The relevance of repentance in response to abuse

Two things I hear that rationalise abuse too often:

“Don’t judge yesterday by today’s standards,” is one, and “None of us is without sin,” is the other, usually using Jesus’ sticking up for the woman caught in adultery as prooftext — “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” ([John 8:7])

Well, the problem with the latter rationalisation is context.  Jesus was protecting a weaker party who had no power against a throng of powerful religious leaders who had a legal right to kill her.  We cannot use that context to protect a more powerful person by minimising their acts of abusing someone far more vulnerable.  We cannot use the ‘none of us is without sin’ rationale to protect someone who has done wicked deeds to another AND who has continued to deny it.

The contexts are worlds apart, though we could easily imagine Jesus advocating for the survivor of abuse who is being maligned to spiritual death — which happens.

The other one is about applying some kind of ‘yesterday’s standard’ argument.  The standards for sin do not change.  What was a sin 50 years ago is the same sin today.

Perhaps as a society we’re finally waking up to what’s appropriate versus what’s inappropriate.  Or maybe we’re conditioned less to overlook the abuses that are injustices for all time.  There will no doubt be many sociological reasons why, but what is wrong now was always wrong and will always be wrong.

One of the matters that’s central to all this is the truth that we’re all sinners.  But some sinners are more equal than others in terms of God.  Let me explain what might seem like a bizarre statement.

Those who have acknowledged their need of God, their need of forgiveness, those who have repented; these we call believers.

It’s not too far a stretch to apply that to the believer’s sin: they acknowledge it when they do it, they seek forgiveness for it, they repent of it.

This is what we might call an example of faith in action.

Conversely, a sinner who does not acknowledge their sin, who does not seek forgiveness, and who doesn’t repent — whether before God or a fellow human being — really isn’t a Christian; a Christ-follower.  Their behaviour isn’t consistent with the character of Christian faith.  They may believe in Jesus all they like, but as James 2:19 says, “even demons believe that — and shudder.”

Faith without deeds, the lack of repentance in this case, is the practice of heresy because Christian faith is not just about the words we preach, it’s much more about action.  How have we met our obligation to love one another?  This is the key question of our expression of Christian faith.

The fact is we have all sinned, and we all do sin, BUT why do we protect the one who says they haven’t, especially when another has a claim to a different narrative — where a person is known to have transgressed yet refuses to own it?  (Also, in this context, refer to 1 John 1:8-10.)

The initial sin can become almost immaterial when there is a blatant denial of serious wrongdoing.  The initial sin was horrendous, but how much worse is the cover up?

So, with all that, we can know that there are different standards to apply to different responses to sin.

When sin is acknowledged by the perpetrator, forgiveness of the abused is sought, and repentance is apparent, all varieties of restoration are possible.  Jesus’ final command, “Love one another” can still possibly be fulfilled.  Such justice on earth as in heaven.

But when the perpetrator refuses to own what they did, they don’t seek to be ‘forgiven’ (because they probably felt entitled to do what they did or thought they would get away with it), and therefore there is no repentance, justice is required as well as vindication of the survivor.

Photo by Marek Piwnicki on Unsplash