How Shall We Judge?
I've been thinking a bit lately about capital punishment and justice, mostly as it relates to Saddam Hussein. In my opinion, Saddam is an extremely evil man, and I don't pretend to use the term evil lightly. A friend recently wrote about the evilness (or lack thereof) of Saddam on his blogsite, and although I think that Saddam is more evil of a person then my friend seems to, I greatly appreciate his fair approach.
However, I'm wondering if the magnitude of how evil a person actually is, really matters when we are talking about choosing how and when to end a person's life.
Does God, and God alone have this divine responsibility to carry out when and how He so chooses, or can you and I, mere humans take this responsibility into our own blood stained hands?
Do we have the right to end the life of even the world's most evil person? I don't believe that we do.
I believe that we are called to forgive even the most violent and evil of persons. Does forgiving always mean forgetting? No, it doesn't. Does forgiving mean not punishing? No, it doesn't. But does punishing have to equal killing? No, it doesn't.
If there is a person alive today that deserves the death penalty I would say that person is Saddam Hussein. However, I struggle to see how the killing of someone is justified, no matter how many atrocities they have committed. Furthermore, I can't seem to reconcile how another sinful person can condemn a fellow human to death. We all deserve death. None are righteous, no, not one.
I might be radically oversimplifying the situation, and as someone with a very strong sense of justice and right and wrong, this further complicates my stance on capital punishment, [whether carried out by the State, or by other means]. I've often asked myself what I would do in a situation where my own act of evil could potentially save the lives of many and bring to justice the person or persons committing the atrocities. Would I go down the path in which Dietrich Bonhoeffer chose to go, as he entered into the resistance movements against Nazism and a plot to assassinate Hitler? Because of the strong sense of justice that I have, I often times think that I would.
This however I can't seem to fully reconcile with Jesus' words spoken to the Scribes and the Pharisees who brought the woman who had been caught in adultery to him.
M. Pascal
However, I'm wondering if the magnitude of how evil a person actually is, really matters when we are talking about choosing how and when to end a person's life.
Does God, and God alone have this divine responsibility to carry out when and how He so chooses, or can you and I, mere humans take this responsibility into our own blood stained hands?
Do we have the right to end the life of even the world's most evil person? I don't believe that we do.
I believe that we are called to forgive even the most violent and evil of persons. Does forgiving always mean forgetting? No, it doesn't. Does forgiving mean not punishing? No, it doesn't. But does punishing have to equal killing? No, it doesn't.
If there is a person alive today that deserves the death penalty I would say that person is Saddam Hussein. However, I struggle to see how the killing of someone is justified, no matter how many atrocities they have committed. Furthermore, I can't seem to reconcile how another sinful person can condemn a fellow human to death. We all deserve death. None are righteous, no, not one.
I might be radically oversimplifying the situation, and as someone with a very strong sense of justice and right and wrong, this further complicates my stance on capital punishment, [whether carried out by the State, or by other means]. I've often asked myself what I would do in a situation where my own act of evil could potentially save the lives of many and bring to justice the person or persons committing the atrocities. Would I go down the path in which Dietrich Bonhoeffer chose to go, as he entered into the resistance movements against Nazism and a plot to assassinate Hitler? Because of the strong sense of justice that I have, I often times think that I would.
This however I can't seem to fully reconcile with Jesus' words spoken to the Scribes and the Pharisees who brought the woman who had been caught in adultery to him.
They went each to his own house, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The Scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more." John 8:1-11Peace,
M. Pascal
posted by Matthew Pascal @ 10:12 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
You're in deep waters here MP. Good to hear your thoughtful take.
I wonder if Iraq could go for the type of "Truth and Reconciliation" trials that made forgiveness and healing possible in South Africa... I think Saddam would have a harder time facing forgiveness than he would facing the judgement he is subject to now. And I do think he is an evil dictator and reprehensible human being, and I didn't ever mean to discount that, but there have been some more evil and bloodthirsty people that haven't got the attention he has.
Good thoughts Anhomily,
I spent almost 3 years living in South Africa and still am in close contact with some good friends there. I wish that Iraq could go for something like the "Truth and Reconciliation" trials. I believe that could lend itself to some very powerful things happening - but that could just be my idealism speaking.
Ya, I think that Saddam would have a much more difficult time facing forgiveness then a death penalty, but it seems that many of us have a much more difficult time extending forgiveness then the death penalty as well...
