Unresolved Issues

In the first day of my Doctrine of the Church class, which is taught by a Lutheran, this exchange occurred when we were discussing our denominational tradition:

Student: I grew up as a Mennonite, which means that your people used to burn my people.

Professor: Well, only for political reasons; it would be inappropriate to burn people for religious reasons.

Student: Yeah, but you used to drown us for religious reasons!

He actually didn’t say the last part, but he said later that he wanted to. It’s fun to go to an interdenominational seminary.

Auburn Avenue is PCA no longer

The Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church, famous in the PCA for its controversial “federal vision” theology, voted yesterday to withdraw from the PCA and to join the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). I don’t think my thoughts and feelings about this are particularly well defined at this point, so I will just express my sadness that the the Body of Christ has split yet again.

Pro-Life, Pro-Capital Punishment, Part II

Well, I seem to have wandered into opinionated territory on my last post, a place that I am glad to be. Rather than respond to all the comments in the comment section of my last post, I thought that it would be easier to address the different questions in new posts. Also, I am grouping the comments into the following subjects, which I will treat in succeeding posts: (1) “Vengeance is mine,” saith the LORD; (2) “Thou shalt not kill” and “God is love”; (3) Cur Lex Talionis? (Or, Why the Law of Retribution?) I think that these three subjects will cover the comments, but if you think that I have missed your point, please let me know because that is not my intention.

(1) “Vengeance is mine,” saith the LORD
This section is to respond to the following comments. Louie wrote:

…don’t you think that it’s GOD’s judgment in the end that should condemn those who take the lives of other people, rather than man? How many people are put to death on circumstantial evidence each year? Too many…which is why they are trying to do away with capital punishment. There was just a story the other day about how a man was freed from prison because finally he was proven innocent with DNA testing. What if they had put him to death? Ooops…our entire justice system would then be guilty of murder.

My point is…although I recognize that we as humans are stewards of the earth, we tend to judge others “in the name of God.” Let God sort things out in God’s own way.

Kendra agreed, writing:

Accordingly, I have to agree with Louie: God is the judge; humanity is not.

Finally, Don wrote:

For me, the nub of the matter is this: Until you can find a way to correct the wrong inflicted by the state when it executes an innocent man, you cannot in good conscience support the system that pretends no problem exists.

The unifying theme here against the state’s use of capital punishment for murder is that we humans do not have infallible knowledge of who is guilty and who is not, so that while we should imprison such criminals to protect society from them, we should nevertheless avoid execution for fear of executing the innocent. Thus, we should leave judgment to God.

First, I would emphasize that I do indeed feel the weight of this argument. In the context of my original post, I am trying to argue that in principle the use of the death penalty for murderers is not at odds with a pro-life stance, so I obviously would abhor any executions of the innocent.

Of course, though, it is entirely valid to argue that an argument in principle is one thing, but that the practical application of this particular principle, the death penalty, is another. After all, as Don points out, there is no way to reverse such punishment once carried out.

So, here is my response. First, as I wrote in my first post, “we need to be concerned about the way that we do this (e.g., making sure that capital punishment is equitably sentenced in terms of race, religion, class, etc…, and making sure that we are indeed executing only the guilty).” I am in complete favor of high requirements for sentencing in murder cases to ensure that only the guilty are punished. We should certainly use DNA evidence to whatever degree that we can, and we should take whatever steps possible to ensure that the poor accused of murder get as much of a chance to defend themselves as possible so that there is not inequity in defense between the poor and the rich. (I am not so utopian to believe that this inequity can be abolished completely, but I do know that there are horror stories of public defenders provided to the poor.)

Still, in the end, I believe that God has ordained governments for the purpose of (among other things, of course) establishing justice in the state/nation/empire. God does indeed insist that we, as individuals, are to refrain from taking vengeance upon another person who has wronged us, saying, “Vengeance is mine, and recompense” (Deut. 32:35). Furthermore, when Paul quotes Deuteronomy in Romans 12, he says, “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’”

Taken alone, this would seem to be an open-and-shut case against the death penalty, as though Paul were suggesting that no one, in any circumstance, should ever take vengeance; however, only five verses later, Paul describes the state as God’s “avenger” (same root word in Greek):

^{Rom. 13:1}Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. ²Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. ³For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, ⁴for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

I think, therefore, that the point of the entire passage in context is that (1) individuals are forbidden from taking vengeance (i.e., I cannot take vengeance upon you if you kill a friend or family member); (2) the reason for (1) is that God has claimed all vengeance to be rightfully his; however, (3) God has delegated to the state the responsibility of avenging wrongdoing. So, in a murder case, I would infer that God has charged the state with the responsibility of avenging murderers, even if he has also charged the state with doing everything humanly possible to ensure that only the “wrongdoers” are punished–the good should never have anything to fear.

