005 3:33 PM