I should have my belongings taken, have my hands cut off, have my eyes gouged out, and have horrible things said about me. I have made my fair share of mistakes in my life - none as heinous as this, but I am a sinner just the same. Without God's grace extended to me I should be condemned.
This man was obviously not in his right mind. What happened is horribly tragic, but I am not going to condemn him to death, certainly not without knowing his mental health status. He may have been clinically depressed and suffering from a psychosis at the time. We don't know. Some people may not care. They would hang him either way. But how does Jesus see it?
Dear God, help us is right. God help us all!
(A heinous act was committed to my 18 month old step-niece this week ending in her passing away. It is still under investigation, so I cannot say much more, but I am praying for the person who is responsible. I cannot expect God's grace if I am not willing to extend it.)
True, we need more info. Very good points. Although anything passes for "insanity" these days, which is horrifying. I don't believe human society has the right to acquit murderers. One gives up their right to life when they intentionally take the innocent life of another. Forgiveness of sin in Jesus doesn't abrogate that basic moral principle. The sanctity of all human life can only be maintained if innocence is vindicated... not in a "vengeful" sort of way, but in the sense of retributive justice. "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" should still apply in civil law today, while yet forgiving these people in our hearts. Thank you for your reminder, though, of the grace and humility we must show.
P. S. I am SO, so sorry to hear about your niece. I will be praying for you and the rest of her family for comfort and strength, as well as that justice be served (on the human side) and mercy be offered (on the divine side). The Lord's peace be with you.
I believe in there being justice served. I just don't believe in lynching without gathering all the facts. People are so fast to judge and condemn. It's scary. My family is full of anger and vengeance right now, and I just can't live like that. If you want to say a prayer for my family, the funeral is tomorrow. I'm not looking forward to it on many levels. I have no words for those that are deeply mourning, and it will be terribly sad and depressing I'm afraid. I hope I'm wrong to some degree. I hope there is some hope in Christ even in the midst of the sorrow. The family are believers, so... Sorry to unload here. It's just heavy on my mind I guess.
My wife and I are praying for you and your family, as well as the offender. I am truly sorry all of this has happened. I admire your grace-filled and perseverant attitude. Thank you for the grace of allowing me to come alongside you during this time, even as a long-distance prayer partner.
No person should be burned alive. If we promote the suffering of some, on what grounds do we condemn those who cause suffering to others?
I'm not saying that people should not be held responsible. However, it's not Christian (and I really mean that) to torture anyone, regardless of their crimes. And, if we truly value human life, we value even the lives of people who have done heinous things. I don't know how you can parse out abortion and capital punishment from the "life" issue and treat them differently.
I don't understand how you can 1) forgive "in your heart" and 2) wish ill on the "forgiven" individual. That is convoluted reasoning.
And to the mental illness piece, it is remarkably difficult to be found mentally unfit to stand trial. "Insanity" is not common. "Anything" does not pass. At the same time, people who have mental illnesses that cause psychosis (as this man probably did, based on the nature of the event) are very ill and in need of healing, not punishment.
You'll have to take the retributive justice issue up with God. He mandated it. The law of Christ doesn't abrogate it. Romans 13 upholds it (though not merely by a rigid translation of "sword"). You really believe the taking of innocent life is morally equivalent to the taking of a murderer's life? Jesus' ethics are not principles for government. Sorry, i know that's a major break with many religious ethicists of the day, and i know it's not a simple argument either way. but it's ultimately a hermeneutically-driven argument, and my position is consistent with my hermeneutic. wish i had more time to hash this out. :)
Yes, I do mean that taking a murderer's life is the same as taking an innocent unborn baby's life. I value both equally. I love both equally. I only want good things for both, equally. I love child molesters too.
I hold out hope that everyone will find redemption and healing in the name of Jesus, and I am willing to tarry with the Lord because, I have been just as broken by sin as any other. It is only by the grace and mercy of God that I have found healing for my own wounds.
As for your hermeneutic, I'm curious about your methods. Your appeal to authority (strong as that authority's credentials may be) isn't cutting it because I'm not convinced that you are representing the message appropriately (although that must be clear enough without my stating it ;)
I agree with you that Jesus' ethics are not meant for earthly governments. To think so indicates a total lack of understanding the kingdom of God and the people of God.