Does this ensure that no innocent person will ever be executed? No, it obviously doesn’t, because we are finite human beings, and we live in a fallen world. Nevertheless, I do not think that the proper response is to refuse to execute anyone. Instead, I would like to reframe the debate a little bit: what about justice? To abrogate all responsibility to impose capital punishment on murderers is to settle for vast injustice if God has indeed commanded the state to act as his avenger against wrongdoers, no matter what evil you might be trying to correct by eschewing capital punishment.

I think, then, that we must do two things: (1) acknowledge the state’s responsibility to execute murderers who have destroyed God’s image-bearers; and (2) acknowledge that errors are to be avoided at all costs (that is, all costs short of instituting mass injustice).

Now, this is not complete, and I have assumed many things which I will address in the next two posts, but this is a start. (Specifically, I have avoided giving a biblical defense for the use of capital punishment at all, but I will cover that in the next post.) This is a serious topic, and it would be the height of foolishness to think that we could solve it quickly, or even that we could solve it definitively at all in such a limited medium; nevertheless, it is good to think through these issues. Thanks again for your comments, and feel free to add your comments to this post.

Pro-Life, Pro-Capital Punishment

I have been thinking more and more about capital punishment lately, especially after a discussion that I had with a friend through comments on his blog (first post, second post). Today, the Daily Nebraskan published an editorial called “Pro-life philosophy applies to many issues,” where Luke Fischer wrote:

…being pro-life demands opposition to capital punishment. There is simply no excuse for the state to take the life of any criminal, given our ability to keep people safe from violent offenders (to say nothing of the danger of executing innocent people). There may have been, in the past, situations where the only way to keep innocent people safe was to execute violent criminals, but such instances do not exist anymore.

Capital punishment needlessly takes a human life, which is clearly inconsistent with pro-life philosophy.

I believe in capital punishment because of my biblical theology more than anything else, but I do think that there is a rational basis for supporting capital punishment–even (and especially) when I have a “pro-life philosophy.”

Here is how I would make such an argument: I am pro-freedom, as I am sure that virtually all Americans are. (Obviously, I also believe that responsibility comes with freedom so that I am not promoting some kind of all-holds-barred free-for-all, but that is a different topic.) If I have a pro-freedom philosophy, how then could I possibly support prisons for criminals? Not only do we lock people up, thus depriving them of their freedom, but we lock them up with particularly unsavory individuals. It is not as though we are locking someone up in a university or a successful company, but in prison with convicted criminals. What could stand in more logical opposition to the notion of freedom?

Of course, we all recognize that there are reasons for the state to take away an individual’s freedom, even if we also recognize that we should be wary about the way in which the state exercises this responsibility. I would argue that the whole reason for taking away a person’s freedom is that they have impinged on the freedom of others in an unacceptable way. So, it is because we value freedom that we take away a criminal’s freedom.

Similarly, I think that when someone takes another’s life, that murderer deserves to have his/her life taken in return. Even if we need to be concerned about the way that we do this (e.g., making sure that capital punishment is equitably sentenced in terms of race, religion, class, etc…, and making sure that we are indeed executing only the guilty), there is still no logical stumbling block in a pro-life philosophy against capital punishment. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that capital punishment is the only punishment that seriously upholds the value of life, insisting that life is so precious that the state will apply the greatest possible punishment to someone who ignores the sanctity of life and murders someone else.

Once we begin to look at the biblical witness, I think that this only becomes clearer in God’s covenant with Noah: God demands capital punishment for murderers because to murder is to destroy God’s image, something that God hates. (I give a better explanation of this here.) Therefore, unless capital punishment were qualitatively different than murder, God could never turn around and prescribe capital punishment as the just response to murder. I think that it is precisely because God values life more than anyone else that he demands capital punishment for murders.