And just to throw a bone out there, let's talk about the nice guy Saddam who helped establish Iraq as having one of the highest literacy rates in the Middle East. This was greatly due to some very intentional efforts that Saddam made. He was even awarded UN humanitarian awards for these literacy programs in the 90's...:)
Wordcat,
Do you think the waters are likely to get a bit more shallow for me anytime soon? What are some of your thoughts about the questions I was raising?
It may seem overly simplistic, but Romans 13:4 let's me sleep on this one.
"...if you do wrong, be afraid, for [the governemnt] does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
I honestly believe there is a true distinction between my prohibition to take a human life and the ability of the government. I think it's always been there and is what allows the commandment (don't murder) to be followed for the prescription of capitol punishment. I think the Romans passage preserves this idea into the New Testament. It is the very sanctitiy of life that demands life, and it is this distinction between murder and execution that allows for war. Without this distinction, pacifism must be the only right answer.
IMHO.
and thanks for the comment Pascal, I was honored.
I respectfully think Steve may misundertand Romans 13. It's the refuge passage for folks who want to support warfare and state violence.
If you read that chapter in the context of Romans, Paul has built a powerful argument for Christian freedom through the first 12 chapters and has exposed the falleness of the world and every governmental power.
In Romans 13, I believe Paul is dealing with a misapplication of his doctrine of Christian freedom. Some people understood Paul to be teaching a kind of wordly anarchy. He rejects that forcefully in Romans 13.
But his meaning has little to do with the celebration of violence and capital punishment that current evangelicalism and fundamentalism are so caught up in.
I believe he means that fallen worldly powers, who are under the judgement of God, can still accomplish God's ends, if only in a roundabout and indirect way.
It's hardly credible to believe that Paul believed fallen wordly governments carried out 'just state violence" on a regular basis. Jesus was executed by the leading power of his day.
I think Paul was trying to fend off destructive and worldly anarchical thinking on the part of some Christians. Some believers at that time thought that Christians should reject all worldly governments. Hard to believe that was true when you think of the slavish and lapdog quality of current evangelicalism which worships wordly power and believes the Republican Party is God's agent on earth. Paul was dealing with the opposite problem in Romans 13.
I think Paul simply meant to teach that Christians were not to think in worldly revolutionary terms.
I believe he meant to teach that all authority, no matter how fallen, does play a role in God's work in the world because God is sovereign.
A Christian can--and I believe should--insist that the ethics of the church are meant to be higher than those of the state. Christians must support non-violence for believers as the church did for its first three centuries.
But Christians also have to submit to God's sovereignty over the wordly powers. So there is no contradiction in saying that the state or any other worldly authority can contribute to God's work by executing violent judgment of those who do evil, but at the same time rejecting that kind of violence for anyone who is a born again believer.
Let the pagans execute and kill one another. God can work his good purposes through that.
But I'm not sure Paul's teaching in Romans 13 is meant to encourage believers to participate in or celebrate state violence. Actually, I think his overall teaching, like Jesus', is just the opposite. But I do think Paul wants to warn believers not to believe that wordly anarchism or a simple-minded rejection of state authority or any other wordly authority will somehow bring about his purposes.
Worldcat,
I am humbled and will certainly do further study at some point.
However, I think it may be overly convenient to relgate the decisions of the national stage to the pagans. It's appealing, but in a republic, our participation in the system brings a personal responsiblity that ties us even to the state's use of violence.
So, as you mention, there is a narrow line between anarchism and nationalism that we must find, and it often forces us past the scope of scripture to understand exactly how to do that.
Our Old Testament ethics make pacisfism difficult for us to hold, because we believe that some actions do demand justice, even on a human scale, and we have learned that to ignore attrocity is to be party to it. Thus enters Bonhoffer and a difficult decision we must make.
Several years ago, I saw "Horn in the West," an outdoor drama perfomed in Boone, NC. It documents the moral dilemma of a Baptist pastor and his flock as America enters a war against Britain. It was a marveloous look at his turmoil as he had to chose between fleeing and fighting. There's no answer in it, but I'm afriad that turmoil will be ever present for those seeking to follow Christ and yet hold the power of the vote.
Steve and Wordcat,
Thanks so much for your thoughts - I'm learning a lot here. This definately goes to prove that we can have real and meaningful conversations through blogs!
I want to chew on (and process) what you two "older and wiser" folks have said to this youngen' for a bit before responding, but hopefully I'll get back to this convo soon - actually I think that this is something that I'm not going to reach any sort of definitive answer on anytime soon, but nevertheless it's quite helpful to hear y'alls thoughful (and somewhat different) takes on the topic. It is something that I've wrestled with for a while now, and probably will for a while longer.:-)
Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts regarding what is an important, albeit difficult issue for me.
Post a Comment
<< Home