John Mark Reynold -- "An Odious Law: Uganda and Homosexuality"

John Mark Reynolds:

Uganda may pass a law that could lead to the death penalty for homosexual behavior.

The proposed law is odious.

Due to the legacy of colonialism, Western people should be sensitive about interfering in sub-Saharan African politics and modest in making moral pronouncements regarding Africa, but this law deserves universal condemnation. Uganda experienced many evils under colonialism, including the loss of basic liberties.

Experiencing evil does not give a free pass to do evil and this bill is wicked.

It is not a close call.

Read more!

Another View on Evangelicals Cracking Up

Certainly, nothing in reading David Kirkpatricks "The Evangelical Crackup" struck me as wrong - it just struck me as somehow "off the point" - yet again. [read David Domke's take on the article here.]

Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost hit the point for me:

The article itself is mostly a rehash of the dominant media perspective on evangelicals and politics, though it is noteworthy for Kirkpatrick's style of "journalism by name-dropping." The 7900 word article manages to cram in the names of 23 evangelicals leaders: Terry Fox, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Paul Weyrich, D. James Kennedy, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Marvin Olasky, David Welsh, Ralph Reed, Frank Page, Rick Scarborough, David Wells, Scott McKnight, Jim Wallis, Tony Perkins, Gene Carlson, Todd Carter, Joe Wright, Paul Hill, Harry Jackson, and Donald Wildmon.

But while Kirkpatrick focuses on the cult of personality, the true crux of the conservative Christian political movement is based on a culture of principles. Rather than focusing on a "Who's Who" of Christian leaders, an adequate understanding of the "evangelical Right" requires the recognition and prioritization of six core principles. (Note: Many of these themes were outlined in the National Association of Evangelical's paper on civic engagement [a very good read for those who really want to understand Evangelicals]):

Joe goes on to list those 6 core principles:

Principle 1: Protecting the sanctity of human life

Because all humans are created in God's image, evangelicals believe that all people have an inherent and inalienable dignity. We believe that it is at the times when life is most vulnerable, particularly in the early stages of development and at the period near death, that life is most in need of protection. Evangelicals believe in promoting policies that recognize the dignity of all humans without regard to such relativistic criteria as mental capacities or "quality of life."

Issues: Abortion, euthanasia, embryo destruction, capital punishment, cloning, and unethical human experimentation.

Principle 2: The nurturing of family life and the protection of children

While the institutions of marriage and church bear the primary responsibility for fulfilling this duty, evangelicals believe that the government should promote laws and policies that strengthen the well being of families.

Issues: Promotion of policies on marriage and divorce law, education, tuition vouchers, drug policies, abstinence promotion, fair labor practices, anti-discrimination legislation, protections against spouse and child abuse, affordable health care, reducing crime

Principle 3: Seeking justice and compassion for the poor and vulnerable

Evangelicals believe in the promotion of both a fair legal system that does not favor either the rich or poor and in a fair economic system that does not tolerate perpetual poverty. This principle also includes the protection of the vulnerable members of society, including the poor, children, the elderly, the disabled, refugees, minorities, the persecuted, and the imprisoned.

Issues: Poverty reduction both in America and abroad, torture, anti-pornography legislation, immigration reform, stemming the AIDS pandemic, ending slavery and sexual trafficking, stopping prison rape.

Principle 4: The protection of religious freedom

Evangelicals believe that the joint freedoms of religion and conscience constitute the First Liberty and are deserving of protection both in our own country and abroad.

Issues: Defense of First Amendment protections, expansion of religious freedoms abroad

Principle 5: Seeking peace and restraining violence

Although evangelicals prefer that governments pursue nonviolent paths to restoring peace, most of us recognize that military force can be a legitimate means of restraining evil. While there is no consensus on how this principle should be implemented, we are in general agreement that the principles of just war must guide our government's policies.

Issues: Defending against terrorism, ending genocide, weapons proliferation, defending human rights against tyrannical regimes

Principle 6: The protection of God's creation

Evangelicals believe that stewardship of the earth is a responsibility delegated to us by our Creator. Because the earth is a shared resource, the government has a particularly important role in implementing policies that protect the environment.

Issues: Promoting recycling, reduction of pollution, protecting animals from cruelty, conservation of resources, proper care for wildlife and their habitats

He rightly points out that you understand currents within the Evangelical movement not by treating them like "cults of personality" but by understanding how they prioritize and view those core issues.

This gives folks a principled way to determine which groups are likely to be approachable and open to common work - and on what issues. It also avoids some of the following foolishness:

For example, Christians have always been concerned about protecting God's creation. Yet it is only when an evangelical leader or organizations takes a stand that is outside the dominant conservative narrative (i.e., Richard Cizik saying that global warming is anthropocentric) do they take notice.

