From: Bruce
Date: 07/12/2005 08:07 AM
Arthur,
I've been thinking some more about the woman caught in adultery as we discussed last night. I wonder whether we can extend the metaphor still further. (Maybe this is what you meant.)
When Christ says, "Let He who is without sin cast the first stone" (apart from the Mary joke*), He was the only one who could have cast the stone. In a forerunner of what was to come, by grace He says to her, "Neither will I." It doesn't change the fact that the wages of sin is death, and He tells her to stop sinning. But He was to go on and pay that price once for all.
So in the Death Penalty debate does it all fall back to only God has the right to take life from us?
An interesting follow-on question on the death penalty is what will happen to the executioner? Has he sinned in giving to Caesar what is Caesar's? Can he use the Nuremberg defence ("I was only following orders")?
From: Lorna
Date: 07/12/2005 11:06 AM
Dear Bruce,
These are interesting ideas. I think that Jesus did take the wrap for us all and, in that case, the decision is God's, not ours. Also, by not implementing the death penalty the perpetrator of the crime has the chance, through God's Grace, to mend his ways and not sin again, and to also make amends to the victim or victim's family; this we know occurs rather less that one would like, but should the opportunity to do this be taken away prematurely by execution?
I know in times past that an executioner always asked to be forgiven by the criminal in advance of the deed. He (the executioner) obviously thought that he was, in a strange sort of way, committing an offence against God and God's child on earth. The other thought about following orders is rather more difficult - if, in the case of war crimes, a soldier is following orders does his superior officer take the rap? Events in Iraq (Abu Graib prison etc.) would suggest that in today's society we are all responsible for our own actions - but is the sentence harsher on the boss? Also in the same vein, although most western cultures do not agree that a president (USA excluded) or a reigning monarch actually pulling the strings is God's anointed on earth, there are still some that do. This may be particularly so in other cultures as well; in this case the chain of command might be said to begin at the top and not to follow orders is considered, by extension, to be a crime against God. What do you think?
Cheers! Lorna
From: Arthur
Date: 07/12/2005 01:55 PM
Bruce,
I do think that only God has the right to take or authorise the taking of life. So that what happened in the OT was that God authorised the taking of life under certain circumstances in a theocratic society. I do not think that that applies to us.
More than that, Jesus has died in our place - exactly as you say.
As to the executioner - well I think that explains stoning. In stoning the whole community is the executioner, not one individual. I am not sure what to make of executioners.
Regards
Arthur
From: Bruce
Date: 13/12/2005 08:19 AM
Thanks for your reply.
As I think I have shared before, I have struggled with the issue of forgiveness after my niece's murder and think I have finally resolved the issue around the idea that I must stand ready to forgive, but they have to seek it. There is in fact no point in me forgiving someone who won't acknowledge their wrongdoing.
As far as the issue of "making amends", I actually don't believe this needs to go beyond the acknowledgement of the sin and seeking forgiveness for it. To me it is not a matter of victim compensation, for in reality it is often impossible ,in the case of these so called capital crimes, to restore things to the way they were had the crime not been committed. Similarly, there is a difficulty in the case of Van Nguyen in amending things, since the victims of this crime were prospective and anonymous. What matters is being right with God, and if the prospect of imminent death does not focus the criminal's mind on that necessity I'm not sure that time will either. None of this should be seen as an argument in favour of capital punishment however, since I think that the right to take life does not reside with any human being.
But that still leaves us with the issue of the culpability, if any, of the executioner. I think that they are operating within the earthly framework of the legal authority in their country and under the judicial system. As such they are just instruments in the process and therefore they are forgiven all of their sins if they seek that.
Although it is no longer the popular concept, all earthly authority is ordained by God for his purposes. The Old Testament is replete with bad Kings who nevertheless fulfilled God's purpose. After all it was God who hardened Pharaoh's heart in the face of the plagues, so that when he brought the Hebrews up out of Egypt it was clear that they were the chosen people.
But now for the really curly question: If we follow this logic all the way back up the chain of command, isn't each execution ordained by God for some purpose? If not, where in the chain did free will enter and short-circuit this?
The wages of sin is still death, and only Jesus sets us free from that. Ironically, if what we hear about Van Nguyen is right, even though he was hanged, he has been freed from death.
From: Lorna
Date: 13/12/2005 09:03 AM
Dear Bruce,
By making amends I do not mean compensation, I mean saying sorry for a start and, as you say, acknowledging that a sin hs been committed and seeking forgiveness for it. For the rest I'll have a think about it.
Cheers! Lorna
From: Nina
Date: 31/12/2005 04:33 PM
I have (finally) had some time to look at the HQG website and found the email discussion really interesting. I wish we had been there on the night. What caught my interest was the question of the culpability of the executioner. I was interested to read in an article recently that The American Medical Association and the American Nurses Association specifically prohibit their members from any involvement in capital punishment, including monitoring vital signs and pronouncing death (this doesn't stop some members from participating in lethal injection and they have not as yet been disciplined for doing so!?). Clearly for these professional bodies, at least in theory, the executioner is culpable.
On a slightly different tack, I saw the short for Joyeaux Noël at the movies recently. It retells the story of WWI soldiers calling truce for christmas. Apparently (sorry Lorna my mod. history is sketchy at best) the battle was abandoned when the soldiers who had shared christmas dinner together refused to shoot at one another. I guess the question of the executioner reminded me of that if everyone refuses to do the killing then no-one has to die. Might be worth a look.
Happy New Year everyone
Nina
From: Arthur
Date: 31/12/2005 04:46 PM
My understanding is that at the Christmas peace in WW1 the generals had to move all the troops away from the spots they had been in because they were not prepared to shoot at people they had become friendly with.
[* A supposedly "Roman Catholic" joke:
Jesus says, "Let He who is without sin cast the first stone" then, moments later, "Mother, put that stone down!"]
No comments:
Post a Comment