Comments for Wrestling with the death penalty at http://pres-outlook.net , comment 1 to 6 out of 6 comments http://pres-outlook.net Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:07:07 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/6091.html#comment-3625 In response to the lengthy exegesis of Dean Thompson on the death penalty: First: Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed; for God made man in his own image (Genesis 9:6). First there is the question of justice. A primary duty and responsibility of a government, of a court of law, is to see that justice is enacted. The victims of criminals have rights as surely as the criminal. Mercy is not the prerequisite of the court. It is the prerogative of those who have suffered at the hands of the lawless. If they choose to forgive, well and good. But the court is bound to see that justice prevails. Second: For the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). The most important question to ponder when it comes to the death penalty is the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. The Apostle said (II Cor. 5:21) For our sake he (God) made him (Christ) to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. I Peter 2:24 reads: He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. There are those who ask, in order for us to be forgiven of our sins why do we have to have God's eternal son being scourged, being nailed to a cross, dying forsaken by God? Why can't God simply say to one who has repented of his wrongdoing: "You as forgiven." The answer to that has to be that God the Creator cannot ignore the evils that man commits against his fellow man. If this is a world of justice and righteousness, there must be a consequence for man's offenses. The gospel is (II Cor. 5:19) "in Christ God reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them." In Christ God bore himself the consequence of the sin of man. Most definitely those who are troubled by the death penalty need to reflect upon the understanding in Scripture of Jesus Christ being the expiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world (I John 2:2). Third, We live in a culture where the preservation of physical life is the chief and foremost objective of human existence. But Jesus said, Greater love has no man that this, that a man lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13). There is devotion to an ideal or duty, the love of one's country, the protection or safety of one's family, that takes precedence over the maintenance of one's life. The biblical record makes it clear that the death of Christ on the cross was voluntary. The mockers on Golgotha cried out, He saved others, let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the chosen one (Luke 23:35). Christ could have saved himself but he did not. In addition he could have saved the malefactors who were being crucified with him, but he did not. One could conclude from this text that Jesus was no advocate for those wishing to abolish the death penalty. - Otis L. Fisher Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/6091.html#comment-3611 It seems to me that a lot hinges on just who is included in 'Society'. Are inmates 'Society'? is prison staff 'Society? Or are prison staff only members of society when they aren't at work? Since inmates continue to committ crimes while incarcerated - even murder (the author may have been shown some of the weapons inmates fashion out of common items to committ crimes inside the walls) one must wonder if the 'Society' being protected includes the people working in, and other inmates incarcerated in prisons. If so, it would seem the test would be whether or not an individual continues to pose a further threat to people. I have no problem housing a well-behaved murderer for 50 or 60 years. More important than the inmate's crime is his/her behavior once incarcerated. If the author supposes staff to be outside of society - outside protection - then it would seem the church's rightful place is to assist in aiding (if not honoring) the people who work in prisons. Who else - unarmed - daily offer up their lives, well being, and peace of mind to be so civilised? Who else do we have in our current expression of Christianity that sacrifice themselves so that those who kill (or would kill) may live? I look forward to a time when the author can present a workable (to mean 'Cost Affective') alternative to our current system of incarceration. (For that mattter, I look forward to a time when the author puts on a uniform and works a few shifts in a prison somewhere.) Our current system has many flaws and I do not mean to defend it. I look forward to a time when something better can be presented to ALL of society - not just those outside the walls. - Douglas Hickman Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/6091.html#comment-3612 An interesting choice of topics. When globalization is permanently altering our culture, when radical Islam is rapidly transforming western culture, when bio-ethics are being challenged on a weekly basis, when atheists are on the New York Times best seller list; Dean Thompson choses to re-hash the worn out arguments of the anti-death penalty movement as put forth by liberal protestantism. It's a 'safe' topic that has already been thoroughly covered in the 1970's. One can go to any library and find Thompson's exact arguments against the death penalty in any number of excellent books. My comment is neither for or against the death penalty. My argument is for articles that address the relevant issues of today. Granted, executions still take place, but the resources to address them have long been out on the bookshelves. I would love to see our seminary professionals address relevant up-to-date issues that have not already been thoroughly covered. This propensity to address yesterday's news seems to be common fare in seminaries. At least this is what I experienced and also what I'm hearing from current seminary students. - Greg Wiest Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/6091.html#comment-3610 I must disagree with Gordan Jewett's approach to let the people decide. When we have done that in the past, we have had slavery, segregation, etc. Instead, I think there is a very valid reason for the church to speak on the death penalty. First, in the Deuteronomy 17:1-7, there are two conditions laid out for the death penalty: 1) It is for a nation/individual who has entered into a covenant relationship with God and has broken that relationship. 2) It must be on the testimony of two or three witnesses. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the death penalty, but one could reasonably conclude from Romans 12:19, that we should not seek vengeance. Thus there are three biblical prescriptions for using the death penalty: 1) The nation must be in a covenant relationship with God; 2) There must be two to three witnesses; 3) It cannot be used for vengeance. I would suggest that at least two, if not all three, of these prescriptions are absent in our society. So biblically speaking, I cannot see how Christian can support the use of the death penalty. Instead, I think the church is called to be prophetic witness in the world, even in terms of speaking out agains the death penalty. - David McCann Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/6091.html#comment-3608 When I read an article like the one by Dean Thompson (Outlook, October 29) about the death penalty, I wish I had had a formal course in logic so that I could name what I sense to be the numerous flaws and fallacies in his argument. I applaud his effort to present a point of view on a contentious subject. I think he believes he has wrestled with the death penalty and come out on top. Years ago (almost 50) I told a seminary professor I wanted to write an article on the death penalty, and he asked "why would you want to do that?" He said that I would be opening myself up to criticism on a subject that had better be left to the will of the people. Since then I've taken refuge in his advice while holding different views from that of President Thompson. For one thing he says that by subscribing to or allowing the death penalty we are telling our children it is permissible to meet violence with violence What as a society we're telling our children, if we tell them anything, and if they're paying attention, is that people who murder other people, if they get caught and convicted, will probably spend a long time in jail and in some cases will be executed. To say that we're telling them anything more than that is isogesis, adding or reading in our own interpretation. That part of Thompson's argument is emotional, and also logically flawed, a non sequitur. I'm not going on a crusade in favor of capital punishment, but am willing to let the people decide, through legislatures and courts, how the matter should be handled. I'd merely like to hear a more logically rigorous argument than the one Thompson gave us. - Gordon Jewett Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/6091.html#comment-3604 Being a Louisville graduate, I'm proud of Dean's analysis of this issue. I wish more politicians would pay attention to the analysis. - Bruce Berry Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:00:00 +0100