In her 20 minutes in front of the jury of her peers to plead for her life, Jodi Arias made a variety of suggestions as to why she shouldn't be executed for the premeditated and brutal murder of her boyfriend. She was a nice person, you see. Why, she donated her hair to Locks of Love for wigs for cancer patients. She wanted to sell t-shirts and give the proceeds to organizations for battered women. She wanted to teach fellow inmates to speak Spanish. I mean, how could you execute such a good person? One of the more interesting arguments she made went something like this. "I'm going to spend the rest of my life in prison. It can be a long time or a short time. You decide if it's a short time. So the only ones that will suffer if it's a short time will be my family because I'll be dead. So I beg you not to hurt my family like that. I want the healing to begin for everyone." Sigh. It kind of makes you want to hug her and say, "Look, Jodi, we're sorry for convicting you of that heinous crime, and the fact that you're currently the most hated woman in America is all wrong." Kind of. Or not.
Jodi, however, raises the question. Really? Execution? How is that helpful? How is that just? How does that punish the guilty? And, more importantly, how can a pro-life person stand for it? I mean, look at the Gosnell case. We're pro-life and opposed to doing what he did -- killing babies -- and we're suggesting he ought to be killed for doing it. Oh, wait. Does that work? Does it? Indeed, statistically it appears that almost all pro-life folk in the question of abortion are also pro-death-penalty folk in the question of murder (and other similar crimes). Isn't that contradictory?
The first thing to consider comes from my own worldview. If it is true that the Bible is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice, that the Bible is indeed the Word of God, then I have to ask, "Is it biblical?" And, as it turns out, it clearly is. After the Flood, God told Noah, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image" (Gen 9:6). And, lest you think that was an "Old Testament thing, no longer applicable today", Paul told the Romans that God ordains governments and that they are right to carry out the death penalty on wrong-doers (Romans 13:1-5). Sorry, folks, that "Old Testament" argument won't stand up. It's for us as well.
The Bible makes it clear why God ordained the death penalty in cases of murder. It is a matter of justice. Not human justice. God's justice. It is a matter of value. Humans are made in the image of God. If you maliciously destroy that image, you owe a debt to God that cannot be paid with "life in prison" or any such thing. It requires a kind-for-kind payment. Justice is at issue here. Not revenge. Not payback. And not "suffering" like Arias suggested. Payment.
Another aspect is shown in Scripture as well. Paul wrote to Timothy, "Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear" (1 Tim 5:19-20). The elder who persisted in sin was publicly rebuked "so that the rest may stand in fear." Deterrence. Now, some have argued that the death penalty for murder does not deter, but Solomon wisely wrote, "Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil" (Eccl 8:11). Our modern failure to carry out a just sentence does not equate to the lack of deterrence. In truth, when there are known and rather unpleasant consequences for a crime, less people commit them.
Deterrence brings up, as it turns out, a key component of this line of thinking. If we are pro-life, we are in favor of protecting life. Deterring people from murdering would do just that. Thus, if "the sentence against an evil deed" (the death penalty in this case) is executed speedily, there would rationally be a reduction in murders. As a consequence, life would enjoy greater protection. As it is, murderers represent a threat to the innocent and to the harmony of society, and deterring people from remaining or becoming this threat is certainly pro-life.
One other key point: Pro-life specifically argues for the protection of innocent human life, consistent with Genesis 9:6. Otherwise, God has a real problem ... with Himself. "Look, God," the argument might go, "if You made man in Your own image and we are required to kill those who kill those made in Your image, aren't we killing those made in Your image?" Circular, you see? But God didn't think so. Thus, it is not simple killing in view when the death penalty is carried out. It is the execution of the guilty and the protection of the innocent. (Note that God instituted different punishments, for instance, in cases of accidental murder. A matter of guilty and innocent.)
In a discussion like this the objection will certainly be raised about the specifics. We know, for instance, that the poor have been executed far more often than the rich. (Exhibit A: O.J. Simpson.) And statistically race has played too much of a factor. And the news is full of too many times that people have been arrested and convicted and sometimes even executed only to discover that they were innocent. That's not good. But I need to point out that that's different argument. Can we justly and faithfully try people for murder, convict them, and execute them? Does practice meet principle? Being human, we have problems with justice. And we need, as far as we are able, to address those problems. The biblical standard was "two or three witnesses". We convict without any. And even with that standard we know that people lie. (See Jesus's trial with the Sanhedrin if you doubt it.) So much of a problem is this that the Roman Catholic Church has officially stated that capital punishment is wrong on this basis. We can't know, so don't do it.