Cami It sounds like you're operating out of a false dichotomy. There are far more options for dealing with dangerous behavior and immoral character than incarceration.
Our criminal justice system is so messed up that people come out of prison more dangerous than they went in. How is that justice? How does that protect the public? How does that allow people to make restitution and atonement and then get a second chance?
The reality is, our system doesn't care. We just want to punish people without regard for the results, even when those results hurt all of us. The system clearly doesn't prevent crime.
We need rehabilitation and the church needs to lead the way. Jesus is a healer and the church is called to continue his work until he returns.
Prison ministry is much needed, but within our current system, it's just a finger in a dam that's bursting, a bandaid where a turniquet is required.
The reality is that our loves often conflict. This poses a real obstacle—one of the biggest obstacles—to doing straightforward ethics. In an ideal (i.e., sinless) world, love abounds in, among, and between all persons, and so there is no conflict because there are no lacks. In the present world, love for some means "hate" for another. "Love" that keeps dangerous people in society is "hate" to those whose well-being is endangered by their presence. This implies a need for both incarceration and deterrence.
I realize that some statistics appear to show that the death penalty is no more effective a deterrent than incarceration, but the research is flawed in that it does not take into account the whole of the population who does not offend (i.e., those who have been deterred). It also smoothes over legitimate demographic differences between countries compared. But aside from this, we must look at the biblical position on capital punishment, because it does have one. In short (and here's where hermeneutics matter), the OT teaches the principle of lex talionis, or retributive justice, and the NT neither abrogates it, and very likely explicitly reaffirms it. As you acknowledged, the "kingdom ethics" of Jesus are personal and ecclesiastical ethics, not secular civic ethics. The OT framework of justice still applies, and the NT defends the right of the state to mete out punitive justice.
That said, rehabilitation, where appropriate, is also necessary. You are also right that prisons are criminalizing places. This is a real problem that needs to be addressed with creative solutions. But not every sinful pattern or tendency can be rehabilitated, especially not without the transforming work of the Spirit of God. Thus the State must operate on a non-Spirit-based paradigm. You are right that much of what we are doing today, both spiritual and secular, is holding fingers in a dam. Common grace keeps it from bursting, thank God. But pulling our fingers out will bring certain, sudden devastation.
Matt I caught that your argument was largely hermeneutically driven, I just disagree with your conclusions because a careful exegesis of the few texts which support your position does not, in my understanding, support them.
Forgive me, I just can't brush over the text, especially when it seems to contradict the conclusions that are made.
Cami No thinking person proposes that criminal behavior be simply "understood" and not adequately addressed. That would be absurd. The question is: What does it mean to adequately address crime? How does the Bible speak to Christian ethics regarding ways to protect the public and reduce incidences of crime?
Neither have you, and that's the problem. You claim to be speaking a biblical truth, but I'm not sure how you got there.
I know, I know, it's a hermeneutically driven argument. You still haven't told me anything. You referenced Romans 13. If you want to use that as a defense for capital punishment, you have to deal with several problems of logic, specifically with those nations who do not practice capital punishment and whether or not those authorities are established by God for our good. If all governments are established by God for our good, then there must be some breadth in what God considers good rulership when it comes to punishment.
You'll also have to content, perhaps moreso than the problem above, with the fact that the passage is not about what good government looks like, but how the church should behave.
Fair enough for now. I'm not sure time or space permits debating the exegesis of the various passages on which this issues hinge. I know that sounds like a copout, but I've been in enough such conversations to know how much time investment they require. Thanks for your engagement on the issue though! :)
Agreed. Nonetheless, I am going to use the Romans 13 passage for my Greek practice this next week. I'm sure I can adequately tweak the language to support my assumptions ;)
For the record, I'd much rather spar with someone who knows their mind, and isn't afraid to speak it, than someone who's just parroting a party line.
I should have my belongings taken, have my hands cut off, have my eyes gouged out, and have horrible things said about me. I have made my fair share of mistakes in my life - none as heinous as this, but I am a sinner just the same. Without God's grace extended to me I should be condemned.
ReplyDeleteThis man was obviously not in his right mind. What happened is horribly tragic, but I am not going to condemn him to death, certainly not without knowing his mental health status. He may have been clinically depressed and suffering from a psychosis at the time. We don't know. Some people may not care. They would hang him either way. But how does Jesus see it?
