|
| I have a new blog site here. (www.peacehappy.blogspot.com) It's really boring looking. I need somebody with HTML mad skills to jazz it up. Any takers? | | |
|  | | |
| Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20:13, KJV) You shall not murder. (Exodus 20:13, NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.) how can i kill the ones i’m supposed to love
my enemies are men like me ....
peace by way of war is like purity by way of fornication
it’s like telling someone murder is wrong
and then showing them by way of execution (Derek Webb, My Enemies Are Men Like Me) We live in a day and age in which certainty about many things is being questioned. Some are certain only that nothing is certain, or so they say. All of this uncertainty leads to confusion about things once taken for granted--say, for instance that there is a moral distinction between unlawful murder and state-sanctioned execution and warfare. Even those religious traditions that have long been opposed to war and the death penalty (notably, the Anabaptist tradition), have usually been careful not to suggest that homicide and execution are equally heinous. But these days, especially in politics, subtlty and precision of argument has gone the way of the buffalo. The new moral crusaders such as Webb (an American Calvinist folk singer turned activist) are clear: all killing is sin, regardless of who does the killing. To these folks, the term "state-sanctioned killing" is nothing more than brutal injustice on a massive scale. Timothy McVeigh and Sadaam Hussein then are just two of the victims of this modern-day disregard for the value of human life. Their victimhood is thus not any different from the victims of violent crime, abortion, or even genocide. Now that's somewhat of an extreme position, no? But how did we get here? Why this apparent over-reaction from within the evangelical community? Do they have a valid point? Could it be that the arguments put forward by many evangelicals in favor of capital punishment rely more on the harsh logic of utilitarianism than Scripture? Does the mercy of God allow for human justice to be carried out, or does it always mandate the pardon of the accused? Here are some of my thoughts. Feel free to add yours.  1. The Bible makes a clear distinction between homicide and sanctioned killing. God tells Noah explicitly in Genesis 9:6 that murderers must be put to death. This is spelled out time and again in the first five books of the Law. All intentional acts of violence toward human beings were to be punished accordingly. Life for life. Only those guilty of unintentional manslaughter were given the opportunity to flee to cities of refuge. Human life was and is supremely valuable to God because humans reflect His image (the imago dei). The taking of innocent life (note the important distinction) required the ulitmate sanction in order to "cleanse the bloodguilt from Israel." Those who so callously destroyed God's image-bearing property could not be allowed to remain a part of the human community. Thus the distinction between the general verb to kill and the specific one to murder (the latter being the better translation of the Hebrew rasach Exodus 20:13). 2. The New Testament also leaves plenty of room for capital punishment. Romans 13 tells us that the authorities have the sword to punish evil, and that we should submit to their authority. The sword is used for one purpose--to kill. The apocalyptic Jesus in Revelation will come with a sword in hand to establish justice. To suggest that this is figurative language representing the final vindication of the righteous is misguided. However, the death penalty in the New Testament is not for the purpose of avenging bloodguilt. That was accomplished on the cross by the shedding of the only truly innocent blood ever to exist on earth. The sword is given to governing authorities-- not the church--strictly for the purpose of restraining evil. There is no command that certain criminals receive the death penalty, as the New Testament is not ultimately concerned with issues of state governance. NT commands are given to churches which are separate and distinct from governments. Nothing illustrates this point more than the government-sanctioned killing of Christians, including the very author of Romans 13. 