I would argue that God disagrees (Gen 9:6; Rom 13:1-5). I would argue that God expects humans to carry out the death penalty in cases of murder. But more importantly, I would argue that the Bible, justice, the deterrence aspect, the protection of life that it would bring, and the distinction between innocent and guilty human life all combine to demonstrate the principle that the death penalty is pro-life and those who are followers of Christ and the Word of God should also be both pro-life and in favor of the death penalty. It is completely understandable that the latter might be a matter of concern given our unjust track record, but that wouldn't change the principle, would it? We would just have to work on the outworking of it. On the other hand, trying to correlate Scripture with an anti-death-penalty stance would seem to make God out to be evil, since He commanded it, so I'm going to have to stand on this side of the question. I'm pro-life, and I'm pro-death penalty.
27 comments:
A pastor over in Scotland has been doing an excellent series of articles about the death penalty, which I highly recommend. His latest one is
http://mindrenewers.com/2013/05/16/the-death-penalty-civic-purposes/
The links to previous articles in the series are on this article, so you can see them all.
You can’t reconcile being pro-life on abortion and pro-death on the death penalty. Almost all the early Christian Fathers were opposed to the death penalty, even though it was of course standard practice across the ancient world. As far as they were concerned, their stance went along with the traditional ancient Jewish and Christian belief in life as a gift from God, which is why (for instance) they refused to follow the ubiquitous pagan practice of ‘exposing’ baby girls (i.e. leaving them out for the wolves or for slave-traders to pick up). ~N.T. Wright
As Christians, we receive our salvation from the justifying righteousness of God. We reject all forms of retributive justice. We reject the death penalty in the name of God. Democratic governments are governments of the people. Just as the people are not allowed to lie, steal, or kill, neither are governments. We Germans know, how cruelly dictatorships lie, steal, and kill. We reject the death penalty in the name of democratic humanitarianism. ~Jurgen Moltmann
The early Christians, most bible scholars and theologians today assert you cannot be *pro-life* AND pro-death-penalty.
Naum, I offered biblical reasons why it is possible (necessary?) to be both pro-life and pro-death penalty. You offered ... N.T. Wright and Jurgen Moltmann and "most bible scholars and theologians today". Unless convinced by Scripture and evident reason, I will have to stand where I am.
Neither Wright nor Moltmann nor "most bible scholars and theologians today" provide any explanation how one can agree with God when He commanded the death penalty for murder (Gen 9) as well as for a multitude of crimes in the Mosaic Law and your group of "bible scholars and theologians" when we reject His command.
Indeed, as it turns out, almost all the early Christian Fathers were opposed to any sort of death, but it did not remain so. Augustine, for instance, affirmed capital punishment as a means of deterring the wicked and protecting the innocent.
If you'd like me to change my view, you'll have to offer something better than N.T. Wright or "most bible scholars and theologians today" to get me to believe that God was wrong in the first case and finally figured out the right way to go.
I would point out, Naum, that Glenn's link and my post both do what N.T. Wright says can't be done.
The death penalty in the Bible was not so much connected to justice as it was to sacrifice. Namely, a human was sacred since she or he was made in God’s image, and the whole “life for a life” was about expiation and not justice restored or balanced. But if sacrifice has realized its end, namely, has found its completion in the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, it therefore has come to an end. The cross of Christ as the completion of all atonement has meant that the sacred act of expiation is no longer needed. Thus, the redemptive trend or a salvation-historical plot that brings to end death as expiation for murder.
Gen 9 is to be read like Exo 21 (retaliation limit!) -- more as "limit" and not a "commandment".
John 8, shows that Jesus posed the death penalty over against two issues over which the death penalty fell short: the more authority of the judge or executioner and the authority Jesus had to forgive. Thus, death penalty is put in the context of expiation and not penal judgment.
I'm glad you're attempting to address biblical questions. It appears, however, that the claims are out of thin air. About sacrifice? But, let's consider your basic premise (which appears to be Moltmann's): Christ has expiated all sin. Ergo, no more justice is required. Do away with prisons, the justice system, civil authority, any of that, right? Because Christ has expiated all sin. And, of course, Christianity can sit down and shut up as well because if all sin is expiated, all are going to heaven. (God would be unjust to damn anyone for expiated sin.) I don't know why one would argue that murder is expiated but other crimes are not.