Dear God, help us is right. God help us all!
(A heinous act was committed to my 18 month old step-niece this week ending in her passing away. It is still under investigation, so I cannot say much more, but I am praying for the person who is responsible. I cannot expect God's grace if I am not willing to extend it.)
True, we need more info. Very good points. Although anything passes for "insanity" these days, which is horrifying. I don't believe human society has the right to acquit murderers. One gives up their right to life when they intentionally take the innocent life of another. Forgiveness of sin in Jesus doesn't abrogate that basic moral principle. The sanctity of all human life can only be maintained if innocence is vindicated... not in a "vengeful" sort of way, but in the sense of retributive justice. "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" should still apply in civil law today, while yet forgiving these people in our hearts. Thank you for your reminder, though, of the grace and humility we must show.
ReplyDeleteP. S. I am SO, so sorry to hear about your niece. I will be praying for you and the rest of her family for comfort and strength, as well as that justice be served (on the human side) and mercy be offered (on the divine side). The Lord's peace be with you.
ReplyDeleteI believe in there being justice served. I just don't believe in lynching without gathering all the facts. People are so fast to judge and condemn. It's scary. My family is full of anger and vengeance right now, and I just can't live like that. If you want to say a prayer for my family, the funeral is tomorrow. I'm not looking forward to it on many levels. I have no words for those that are deeply mourning, and it will be terribly sad and depressing I'm afraid. I hope I'm wrong to some degree. I hope there is some hope in Christ even in the midst of the sorrow. The family are believers, so...
ReplyDeleteSorry to unload here. It's just heavy on my mind I guess.
Kim,
ReplyDeleteMy wife and I are praying for you and your family, as well as the offender. I am truly sorry all of this has happened. I admire your grace-filled and perseverant attitude. Thank you for the grace of allowing me to come alongside you during this time, even as a long-distance prayer partner.
In Christ,
matt
No person should be burned alive. If we promote the suffering of some, on what grounds do we condemn those who cause suffering to others?
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that people should not be held responsible. However, it's not Christian (and I really mean that) to torture anyone, regardless of their crimes. And, if we truly value human life, we value even the lives of people who have done heinous things. I don't know how you can parse out abortion and capital punishment from the "life" issue and treat them differently.
I don't understand how you can 1) forgive "in your heart" and 2) wish ill on the "forgiven" individual. That is convoluted reasoning.
And to the mental illness piece, it is remarkably difficult to be found mentally unfit to stand trial. "Insanity" is not common. "Anything" does not pass. At the same time, people who have mental illnesses that cause psychosis (as this man probably did, based on the nature of the event) are very ill and in need of healing, not punishment.
You'll have to take the retributive justice issue up with God. He mandated it. The law of Christ doesn't abrogate it. Romans 13 upholds it (though not merely by a rigid translation of "sword"). You really believe the taking of innocent life is morally equivalent to the taking of a murderer's life? Jesus' ethics are not principles for government. Sorry, i know that's a major break with many religious ethicists of the day, and i know it's not a simple argument either way. but it's ultimately a hermeneutically-driven argument, and my position is consistent with my hermeneutic. wish i had more time to hash this out. :)
ReplyDeleteBlessings,
Yes, I do mean that taking a murderer's life is the same as taking an innocent unborn baby's life. I value both equally. I love both equally. I only want good things for both, equally. I love child molesters too.
ReplyDeleteI hold out hope that everyone will find redemption and healing in the name of Jesus, and I am willing to tarry with the Lord because, I have been just as broken by sin as any other. It is only by the grace and mercy of God that I have found healing for my own wounds.
As for your hermeneutic, I'm curious about your methods. Your appeal to authority (strong as that authority's credentials may be) isn't cutting it because I'm not convinced that you are representing the message appropriately (although that must be clear enough without my stating it ;)
I agree with you that Jesus' ethics are not meant for earthly governments. To think so indicates a total lack of understanding the kingdom of God and the people of God.
I'm wondering if something needs to be "sent" from there. (?)"
ReplyDeleteCami
Who do you suggest it be sent to?
(rather: To whom do you suggest it be sent?;)
Cami
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you're operating out of a false dichotomy. There are far more options for dealing with dangerous behavior and immoral character than incarceration.