Thoughts? I know Christians disagree on this, and I honestly could be wrong–I don’t consider this a slam-dunk case, but I do think that it is a strong one.

Hodge on Sacraments

A. A. Hodge on the sacraments as “seals” of the covenant. I found it helpful:

The sacraments were designed to ‘apply’—i.e., actually to convey—to believers the benefits of the new covenant. If they are ’seals’ of the covenant, they must of course, as a legal form of investiture, actually convey the grace represented to those to whom it belongs. Thus a deed conveys an estate, or the key handed over in the presence of witnesses the possession of a house from the owner to the renter. Our Confession is explicit and emphatic on this subject. The old English word ‘exhibit,’ there used, does not mean to show forth; but, in the sense of the Latin exhibere, from which it is derived, to administer, to apply.

…

This Confession carefully guards in the third section of this chapter, showing that the sacraments have no inherent power or virtue at all, but that the right use of the sacrament is by divine appointment the occasion upon which the Holy Ghost conveys the grace to those to whom it belongs. So that this grace-conferring virtue depends upon two things: (1.) The sovereign will and power of the Holy Spirit. (2.) The lively faith of the recipient. The sacrament is a mere instrument; but IT IS AN INSTRUMENT OF DIVINE APPOINTMENT.

–A. A. Hodge, The Westminster Confession: A Commentary, p. 331-332.

A Consumer Advocate is Born?

Only issues of monumental importance are able to bring me out of my blogging hiatus. Inspired by previous success in corporate dealings, I’ve decided yet again to stand up for my rights as a consumer. This time the matter is of a smaller scale, but no less important. The corporation? The Kellogg Company. The issue? The packaging of Pirates of the Caribbean fruit flavored snacks.

Based on an unhappy encounter with these snacks, I’m mailing the following letter to Kellogg’s:

Dear Kellogg’s,

I recently purchased a box of Pirates of the Caribbean fruit flavored snacks (UPC: 3800026988). I was disappointed to discover that one of the individually-packaged pouches contained only three snacks. Based on comparison with other pouches, I determined that this is about four or five snacks fewer than most other pouches. (I am including the unopened pouch with this letter.)

While I realize that the packaging process is automated and calculated by weight rather than number of snacks, it still surprises me that Kellogg’s does not have better quality control to catch mistakes such as this. It is an inconvenience when in the process of packing my lunch for the day I include a pouch of fruit flavored snacks, only to discover later at lunchtime that this pouch contains only three snacks.

I hope that Kellogg’s will take steps to remedy this problem in the future.

Sincerely,

Andrew

I will naturally keep our readers updated as to the status of my complaint. Hopefully this will be one more step forward for consumer rights.

Update Post

I haven’t blogged for a little while, and some significant things have happened in my life.

Most importantly, I became engaged on November 20th to the love of my life and my best friend, Allison. She and I have so far had a wonderful time planning our wedding, which will be for December 27, 2008. I can’t wait, although I’m somewhat annoyed that this has to be a leap year–I mean, we already have long enough to wait, so why the extra day?

Oh, well…

Also, Nebraska fired football coach Bill Callahan and hired Bo Pelini. I don’t have much to say except that I was wanting this to happen four years ago when I took part in chanting, “We want Bo!” at the Alamo Bowl when Bo’s Huskers beat the Michigan State Spartans 17-3. This is of secondary importance to my engagement–and I want to make that very clear–but I am also very excited about the new staff.

Well, that about sums it up, so now I can get started writing more typical blog posts, which I will begin with this story: apparently, a set of twins were separated at birth without any knowledge of the other twin. Later in life, they met, felt an “inevitable attraction,” and got married. At first I thought this was funny, then I thought it was gross, but now I just think that it is extremely sad. I can imagine few things more traumatic than this.

Grey’s Derek

If you haven’t heard, Derek Webb produced a song with Caedmon’s Call which will be (was?) featured on Grey’s Anatomy. (I don’t watch the show, so I have no idea when it may or may not have come on the show.) You can listen to “Ten Thousand Angels” on his MySpace page, and I really, really like it, so check it out.

And yes, this means that I will probably start blogging in earnest again soon.