The problem with the idea that it no longer applies is that Paul's epistle to the Romans (written after the death and resurrection of Christ) says that governing authorities are a minister of God and "it does not bear the sword for nothing." Paul after Christ affirms capital punishment.
I see nothing in Genesis 9 that suggests it is a limit. That is going to have to be purely a matter of your opinion without textual or contextual evidence.
I would recommend, by the way, a reexamination of John 8. 1) Anyone can tell you that John 7:53-8:11 are not present in the most reliable texts. Drawing doctrinal positions from such a questionable text is ... well, questionable. 2) Jesus did not discard the death penalty. In fact, He ordered it. He told them to throw stones. He merely qualified it. 3) There still remains a serious question about the content of the passage. The Jewish law stated that if a man and a woman are caught in the act of adultery, they must both be put to death (Lev 20:10). While the Pharisees claimed she was caught in the act, they failed to produce the man. Why? If she was caught in the act, both parties would be present. So on what basis would they accuse the female without the male? Sounds questionable to me. Sounded questionable to Christ, too.
Naum,
I don't know what Bible you are reading, but the death penalty had NOTHING to do with sacrifice and everything to do with justice.
No, the death penalty isn't mandatory, in that even God in his mercy did not have David executed for adultery and murder, but that doesn't mean that it was the norm. The norm is to execute as punishment - justice.
You also misread John 8. I suggest you read the series I linked to, which does a very good job of expository examination of the issues.
Simple response - you are in error.
@Glenn,
Simply waving your hand and extolling your particular biblical interpretation (and citing a pastor bereft of the qualifications of the theological giants cited -- not to say that theological credentials are be-all and end-all of matters, but I would allot significantly more credence to one versed in ANE, biblical languages, patristic scholarship, church history of reformers, etc.…) than some wildcard independent Baptist pastor. :)
The starting point for understanding God is not Genesis but the resurrection of Jesus. It is this event that interprets everything that came before and everything that came after.
@Stan,
Reductio ad absurdum on the "no more justice" crack -- that is not what is being stated, and a grievous error to lump *all justice* as retributive. (As death penalty is entirely about retribution, not restorative, and as social science overwhelming concludes is not a deterrent as proclaimed by supporters).
All that aside, it is simple inconceivable to me that someone could follow Jesus, poring over the Gospels and taking to heart all that Jesus said and did, and yet believe he would be OK with killing another human being. Might be religion of some sort, but it not the way of Jesus, if one truly takes his words and deeds to heart…
All without a single response to the arguments actually made ... from Scripture. Okay. Your choice. Take that position and I'll take mine. (Really? Justice is all about restoration?) Thanks for playing.
From Luke 4:18-19:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because the Lord has anointed me.
He has sent me to preach good news to the poor,
to proclaim release to the prisoners
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to liberate the oppressed,
and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
That is *justice* as pronounced by Jesus. Or to put in colloquial terms, **justice is what love looks like in public**.
Naum,
Yeah, right. You are correct and everyone else is in error. Those who do exegetical studies of what the Bible actually says are really wrong and you have the correct understanding. And all YOU did was wave your arm and proclaim it.
I think I'll stick to listening to real scholars, as well as what the Bible actually says.
Naum,
I fail to see in that Luke passage where capital punishment has been denounced or revoked. Talk about eisegesis!
"Justice is what love looks like in public." I suppose it's perfectly okay for you to define terms as you wish, but it doesn't work when you impose them on others. Words have meaning. If you are going to select a meaning of your choosing, you will need to let us know what it is because when you select meanings we don't know and then tell us we're wrong ... because we weren't using the term as you intended, communication will fail. The dictionary lists several options: "righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness." Please select the meaning you wish to use here. Are you speaking of righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness? You are certainly equating justice with love, which isn't very accurate (since the two terms, although they may have some connection, are not synonyms). It appears that you are equating justice with mercy and grace, which would be really nice but not very reasonable. But, clearly, if you're going to use terms at random as to how you mean them, it will make discussion impossible. Because I could then assure you that your bleevil of a glarvot is completely flugle and I would be right without possible dispute ... as long as I carefully define my terms as I see fit.
In case I'm not being clear in my response, justice is not love or mercy or grace. Justice is giving people what they are due. Justice is when that which is wrong is made right. Murder is wrong. There is a gap between what is right and what is. Restoring the murderer, while perhaps a pleasant thought, won't close that gap.