The media also tends to conflate the priorities of all evangelicals with the primary concerns of specific groups. Because of the influence of Dr. James Dobson and Focus on the Family, the media tends to portray all evangelicals as putting the primary emphasis on principles 1 and 2, to the exclusion of all others. So when Rick Warren talks about AIDS or poverty in Africa (Principle 3 issues), he is portrayed as breaking away from Dobson and the "religious right--even though they are in agreement on the importance of Principles 1 and 2.

Joe points out that Evangelicals do not have a generally accepted political theology (with the exception of neocalvanists) - and while they agree on the principles in general they do not have a unifed, developed view of their application to specific issues. Therefore

What Kirkpatrick is noticing is not a "crackup" among evangelicals but the continual re-prioritization of principles and disagreements over how they correlate with specific issues. At the level of the level of the church and community this is an ongoing, never-completed process.

Now, this touches the heart of my major problem with how political and theological liberals view the theological, and most political, conservatives I hang with. The constant reference to this leader or that leader - and the manipulation through demagoguery and distortion of the Gospel - is not what I see going on in the Evangelical movement I am part of. These folks strain and strive to understand Biblical principle on which to base their life - and they study, pray, and generally work hard to achieve that. Joe's view that there is

continual re-prioritization of principles and disagreements over how they correlate with specific issues. At the level of the level of the church and community this is an ongoing, never-completed process.

speaks to the world I live in better than almost any other comment I have seen.

This may gives a bit of a deeper insight than what normally comes around.

Read more!

A Higher Discussion on Capital Punishment

[Cross posted from Street Prophets with massive revision - it didn’t light up the discussion I wanted. Of course, that could just be because it is a bad post . . .]

Saddam Hussein's execution has, rightfully, brought up the discussion of capital punishment. For me that discussion has been on a nearly useless plane. The emotional knee-jerk reactions (my own included: "Good") which largely control the discussion in a time like this are good if you are attempting to work up a good rabble-rousing speech where you fire up the emotions of the crowd rather than challenging their intellect; but I am not into that.

Throwing the words "revenge" and "murder" around about the execution of a butcher like Saddam is only guaranteed to muddy the waters in the capital punishment debate. In the end, someone may get me to view the execution of Saddam as "murder" (a charged word for me) and Iraqi justice as "revenge" -- but that will take a little philosophical work. However, I am perfectly willing to engage in that work; so, let's see if we can think this out a little deeper . . .

Before I get started, however, the discussion below deals with the word "revenge" - it doesn't really deal with the word "murder". My problems with the word "murder" are two-fold:

1. Capital punishment did not fall within the commandment not to murder in scripture. That is obvious in both the Old and the New Testament. Avery Cardinal Dulles' "Catholicism & Capital Punishment" deals with this exegesis very well [Please read the whole thing while you are over there]
2. In secular law, there is distinction being murder and homicide; and distinctions between those that are justifiable and those that are not. In that sense, society has a definition for murder (the intentional, unjustified taking of an innocent life) that must be met. I think abortion is the intentional (and very often unjustified) taking of an innocent life but, since society as a whole is not agreed that this is "murder" (or even the taking of an innocent life in the way I mean it) I will never use that word for abortion because its intent is to create heat and not shed light. Nor, without adequate foundation, do I think capital punishment can be called murder.

Now, on to the core essay: J. Budziszewski is Professor of Government and Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. This article is adapted from a chapter of A Call for Reckoning: Religion and the Death Penalty, edited by John Carlson, Eric Elshtain, and Erik Owens.

"Capital Punishment: The Case for Justice"
First Things, August/September 2004

Budziszewski:

So weighty is the duty of justice that it raises the question whether mercy is permissible at all. By definition, mercy is punishing the criminal less than he deserves, and it does not seem clear at first why not going far enough is any better than going too far. We say that both cowardice and rashness miss the mark of courage, and that both stinginess and prodigality miss the mark of generosity; why do we not say that both mercy and harshness miss the mark of justice? . . .

[Betty Black at Street Prophets: What he does not state in his argument (or, at least in the parts excerpted) one key point which Aristotle argues, which is that usually one of the vices is wither prefered to the other vice, or one of the vices is more easily fallen into. This is important in speaking of justice and mercy. I would expect near universal agreement that: 1) mercy is preferable to punishment-beyond-dessert . . . even if just-dessert is preferable to mercy; and 2) it is easier to slip into over-punishment than to error via mercy.]

. . .Making matters yet more difficult, the argument to abolish capital punishment is an argument to categorically extend clemency to all those whose crimes are of the sort that would be requitable by death.

