To Whom Much Has Been Given, Much is Required

 I just finished reading a book where the author criticizes political progressives for their "renaming" of criminals. This wasn't the main point of his book, but it stuck out to me for obvious reasons. I'm a prisoner convicted of a crime. 

This author claims that progressives believe if you are nice to criminals, they will be nice to you. He uses the progressive tendency to rename criminals and ex-cons as his evidence of the progressive agenda. "Ex-cons" are now "returning citizens," and "formerly incarcerated persons" are now "justice-involved person." His point is a bit of an oversimplification, in my view. 
I have chosen to refer to ex-cons as returning citizens on this blog because it comports with my view that people should not be defined by their worst choices. I say choices rather than mistakes because many of us knowingly chose to commit our crimes. We didn't "make a mistake" like using cream of tartar instead of baking powder in a cake. Our choices were deliberate and very wrong. 
I agree with this author that progressives often take their points too far. For example, their tendency to shift the blame to society for someone's criminal choices. Social forces do contribute to a person's moral (or immoral) development, and often people are socialized into criminality. But the conscious choice to break the law is still the responsibility of the person who does so. With distinct exceptions (severe mental illness, for example), someone who breaks the law bears the responsibility for that choice, and for its consequences.
Nevertheless, I was disheartened by this author's criticism against "destigmatization," especially because he is a well-known Christian pastor. I am a Christian as well, and I believe Christians are called to a radical grace that is counter cultural. Regardless of the motives of so-called progressives, Christians ought to be leading the way in restoring those who have broken trust with society, not rejecting attempts at restorative justice because it's "too soft on crime." 
Jesus was counter cultural in his approach, and Christians ought to look to Jesus as their model. Jesus required responsibility and restitution, but he also offered restoration.
Jesus said that people who do evil things do so "in the dark" lest their evil be seen (John 8:20). But Jesus points out that these people will be held accountable for their evil. People are responsible for their own actions, in other words. 
When Jesus encountered a woman who had been caught in adultery, the ancient law demanded her death. But Jesus' response required both responsibility and offered restoration. "Neither do I condemn you. Go...and sin no more" (John 8:11). He called her to responsibility ("stop sinning") and then restored her to right standing in society ("go," when the law demanded justice). 
Let me be quick to say that I am not advocating that people who commit crimes should not be held accountable for those crimes. They should be. I am merely pointing out that Christians, especially, ought to be in the business of seeking to restore to wholeness those who have committed crimes. And wholeness includes rejection of stigmatization. 
Lawbreakers who serve their time in prison, and especially those who have taken responsibility for their crimes, should be restored to full citizenship, to wholeness. Insisting on calling them "ex-cons" emphasizes the sins of the past. Christians, especially, ought to celebrate the grace of redemption, not insist on stigmatizing labels that remind everyone of a person's worst choices. 
Responsibility, and if appropriate restitution, ought to always precede restoration, but restoration ought to be the aim. Wholeness ought to be the goal, especially for those who have been made whole in Christ.