(And you dismissed my argument with the simple phrase, reductio ad absurdum (as if the phrase itself is the argument), but, seriously, in view of your definition of justice, on what basis can you support a justice system if "Justice is what love looks like in public"? From your apparent definition of love, I would think it would require no force, no prisons, no retribution.
Bottom line: The quote you offered from Christ (which He got from Isaiah) doesn't address the question of justice or capital punishment. You might want to select a new quote, but with some sort of use of terms that we can all agree on. I'd like to go with Matt 15:3-4, where Christ affirms the death penalty while rebuking the Pharisees for not going far enough, but I don't think you'll go with that one. And I would be interested in how it is that Jesus opposed it while Paul affirmed it (Acts 25:11; Rom 13:1-5). It is my suspicion that for you all Scripture is not God-breathed and, as such, you and I will not come to a reasonable conclusion.
For readers interested in various arguments, here's an article that gives three answers ("Maybe", "Absolutely", "No way") to the question, "How biblical is it to be pro-life and support the death penalty?"
@Stan,
You cite Gushee, an example of a conservative evangelical scholar opposed to the death penalty. But more essentially, even a majority of biblical scholars in that camp believe the death penalty to be wrong.
Sorry, I guess we going to have to disagree here but more to the core, your view of justice is warped and rooted entirely in a retributive sense, a tilt entirely at odds with the Gospel and Jesus. The NT Gospel (and echoed with the epistles of Paul) comes at *justice* in an entirely different light than what you portray here in this thread. I can't comment further other than thinking of Jesus admonition of "seeing they do not see and while hearing they do not hear". :)
@Glenn,
I cited two of the preeminent Protestant theologians of today -- your cite was of some independent Baptist pastor, bereft of any equivalent scholarly credentials in ANE, Biblical languages, patristic scholarship, church history, etc.… Yes, I understand there is a narrow band of theologians (like Sproul and others of fundamentalist school of thought).
One more theologian cite, this one, recognized as the greatest theologian of the 20th century, Karl Barth.
Barth made it clear in Church Dogmatics III why Christians cannot support the death penalty:
There are 3 possible kinds of grounds for judicial penalties:
1. The protection of society -- but a protection which is so absolute as to require the absolute elimination of any menace is justifiable only if the state which is to be protected, or the nation which intends to protect itself, is also an absolute. The absolute value of the state or the human social order is, however, something which the Christian cannot affirm.
2. Expiation of an offense against the moral order --yet the Christian knows that there can and need be no more expiation since the cross of Christ.
3. Through punishment the criminal may be rendered a more useful citizen -- In this case killing is conceivable only if we are sure ahead of time that no improvment is possible; this also is something which a Christian may not affirm.
Hence, the death penalty normally is never acceptable; capital punishment may not legitimately be a state institution.
"On the Christian view the retributive justice of God has already found full and final expression, the expiation demanded by Him for all human transgression has already been made, the death sentence imposed on human criminals has already been executed. God gave His only Son for this very purpose. In His death He exercised judgment according to His wonderful righteousness, and He did so once and for all for the sins of all men. Is not the result of this just judgment mercy and forgiveness for all? Who, then, is not included?" ~Karl Barth
"The death penalty obviously assumes the very different verdict that improvement, education and rehabilitation are out of the question for [the criminal], and therefore the proposition that the responsibility of others towards him is at an end. His punishment can no longer have any positive character for him. Among others who offend daily, this person has done something which is so evil as to make life with him intolerable. And since he fortunately has no power to remove us from the world, we remove him from the world. ... It declares society to be inwardly powerless in relation to him. All that it can do is to confront him with outward superiority, to decide to put him to death and therefore to live on without him. ... From this standpoint already the death penalty incontestably means that society arbitrarily renounces the obligation which it has towards the criminal too." ~Karl Barth
Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another. (1 John 4:7-11)
Well, look, Naum, here's the deal. I cite Scripture. You cite names. I give biblical reasons. You offer theologians. I give ideas and you explain why the people who give them are not reliable people. (I didn't cite Gushee for the name; I offered the ideas.) As an example, I offer the dictionary and you tell me my view of justice is warped. I point out that mercy is not justice and you tell me that's at odds with the Gospel.