I ask: Is there warrant for such categorical extension of clemency? Let us focus mainly on the crime of murder, the deliberate taking of innocent human life. The reason for this focus is that the question of mercy arises only on the assumption that some crime does deserve death. It would seem that at least death deserves death, that nothing less is sufficient to answer the gravity of the deed. As Scripture says: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image" (Genesis 9: 5-6). Someone may object that the murderer, too, is made in God's image, and so he is. But this does not lighten the horror of his deed. On the contrary, it heightens it, because it makes him a morally accountable being. Moreover, if even simple murder warrants death, how much more does multiple and compounded murder warrant it. Some criminals seem to deserve death many times over. If we are considering not taking their lives at all, the motive cannot be justice. It must be mercy.

He presents the three questions that must be answered about mercy in regards to capital punishment:

1. Is it ever permissible for public authority to give the wrongdoer less than he deserves?
2. If it is permissible, then when is it permissible?
3. Is it permissible to grant such mercy categorically?

Later, Budziszewski will examine these questions both from the perspective of God's mercy and utilitarianism. First, he starts with the underlying purpose of punishment in general and its need to exact retribution

Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is retribution … the primary purpose of just punishment as such

and not revenge

…which is guided by a different motive. In retribution the spur is the virtue of indignation, which answers injury with injury for public good. In revenge the spur is the passion of resentment, which answers malice with malice for private satisfaction.

These distinctions must be dealt with by anyone who wishes to label punishment in general (by God or by man) - and capital punishment in specific - as revenge: What is the measured "just punishment" for a crime; and what is the motive of the punishers in carrying it out? The latter will not change what just punishment is, but will guide our education and shaping of our societal mores.

Budziszewski believes that just punishment/ retribution is the primary purpose (societal good) of criminal punishment:

1. just punishment is not something which might or might not requite evil; requital is simply what it is.
2. without just punishment evil cannot be requited.
3. just punishment requires no warrant beyond requiting evil, for the restoration of justice is good in itself.

He examines three other possible goods that come out of punishment:

• it might rehabilitate the criminal
• physically protect society from him
• deter crime in general

but gives reasons why they are secondary to retribution and not primary:

Although these might be additional motives for just punishment, they are secondary. In the first place, punishment might not achieve them. In the second place, they can sometimes be partly achieved apart from punishment. Third and most important, they cannot justify punishment by themselves. In other words, we may not do more to the criminal than he deserves--not even if more would be needed to rehabilitate him, make him harmless, or discourage others from imitation. For example, if a man punches another man in the nose, we may not keep him in a mental institution forever just because he has not yet become kind in spirit, kill him because we cannot be sure that he will never punch again, or torture him because nothing less would deter other would-be punchers . . .

[For those who have read it, C.S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength presents in the "criminal reform" of N.I.C.E. this very picture of holding people indefinitely to "rehabilitate" them rather than "cruelly" punish them. See also the real gulags of the Soviet Union; Gitmo; and re-education camps in China for examples where rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence reign supreme over just punishment]

. . . For these reasons, rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence have a lesser status in punishment than retribution

It seems to me, from other discussions, that many folks consider these to be the primary reasons for punishment; and certainly constitute the primary argument against capital punishment. Budziszewski again:

The argument against capital punishment runs as follows. True, the purpose of retribution is served by the murderer's death, but under certain circumstances retribution might interfere with other purposes of punishment: it might prematurely put an end to his rehabilitation; it might undermine deterrence (say, by so angering his compatriots that they, too, commit evils); and it might not be necessary for the physical safety of others. Therefore, it would be better not to kill him, but to protect society by other means--perhaps by locking him up forever. The difficulty with this argument is that it seems to regard the secondary purposes of punishment as sufficient to overturn its primary purpose. Rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence cannot justify doing more than what retribution demands; how can they justify doing less?

This brings us back to the only mediating influence on capital punishment - mercy - and the three questions at the top of the post. Budziszewski now looks at rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence in the light of mercy; and utilitarianism.

[You need to read the whole article at some point -- so here is where you need to go there, read it, and then come back when you are done . . . . . . . . Are you back? Great.]

Finally, he deals with some other issues outside these central ones:

Let us consider what objections might be made against our argument to this point. The judicious Cardinal Dulles, to whom my discussion is already indebted,

[and who the reader here at Brain Cramps should go read for this discussion also; and perhaps Justice Antonin Scalia's "God’s Justice and Ours"]

finds less to commend capital punishment than I do. Yet even he does not think that a review of the purposes of punishment is sufficient in itself to justify abolishing the ultimate penalty. The crux of his published argument is found not there, but in four other common objections to the penalty of death:

1. Sometimes innocent people are sentenced to death.
   
   [This is my chief problem with capital punishment, particularly because of ingrained racism (and other -isms) in American culture; and the source of my cramp here]
   
2. Capital punishment whets the lust for revenge rather than satisfying the zeal for true justice.
3. It cheapens the value of life.
4. And it contradicts Christ's teaching to forgive.

