FOXNews.com - U.S. & World - Faith Helped Courthouse Shootings Hostage

The article discusses Ashley Smith, the last person whom shooting suspect Brian Nichols took hostage before finally surrendering to authorities. He forced his way into her apartment, and also restrained her by force--and I will "close the curtain of charity"--to say nothing of modesty--on the manner of the restraint he used. And how did she survive the ordeal? By talking to him, and urging him to face the consequences of his sins by surrendering to lawful authority. At one point, he removed the restraints, and demanded "some real food"--whereupon she prepared him a hearty breakfast. In the end, he did exactly as she urged him to do: he surrendered.

Many people are making entirely too much of the frankly congenial manner in which she interacted with the suspect. Some have suggested that she herself surrendered to the "Stockholm Syndrome," named after a large group of hostages who displayed affection for their hostage taker when authorities rescued them and apprehended their captor. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have both mentioned those assessments--only to condemn them, of course.

Let's look at this case carefully and dispassionately:

1. When she found herself taken hostage, she had a judgment to make, and a judgment only she would be in any position to make. Only she could have determined whether the hostage taker was amenable to the kind of moral suasion she decided to employ, and only she, in any event, could have decided how best to save herself from becoming his fifth victim. No one--least of all a bunch of smart second-guessers--has the right to question her actions in any way, shape or form. Not unless she had done anything tantamount to treason--which she did not do.
2. Judge her actions by their result: she is safe and unharmed, and he is in custody, and that without having harmed or threatened anyone else.
3. Everything she said is exactly in accord with Holy Scriptures. She offered the suspect what amounted to forgiveness for the threats he issued, and the way he forced his way into her life without being invited. (We have no evidence that he forced himself upon her in any more intimate way.) She shared her faith with him--and "witnessing" is an elementary instruction to any Christian. And she urged him to surrender to lawful authority--just as St. Paul specifically said, "Let every soul subject itself to the ruling authorities"--a fancy phrase that includes the police. [Romans 13:1] And he took her advice.

Had she acted after the fashion that some of the second-guessers might have urged, she would probably be dead. And now anyone who wants to criticize her must ask himself what her death would gain. If he were a cold-hearted terrorist, nothing she did might have availed her anything--but I don't think anyone can assert that giving him a square meal would have posed any great national-security compromise even if he were a terrorist. The point is that right now he's not a threat to anyone--in fact, he's in custody (which is fancy Latin for "under guard")--so I'd say that she won the grand slam in hearts, the rubber, and the match.