School Shootings: Should the Parents Forgive the Shooters?

Since the first widely publicized school shooting in Columbine in 1999, our media has been flooded with horrific news reports of school shootings. According to Infoplease, there have been 38 worldwide school shootings reported in the nine years since Columbine.

In the aftermath of these shocking news reports of school shootings, journalists and talk show hosts have turned their attention to the causes and effects of these senseless tragedies. An unexpected theme has emerged. Some of the parents of the victims are publicly forgiving the shooters. This theme seems to baffle the media.

Our culture tends to be sceptical of those who offer mercy when outrage is expected. The ability to forgive those who do us harm does not come easily or naturally to most people. Our instinctive response is generally some combination of anger and a desire to seek justice or revenge. After the Columbine shooting, for example, journalists lamented that because both shooters committed suicide; there would be no arrests or trial through which the victims could vent their outrage.

Only 8 days after the highly publicized shootings at Columbine, Jason Lang, son of Anglican minister Dale Lang, was fatally shot by a fellow student at W.R. Myers High School in Taber, Alberta, Canada. Rev. Lang told reporters, “I forgave the young man who murdered our son, and I still don’t know how I did it.” Was this statement genuine, or just the response that a minister would give because the public would expect it from a man of the cloth?

More recently, in October of 2006, a shooting at an Amish school in Pennsylvania was the subject of much media discussion when the families of the murdered girls expressed a response of forgiveness and reconciliation. On the day of the shooting, a grandfather was heard warning some young relatives not to hate the killer, saying, “We must not think evil of this man.” Another Amish father noted, “He had a mother and a wife and a soul and now he’s standing before a just God.”

This compassionate response drew much media criticism. Some commentators argued that forgiveness is inappropriate where no remorse has been expressed, and that such an attitude runs the risk of denying the existence of evil. Others expressed skepticism that true forgiveness of such evil is even possible.

I believe that the interviewers are asking legitimate questions. For example:

• Is forgiveness appropriate when no remorse has been expressed?
• Does forgiveness result in injustice, allowing criminals to escape due punishment?
• Don’t victims of crime deserve to vent their outrage?
• Can true healing take place when victims do not see justice?
• Will a perceived lack of due process lead to vigilante or revenge seeking behaviour?

Do people like Rev. Lang and the Amish possess some sort of divine, super-human shielding to protect them from the pain and the desire for revenge? No, they are fully human. They experience pain and anguish as deeply as all humans do. In fact, when Jesus Christ Himself visited our planet and took on human flesh, He experienced pain, hunger, outrage, and anguish; plus all of the temptations that come with being human. The super-human part was that He experienced the emotions but did not sin.

The Christian faith teaches us that forgiveness is to be an integral part of our character. Like any other character trait, it needs to be consciously chosen as our response to the world around us. We need frequent reminders, so Christ taught us to pray daily: forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us. He also taught us to forgive a brother not seven times a day, but seventy times seven – in other words – beyond counting. The apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13:5 “love is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.” Rev. Lang told Christianity.ca that “It’s not about practicing forgiveness, it’s about living in that relationship with Jesus Christ – that’s where forgiveness can flow out of us.” Although Rev. Lang is very clear about the fact that forgiveness, for him, was a choice – an almost instant and complete act – he is just as clear about the reality that the pain will always remain. He continues: “I have just gotten more used to living with the pain of losing my son…Forgiving does not necessarily mean forgetting. Forgiveness decides to absorb what can’t be repaid.”

Perhaps you the reader are thinking at this point something to the effect of “these killers of innocent school students do not deserve to be forgiven.” My answer is that we have all sinned, none of us are worthy of God’s grace or mercy. In God’s eye, sin is sin. One who hates a fellow human is as guilty as one who murders. The sin of lust is to God the same as the sin of adultery (Matthew 5: 27 – 32) God doesn’t rank different sins on a hierarchy as we do – to Him sin is sin. But the wonder of God is that all sin was paid for by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Anyone who accepts the incredible gift of atonement is forgiven of all sin – whether we have stolen a pack of gum or murdered seven classmates.

Does the fact that Rev. Lang and the Amish community have forgiven the offenders mean that they escape justice? Not at all. The offenders are still accountable to the justice system, and ultimately to God. What forgiveness does is to give up the right to seek vengeance, and to nurse the grudge in the heart. Nursing a grudge is like swallowing poison and then expecting the one who offended you to die. Forgiving frees us from anger and bitterness, which could take root and eat away the soul of the victim. Letting someone “off the hook” means that the victim is no longer connected to the offender.

If you are waiting until you feel like forgiving, you never will. Forgiving is a choice, not an emotion. It doesn’t mean that what the other person did was okay. It doesn’t mean that you have to restore the relationship or start trusting the one who has hurt you. If litigation or a court case is warranted, forgiving doesn’t mean that that the victim has to drop the charges, refuse to testify against the offender, or forfeit damages owed. It doesn’t mean that an abused spouse should go back to an abusive relationship. Justice still needs to be served. However, our society as a whole suffers the consequences when frivolous lawsuits and vigilante justice are condoned or even encouraged.