Our criminal justice system is so messed up that people come out of prison more dangerous than they went in. How is that justice? How does that protect the public? How does that allow people to make restitution and atonement and then get a second chance?
The reality is, our system doesn't care. We just want to punish people without regard for the results, even when those results hurt all of us. The system clearly doesn't prevent crime.
We need rehabilitation and the church needs to lead the way. Jesus is a healer and the church is called to continue his work until he returns.
Prison ministry is much needed, but within our current system, it's just a finger in a dam that's bursting, a bandaid where a turniquet is required.
Are there things we (Christians, and even churches) can do together that we cannot accomplish individually? That's a crucial question to answer.
ReplyDeleteWhat does God's Word say about the function and power of the body of Christ collective?
Amy,
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that our loves often conflict. This poses a real obstacle—one of the biggest obstacles—to doing straightforward ethics. In an ideal (i.e., sinless) world, love abounds in, among, and between all persons, and so there is no conflict because there are no lacks. In the present world, love for some means "hate" for another. "Love" that keeps dangerous people in society is "hate" to those whose well-being is endangered by their presence. This implies a need for both incarceration and deterrence.
I realize that some statistics appear to show that the death penalty is no more effective a deterrent than incarceration, but the research is flawed in that it does not take into account the whole of the population who does not offend (i.e., those who have been deterred). It also smoothes over legitimate demographic differences between countries compared. But aside from this, we must look at the biblical position on capital punishment, because it does have one. In short (and here's where hermeneutics matter), the OT teaches the principle of lex talionis, or retributive justice, and the NT neither abrogates it, and very likely explicitly reaffirms it. As you acknowledged, the "kingdom ethics" of Jesus are personal and ecclesiastical ethics, not secular civic ethics. The OT framework of justice still applies, and the NT defends the right of the state to mete out punitive justice.
That said, rehabilitation, where appropriate, is also necessary. You are also right that prisons are criminalizing places. This is a real problem that needs to be addressed with creative solutions. But not every sinful pattern or tendency can be rehabilitated, especially not without the transforming work of the Spirit of God. Thus the State must operate on a non-Spirit-based paradigm. You are right that much of what we are doing today, both spiritual and secular, is holding fingers in a dam. Common grace keeps it from bursting, thank God. But pulling our fingers out will bring certain, sudden devastation.
While I appreciate your committment to a careful hermeneutic, I think you've failed to carefully exegete the text you claim to understand.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to have given the impression that my argument is based on one text alone! ;-)
ReplyDeleteMatt
ReplyDeleteI caught that your argument was largely hermeneutically driven, I just disagree with your conclusions because a careful exegesis of the few texts which support your position does not, in my understanding, support them.
Forgive me, I just can't brush over the text, especially when it seems to contradict the conclusions that are made.
Cami
No thinking person proposes that criminal behavior be simply "understood" and not adequately addressed. That would be absurd. The question is: What does it mean to adequately address crime? How does the Bible speak to Christian ethics regarding ways to protect the public and reduce incidences of crime?
You still haven't identified what passages I am supposedly depending on, let alone offered and supported a counter interpretation.
ReplyDeleteNeither have you, and that's the problem. You claim to be speaking a biblical truth, but I'm not sure how you got there.
ReplyDeleteI know, I know, it's a hermeneutically driven argument. You still haven't told me anything. You referenced Romans 13. If you want to use that as a defense for capital punishment, you have to deal with several problems of logic, specifically with those nations who do not practice capital punishment and whether or not those authorities are established by God for our good. If all governments are established by God for our good, then there must be some breadth in what God considers good rulership when it comes to punishment.
You'll also have to content, perhaps moreso than the problem above, with the fact that the passage is not about what good government looks like, but how the church should behave.
Fair enough for now. I'm not sure time or space permits debating the exegesis of the various passages on which this issues hinge. I know that sounds like a copout, but I've been in enough such conversations to know how much time investment they require. Thanks for your engagement on the issue though! :)
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Nonetheless, I am going to use the Romans 13 passage for my Greek practice this next week. I'm sure I can adequately tweak the language to support my assumptions ;)
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I'd much rather spar with someone who knows their mind, and isn't afraid to speak it, than someone who's just parroting a party line.
Thanks.
That would include me, right?
ReplyDelete:)