Since the ideas that I offer don't come up to your standard (without any genuine explanation as to why) and the Scriptures I cite don't satisfy (without any genuine explanation as to why -- you've avoided all the New Testament passages I've offered and barely touched on the Old), and the names that I would cite don't have the credentials that you would allow (because it appears that the only allowable credentials for a reliable theologian is that he must be liberal), it would appear that we will indeed need to agree to disagree because, well, you're wrong. (Sorry, had to throw that in. Humor, you know.) Since I can see little support for your counter-ideas, little Scripture offered with no exegesis, and a supreme reliance on "theologians" who, as it turns out, only agree with you, I'll have to disagree.
The argument that Christians must not allow for the protection of society, the expiation of an offense, or the punishment of a criminal without the aim of making him a "more useful citizen" (as if the prison system offers such a thing?) seems specious. And it would appear that in no possible sense can a Christian believe that love includes punishment or things like "scourging" (Heb 12:5-11). Indeed, I cannot even begin to fathom on what basis you would think that Christianity has anything more to say to the world because the "good news" is that all sin is expiated and no one is going to be punished for sin so let's all shut up and settle down and relax! (And, although Barth denied it, it was the same conclusion his detractors came to. They held that his view required universalism.) And, look, when God ordained the death penalty and Barth concludes that it is an evil, I have to question on whose side Barth is falling in this question. Or you.
@Stan,
I cite BOTH Scripture AND the lens of skilled / trained theologians.
The issue is with your INTERPRETATION that misreads and/or extols OT over Jesus (and Paul and other NT authors) words and actions.
Then you want to toss the "liberal" label (which is hilarious, to call Karl Barth a *liberal*, since he was pushing back against the entire stream of spiritually disconnected stream of 19th century theological liberalism). l knew you would go there, so I simply stated that even a majority of scholars in the conservative evangelical fold (i.e., Witherington, Wright, Barth, etc.…) believe Scripture/Gospel weights against death penalty.
Okay, mostly liberal. Although the fact remains that Barth still wears the "universalist" tag. But hanging a "conservative" label on Wright is a bit of a stretch ... since he argues that Christianity has failed to understand biblical justification (you know, the fundamental component of Christianity) wrong for the last 2000 years.
My point is not names. My point is Scripture. And you have yet to explain how Paul could both support and deny the death penalty at the same time (I gave references). Or how Paul and Jesus could be both in agreement and disagreement.
Most importantly, I believe I have given biblical reasons supported with logical reasons how it is possible to be both pro-life and pro-capital punishment. And you have not demonstrated how that cannot be. You've simply explained why you don't think it's so. Which is why I think we agree that we can't do much more here than agree to disagree.
"On the Christian view the retributive justice of God has already found full and final expression, the expiation demanded by Him for all human transgression has already been made, the death sentence imposed on human criminals has already been executed."
If this were true, then why do we still die? Part of the original punishment for sin was death, both physical and spiritual. We physically die because of sin. So, if all sin is paid for, why do we still die? And in what way was physical death for criminals already paid for? Christ's death didn't end the death penalty imposed by God from the beginning. The fact that we all still die means we are still under that punishment. Your argument very clearly argues for universalism, and if that is your stance, please stop calling yourself a Christian. Christ and the Apostles never did, do not, will never teach universal payment of all sin for all people. If the death penalty imposed by God were truly ended by Christ's death, then God has ceased to be doing justice by killing anyone since then, and completely unjust for sending anyone to hell.
You accuse anyone that is okay with the death penalty as not Christian? I accuse anyone teaching or extolling universalism as not Christian.
I cited two of the preeminent Protestant theologians of today -- your cite was of some independent Baptist pastor, bereft of any equivalent scholarly credentials in ANE, Biblical languages, patristic scholarship, church history, etc.… Yes, I understand there is a narrow band of theologians (like Sproul and others of fundamentalist school of thought).
But the guys you cite didn't use Scripture as support without twisting context, while the guy I cited used the Scripture exegetically. I'll stick with the exegete over the opinionist.
Naum,
I notice Barth gave no Scriptural backing for his opinion. It is all emotion, not theology. Even great theologians sometimes go with their feelings rather than with God's Word.
I prefer to follow Scripture rather than a man's opinion based on feelings
So, since I have a connection with a genuine scholar, I asked Dr. Daniel Heimbach, Professor of Christian Ethics, at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. "Is it possible for a Christian to be pro-life, pro-capital punishment, and biblical?"
He replied, "Yes, absolutely! Not only is it biblical to be pro-life and pro-capital punishment at the same time, it is in fact NOT biblical to view the pro-life ethic in terms that REJECT capital punishment! On this see Ezekiel 13:19b where God says that people are guilty of MORAL LYING (they violate God’s pro-life ethic) as much by NOT KILLING those who deserve to die as by KILLING those who do not deserve to die.
