Andrea Yates: Guilty as sin
Andrea Yates: Guilty as sin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 28, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Andrea Yates, by her own admission, murdered her five children. So, how is it possible that she can be considered "not guilty"? Her children were murdered. She committed the crime. She confessed it. Case closed. Her state of mind, sane or insane, is of no relevance whatsoever, nor should it even be considered a mitigating factor. In the world of "whodoneits," this one is a no-brainer. She done it. It's a fact. Any sane person can see that, and anyone who can't is, perhaps, more insane than Andrea Yates. The truth is she is guilty by reason of insanity.
But if she isn't guilty, then who is? Who's to blame? The thoughtless husband? The negligent psychiatrist? While I think a number of people close to Yates can all have a slice of the blame pie, in the end, she's the one who drowned the kids.
The whole notion that one can be considered "not guilty by reason of insanity" is, itself, a product of madness or, at the very least, a perverse form of logic. The whole premise is flawed. Guilt is determined by the commission of a wrongful act, not the "reason" for the act. Indeed, the commission of any crime would seem to demonstrate an utter lack of reason. Criminals are notoriously stupid. When it comes to crime, there is no true reason, in any sense of the word. Motive, not reason, would be the correct term here, and it's important to remember that the motive for a crime is always used as evidence in proving guilt, not innocence. One's motive does not grant absolution, as the verdict would suggest. What a not-guilty verdict really means in this case is "not accountable."
So, what was Yates' motive? In other words, why did she do it? Humanist psychology and moral relativism yield no satisfactory answers to this question because they do not recognize sin. Yes, I said sin. Andrea Yates is guilty of not just a crime, but a sin. An unspeakable sin. Five times over. And who can understand sin? The Bible calls it "the mystery of iniquity." If we put aside our worldly "knowledge" of the human heart and mind, however, and look at what God teaches us about them, I think we can push closer to the heart of that mystery.
Andrea Yates has been described as a high achiever. She set high standards for herself in her previous academic and professional careers, and when she became a mother, she was determined to meet those same high standards. She was a perfectionist. She wanted to do everything perfectly, including raising her children. She wanted to be a perfect mother. She wanted perfect children. Anything less was unacceptable.
Striving for perfection, however, is a fruitless and dangerous pursuit, not only because it is unattainable, but because it is a sin. It is a product of pride. Pride, in God's eyes, is a detestable sin. It is the mother of all sin, one of the seven deadly sins. Why does God hate pride so much? Because it breaks our fellowship with Him. Because it is an attempt to usurp His sovereignty. Because it makes us rely on our own power, and not God's. Because it makes us trust ourselves, not God. Because it makes us lust for more power. Because it makes us stubborn, greedy, envious, covetous and perverse in every way. Because it compels us to lie, steal and murder. Because it drives us crazy. Yates' homicidal mania was not caused by insanity, but by pride. Her insanity was just one link in a degenerate chain of sin that began with pride.
Andrea Yates considered herself a Christian, a fact the media take a wicked delight in trumpeting. But her actions reveal that she was never a true believer to begin with. Simply put, real Christians don't murder their children. Moreover, real Christians know that salvation depends on God's grace, not on their own merits and achievements. In Yates' fevered mind, her children's salvation was to be her magnum opus, her crowning achievement, for it was her belief that, if her children died before they went astray and before the age at which they would be held accountable for their sins, then their salvation would be assured. Mission accomplished!
"But," you might say, "she said she felt inadequate. How can that be prideful?" It is prideful because she believed that her actions, not God's, would save them. She trusted in her own accomplishment, not in what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross. She relied on her own plans, not God's. We're all inadequate, and we know it, but believers know that that is precisely why we must humbly trust in God, unlike the proud who desperately search for answers only within their woefully inadequate selves.
While her children's salvation seems assured, what also seems assured is Yates' own damnation. I'm not saying that she has committed an unforgivable sin, because God's grace is sufficient to cover all sins. What I am saying is that I believe that on the road to perdition, a sinner can reach a point of no return. There are sins so heinous that the sinner is incapable of confronting them. If Andrea Yates were to look at the destruction she has wrought, the grief would probably kill her, and so she won't. If I could ask Yates just one question, it would be "How can you live with yourself?" I'll attempt to answer my own question by saying that she can live with herself precisely because she is content to make excuses for herself. More pride. Pride is the antithesis of humility, and without humility, there can be no recognition and confession of sin, and without confession, there can be no repentance, and without repentance, there can be no forgiveness. And therein lies what is perhaps the saddest irony in all of this: While her children may be in heaven, it seems likely that she never will be. For Yates, hell will be a continual reminder that she will be eternally separated from them, never to be reunited.
So, is she really "not accountable"? Not in this world, evidently. But God will hold her accountable in the next. Although man's justice, like Andrea Yates, is far from perfect, we may comfort ourselves with the blessed assurance that God's justice is always perfect. Such assurance will provide no comfort to her defenders, however, whom God will also hold accountable for their complicity in her sins.