3. The New Testament wtiness is normative for followers of Christ. While the death penalty is an accepted practice, it is certainly not required. Jesus challenged the harsh logic of "life for life" especially as it had been perverted by the religious and ruling elites. Simple vengeance was never the intent of the original command. The NT was written to the church primarily--and we are instructed to love enemies, forgive those who sin against us, leave vengeance to God, submit to and pray for the authorities, and to love neighbor as self. These are not, however, the prerogatives of governments. They are simply instructed to punish evil as they see fit. 4. What happens, though, when church members (or the Church as a whole) are the governing authorities? This was certainly not the situation of the New Testament writers, but has been the case for much of church history. Throughout the Middle Ages and up until the 19th century even, the execution (and sometimes, slaughter) of "enemies of God" (criminals, heretics, barbarian armies, etc) was commonly accepted as God's will. Even Martin Luther called for Christians to serve as executioners if they happened to be in short supply. Ironically, a large number of those executed in that day were Protestants and other religious dissidents. It's hard to imagine that this is what the apostle Paul had in mind when he wrote the letter to the Romans from his jail cell. But what about in a free, democratic society such as America or Australia? Surely we would only tolerate just executions. But who among us has an unbiased judicial sentiment? No one is good, no, not even one. Maybe that's why St. Augustine advocated the death penalty, but trembled at the thought of being the judge deciding the fate of the accused. 5. What about other arguments for or against the death penalty? Doesn't it deter crime? Well, not necessarily if you consider the fact that many European countries with no death penalty have far lower murder rates than the United States. But even if that were not the case, since when is utilitarian logic ("the greatest good for the greatest number") the basis for Christian ethics? If you cannot follow up your ethical position with "because I love God and my fellow man," then you should alter your position. I'm not saying that the death penalty is prima facie anti-love. However, authentic and holistic restoration is a far greater good than having a low murder rate. But then again, doesn't the death penalty lead to a cycle of violence? This is Webb's logic. But for this to be a valid argument, then you must first deny the legitimacy of government to enforce laws. To do this is to open the door to anarchy, each doing what is right in his own eyes. And this is surely not the way to end any so-called cycle of violence. To suggest that the message of an execution is that violence is the answer is ridiculous. Instead, executions, when carried out in a just manner (fair trial buy jury, competent counsel, right to appeal, etc)--send a message that murder is unacceptable in a society governed by laws. So what is my conclusion? Well, that's where I have to hide behind the cloak of Augustine. While the Bible clearly forbids murder, it neither condemns nor mandates capital punishment. But let no man or woman who is a follower of Christ rejoice when such a penalty is carried out. Let no one rush to push the button or read aloud the verdict. For ours is not the message of anti-violence, but of grace--grace that trickled down from the corpse of a condemned man. | | |
| I was born not too far from Chicago--the city that introduced the world to the skyscraper. In my opinion, it still has the world's best skyline, divided by the three peaks of the Sears Tower in the south, the Amoco Oil building in the east, and the John Hancock Center in the north. Soon to be added are the 93-story Trump tower and what could possibly be the world's tallest, the Fordham Spire, on the lakefront. The first time I traveled overseas I was 15. I went to Moscow in 1995 expecting to be blown away by the architecture of the crown city of our former rival superpower. Instead I saw decrepit concrete apartment blocks and austere-looking monoliths pretending to be modern skyscrapers. I soon learned that the most beautiful structures in Russia, indeed, in most of Europe, are not always the tallest. Well, at least not since the mass production of steel began. Moscow boasts what could be the most uniquely designed "church" in all the world--St. Basil's Cathedral. Paris has the ultimate ode to modernism in the Eiffel Tower, but it is the Cathedral of Notre Dame that really captures the imagination. From St. Peter's in Rome to Westminster Abbey in London, the most visited sites in Europe today are Catholic and Protestant places of worship. Or at least they used to be. Many people have written about the shuttering of churches across Europe, or about their conversion to museums, apartments, or in some parts, mosques. This is not unprecendented. One of the most beautiful mosques in the world, in Istanbul, Turkey, was once a cathedral. That is, of course, until the capital city of the once mighty Byzantine empire was conqured by the Turkish army in 1453. In short order what was once the heartland of Paul's ministry became the most Muslim place on planet Earth. It remains so today. And so we are left to wonder if the same fate that is quietly befalling Europe will ever cross the Atlantic (to the United States). Dr. Mohler has blogged about this today. He argues that the root cause of the shift away from Christianity in Europe is not immigration from non-Christian lands (contra Pat