In biblical terms, capital punishment for premeditated murder is REQUIRED by moral respect for the sanctify of human life. In the eyes of God, when a man takes a human life without moral cause, that man (the murderer) forfeits moral entitlement to the gift of life he holds from God. God (the Giver of Life) takes away a murderer's moral entitlement to life, and if human law refuses to follow through, it not only treats the lives of murderers as being worth MORE than the lives of persons they murder, but it denies the Creator's valuing of human life as well. In other words human rulers act as if their own moral judgment is superior to the moral judgment of God Himself."
Naum: "Again you cite a narrow view ..."
Do you see how it might be perceived by some that you only accept the "theologians" with whom you agree and disregard those whom you don't without any apparent connection to biblical exegesis?
Would your exegesis of Luke 4 suggest that Jesus believed, in clear contradiction to the Old Testament and to Paul, that the sole purpose of His coming was what you cited from Luke 4:18-19? Regardless of where this view demands we go with any sort of justice system, I can't even see how it correlates with Jesus's own actions in the Temple, with His harsh response to the Pharisees, or with His instructions for His disciples to carry swords, let alone the rest of Scriptures cited here and elsewhere. But your kind remarks about being unable to see is helpful. Thanks.
On Jesus & swords:
Jesus, as it turns out was a hard core pacifist and he was serious as a heart attack about that non-resistance, turn the other cheek, take up your cross and be prepared to die at the hands of your enemies stuff. He was, to use an oxymoron, an adamant even a belligerent pacifist. ‘Those who live by the sword die by the sword’ was his warning, and when his disciples tried to take up swords for the sake of the Kingdom Jesus not only told them ‘enough of that’ but he then repaired the damage to the ear of the high priest’s slave. Jesus was in deadly earnest about being the Prince of Peace. ~Ben Witherington, conservative evangelical scholar
This consistent, right to-the-end, to-the-point of-death nonviolence of Jesus has been that which Jesus’ followers have most attempted to modify. When it comes to violence in service of a good cause, we deeply wish Jesus had said otherwise. There are many rationales for the “just war,” or for self-defense, capital punishment, abortion, national security, or military strength. None of them, you will note, is able to make reference to Jesus or to the words or deeds of any of his first followers. You can argue that violence is sometimes effective, or justified by the circumstances, or a possible means to some better end, or practiced by every nation on the face of the earth—but you can’t drag Jesus into the argument with you. This has always been a source of annoyance and has provoked some fancy intellectual footwork on the part of those who desire to justify violence. Sorry, Jesus just won’t cooperate. ~Will Willimon, United Methodist Bishop
On justice and judgment:
See Matthew 13, Wheat & the Weeds:
The enemy sows his evil seed and then goes away. He seems confident that the damage he intends will be done. But the enemy doesn’t have any real power over goodness anyway: the wheat is in the field, the Kingdom is in the world, and there is not one thing he can do about it. But, the wrinkle is that the enemy can sucker the forces of goodness into taking up arms against the confusion he has introduced, to do his work for him. That is why he goes away after sowing the weeds. He has no need to hang around. Unable to take positive action anyway—having no real power to muck up the operation—he simply sprinkles around a generous helping of darkness and waits for the children of light to get flustered enough to do the job for him
But in the parable, at least, that’s not what happens. The master says hold and let the wheat and the weeds grow up together until the harvest, and when the harvest comes I will tell the reapers to collect the weeds and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn. Can you see that it’s not as if the master in this story likes having weeds in his field, it’s just that he has a different plan for dealing with them. His solution to the problem is ultimate, rather than proximate. And Jesus wants us to hear that more often than not, this is God’s way of dealing with the evil in the world, in our cities, in our families, and in our selves—not immediately but finally, once and for all.
I posted your comment, partly because I'm open to dialog and partly because I felt bad that something (I don't know what) happened to your last one.
Having done so, I'm moving on. You didn't offer anything new. You didn't respond to any of the questions. Your primary source is theologians. (And you do know, don't you, that a United Methodist Bishop is not on the "conservative" side of anything, right?) Since I can trot out an equal number of theologians that disagree and even more verses, I don't see any reason for pursuing this. Besides, I don't really see the connection to "pacifism" and capital punishment. Again, thanks for playing.
Post a Comment