Elizabeth Shimabuku
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 28, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Andrea Yates, by her own admission, murdered her five children. So, how is it possible that she can be considered "not guilty"? Her children were murdered. She committed the crime. She confessed it. Case closed. Her state of mind, sane or insane, is of no relevance whatsoever, nor should it even be considered a mitigating factor. In the world of "whodoneits," this one is a no-brainer. She done it. It's a fact. Any sane person can see that, and anyone who can't is, perhaps, more insane than Andrea Yates. The truth is she is guilty by reason of insanity.
But if she isn't guilty, then who is? Who's to blame? The thoughtless husband? The negligent psychiatrist? While I think a number of people close to Yates can all have a slice of the blame pie, in the end, she's the one who drowned the kids.
The whole notion that one can be considered "not guilty by reason of insanity" is, itself, a product of madness or, at the very least, a perverse form of logic. The whole premise is flawed. Guilt is determined by the commission of a wrongful act, not the "reason" for the act. Indeed, the commission of any crime would seem to demonstrate an utter lack of reason. Criminals are notoriously stupid. When it comes to crime, there is no true reason, in any sense of the word. Motive, not reason, would be the correct term here, and it's important to remember that the motive for a crime is always used as evidence in proving guilt, not innocence. One's motive does not grant absolution, as the verdict would suggest. What a not-guilty verdict really means in this case is "not accountable."
So, what was Yates' motive? In other words, why did she do it? Humanist psychology and moral relativism yield no satisfactory answers to this question because they do not recognize sin. Yes, I said sin. Andrea Yates is guilty of not just a crime, but a sin. An unspeakable sin. Five times over. And who can understand sin? The Bible calls it "the mystery of iniquity." If we put aside our worldly "knowledge" of the human heart and mind, however, and look at what God teaches us about them, I think we can push closer to the heart of that mystery.
Andrea Yates has been described as a high achiever. She set high standards for herself in her previous academic and professional careers, and when she became a mother, she was determined to meet those same high standards. She was a perfectionist. She wanted to do everything perfectly, including raising her children. She wanted to be a perfect mother. She wanted perfect children. Anything less was unacceptable.
Striving for perfection, however, is a fruitless and dangerous pursuit, not only because it is unattainable, but because it is a sin. It is a product of pride. Pride, in God's eyes, is a detestable sin. It is the mother of all sin, one of the seven deadly sins. Why does God hate pride so much? Because it breaks our fellowship with Him. Because it is an attempt to usurp His sovereignty. Because it makes us rely on our own power, and not God's. Because it makes us trust ourselves, not God. Because it makes us lust for more power. Because it makes us stubborn, greedy, envious, covetous and perverse in every way. Because it compels us to lie, steal and murder. Because it drives us crazy. Yates' homicidal mania was not caused by insanity, but by pride. Her insanity was just one link in a degenerate chain of sin that began with pride.
Andrea Yates considered herself a Christian, a fact the media take a wicked delight in trumpeting. But her actions reveal that she was never a true believer to begin with. Simply put, real Christians don't murder their children. Moreover, real Christians know that salvation depends on God's grace, not on their own merits and achievements. In Yates' fevered mind, her children's salvation was to be her magnum opus, her crowning achievement, for it was her belief that, if her children died before they went astray and before the age at which they would be held accountable for their sins, then their salvation would be assured. Mission accomplished!
"But," you might say, "she said she felt inadequate. How can that be prideful?" It is prideful because she believed that her actions, not God's, would save them. She trusted in her own accomplishment, not in what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross. She relied on her own plans, not God's. We're all inadequate, and we know it, but believers know that that is precisely why we must humbly trust in God, unlike the proud who desperately search for answers only within their woefully inadequate selves.
While her children's salvation seems assured, what also seems assured is Yates' own damnation. I'm not saying that she has committed an unforgivable sin, because God's grace is sufficient to cover all sins. What I am saying is that I believe that on the road to perdition, a sinner can reach a point of no return. There are sins so heinous that the sinner is incapable of confronting them. If Andrea Yates were to look at the destruction she has wrought, the grief would probably kill her, and so she won't. If I could ask Yates just one question, it would be "How can you live with yourself?" I'll attempt to answer my own question by saying that she can live with herself precisely because she is content to make excuses for herself. More pride. Pride is the antithesis of humility, and without humility, there can be no recognition and confession of sin, and without confession, there can be no repentance, and without repentance, there can be no forgiveness. And therein lies what is perhaps the saddest irony in all of this: While her children may be in heaven, it seems likely that she never will be. For Yates, hell will be a continual reminder that she will be eternally separated from them, never to be reunited.
So, is she really "not accountable"? Not in this world, evidently. But God will hold her accountable in the next. Although man's justice, like Andrea Yates, is far from perfect, we may comfort ourselves with the blessed assurance that God's justice is always perfect. Such assurance will provide no comfort to her defenders, however, whom God will also hold accountable for their complicity in her sins.
Elizabeth Shimabuku
posted by shummer60 at Saturday, July 29, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home