Buchanan and his uber-right counterparts on the Continent), but rather an open embrace of secularism. And that the best way to fight this in America is to fight secularism. The religious history of Europe is a fascinating subject, but one that is entirely different from the American story. The skylines of Europe tell a story alright--but it is not one of docile Christianity being quietly replaced by militant Islam and apathetic secularism. St. Peter's in Rome again, paid for largely by the sale of indulgences--the very practice condemned by Martin Luther. While I bear no particular grudge against today's Holy See, the structure that is the centerpiece of its own self-understanding represents the worst--not the best--of European Christian history. The clapboard chapels that dot the landscape of rural America tell a story entirely different from their European counterparts. The majority of American church buildings were constructed and financed not by kings or wealthy patrons, but by the local communities and congregations who would later occupy the facilities. And this is largely the story of American Christianity as a whole--it is and always has been largely a grassroots movement. Where it has deviated from the norm, say in Catholic or Puritan communities (say, New Orleans or Boston), the decline is much the same as in Europe. European secularism did not grow in a vacuum. The anti-religious sentiment prevalent today is not something that has caught its citizens unaware. It has largely been a revolt against the bankrupt worldview and unsubtle hypocrisy of the ruling classes, which includes the clergy. The same anti-establishment revolution that took place on American college campuses in the 1960s happened in Europe, too. The reason that no "Jesus movement" emerged in Europe is that in that context, there was no real possibility for the Christian religion to be anything other than pro-establishment. Christianity since Constantine was the establishment. And the establishment was as unyielding in their presumed self-importance as the stone walls and flying buttresses of Notre Dame. It has taken two Holocausts to shake this confidence--one happened in Auschwitz and surrounds, the other in the souls of individuals and communities raked over by bombs and bulldozers. Centuries of European ethnocentric pride in their civilization crumbled before the "progressive" ideologies of the 20th century--fascism, social Darwinism, raw empiricism, theological liberalism, socialism, and yes, capitalistic materialism. But contra Mohler and others sounding the proverbial alarm, the Church has little reason to lose heart. Ironically, the more secular the European establishment becomes, the greater chances that real Christianity (not the false gospel of Christendom) can be seen as counter-cultural, and thus, worth following. Missionaries, especially those of the "emerging-missional" flavor, are exploiting this reality today. This is true in America as well. The establishment on this side of the pond may not be the church-state colossus driven by the myth of Christendom and civilization, but American Christianity has in many parts become nothing but a rubber stamp for our own brand of ethnocentric pride. The Church in America will survive if say, the world's tallest skyscraper ends up in Dubai. It will not survive if it fails to divorce itself from the opposing, but equally dangerous trends, of triumphant liberalism or triumphant nationalism. The Church in America will survive multiculturalism, same-sex marriage, consumerism, environmental degradation, illegal immigration, secular public schools, violence on television, the Chinese, and a botched war effort. It will not survive a wholesale abandonment of faith, hope, and love, and the mission of God to a broken world by the faithful remnant in the pews. The lessons of Europe for America (and Australia too!) are not getting people to believe and do what they know they should. The lesson we all need to learn is the supremacy of the Gospel--the real bleeding, suffering, counter-cultural, beautiful Gospel. | | |
| If only the game ended after the first five minutes. A kickoff return for a touchdown. A beautiful interception. A botched extra point. No Grossman turnovers. Nonetheless, Tony Dungy and the Colts deserved this one big time. Judging by the stats alone, the score should have been about 41-17. After the first quarter, it was not a close game. But Lovie Smith and da Bears will be back. They done good this year. Indianapolis is probably one of the biggest sports towns that I know anything about. So this is special despite my obvious pain and suffering.  Now Indiana can (finally) be obsessed with a coach besides Bobby Knight. Commericals: none too memorable, except maybe the very first Bud Light one with rock paper scissors. It reminded me of that scene on the ski slope in Dumb and Dumber--the only time I actually laughed in that movie. I'm a sucker for slapstick. G'night. | | |
|