The Cardinal calls the first objection "relatively strong," to the second and third he concedes "some probable force," and the fourth he considers "relatively weak." Yet he concludes that "taken together, the four may suffice to tip the scale against the death penalty." Let us revisit these four objections.

[Again, I must send you to the article for Budziszewski's discussion of these four points (in case you do not remember) before you come back for this one.]

The reader is urged to link their own articles in the comments they would wish the folks here to discuss; but try to have them say something substantially different that what Budziszewski and Dulles have said.

Read more!

Kingdom Character and Secular Responsibility

Tgirsch is someone I have had a few blogathons with over at Evangelical Outpost. We usually start out some fair distance from the fence on opposite sides and end up both leaning on the fence (on opposite sides) and chatting. That is actually rare in my experience. tgirsch listens, and cares not as much about defending his position and talking points; but in looking for agreement and some unity on the issues.

tgirsch: "I wanted to respond to you concerning our debate at Evangelical Outpost, but Joe has closed the comments."

Me: "[We] were discussing Matthew 5-7 and whether the interpretation of that section of scripture (and related parts of Jesus' message) should be broadened beyond an analysis by Jesus of what our individual character should be to a call for certain qualities in society/government."

Here are some posts from the discussion to set the tone for the discussion here:

Stavrogin: how does one interpret "turn the other cheek" to define pacifism as a sinful and un-Christian attitude? Even Christ would not permit a sword to be raised in his defense, however noble the intention.

Joe: [On turn the other cheek] "that passage has nothing overtly to do with violence. To turn the other cheek is to literally allow someone who has slapped you to give you a backhanded slap on the other cheek. To receive such a blow was a great insult in Judaism; an offense against oneÂ’s dignity. While I agree that Christians should bear insults with meekness and humility, I do not believe that the passage intends for us to stand by and allow our neighbor to be raped,murdered, or mutilated . . . [On Christ and sword] Christ would not allow such a defense on his behalf because it was his intention to lay down his life willingly for us all."

Stavrogin: [On pacifism generally being sinful] ". . .Thee impression I get [is] that abandoning oneself to the mercy of God in the face of oppression, torment and even martyrdom at the hands of the unrighteous is a supremely Christian value.

Me: Would it be equally true if you were watching someone rape and kill your neighbor; and you abandoned them to the mercy of God? No, I think not. Could you interject yourself and become the victim while the other escaped? Of course. Could you harm, and even kill, the rapist to stop the killing? I think you could. There is ample justification in the Bible for government having the responsibility to use the sword to defend its people. I think calling people un-Christian for being personally pacifist is incorrect. Christians have been interpreting scripture, and God's will, to require their personal pacifism for a long time . . . it is almost impossible to use the bible to say the US government should be pacifist. We would be required, of course, to refuse participation in an unjust war: say a war of genocide.

Joe: I will agree that personal pacifism may not be inherently un-Christian (though there are times when non-violent resistance can be as unjust a use of power as violence). But I think that the right to pacifism, like the right to swing one's fist, ends at your neighbor's nose.

Mike: Commandments are by and large directed to individuals and not governments. Thou shalt not murder is directed to us as individuals. You only have to go down the page a little to find a list of circumstances under which society should exercise the death penalty.

Tgirsch: This illustrates a great problem with a literalist interpretation of scripture. It takes what Jesus likely intended as a larger message and pigeonholes it into something very specific and very narrowly applied. You take a very legalistic reading of Jesus' words here, and I think it's to your detriment.

Me: Damned if we do, damned if we do not. I think it is actually very necessary to take the Bible as literally as possible - in order to stop the use of scripture to support all those things you talk about. [Quoted Matt 5:38 - 42]. Everything here is about personal revenge or offensives to your person by another person. What reason is there to broaden it? In fact, the whole Sermon on the Mount was about personal righteousness and the personal traits of a Kingdom member. Let's let Christ say what Christ wants to say.

Tgirsch: The "eye for eye" verses don't concern personal revenge at all, but adherence to the law. [Quotes Lev 24:17-22: ] . Take the entire passage in context and you see that it's a conversation between God and Moses wherein God is proscribing His laws. Personal revenge has little to do with it; this is God's law. It is Biblical justice. A broad reading of the passage is advisable precisely because that's what makes sense in the context. I find it difficult to imagine that Jesus was speaking strictly of avoiding personal revenge against those who have wronged you personally, and nothing else . . .Notee that the Leviticus verse isn't saying what a wronged person would be within his rights to do, which is what you'd expect if revenge were the motivation. It talks about what must be done, and it doesn't say that the wronged party should be the one to do it. Someone who wrongs another must be wronged in similar fashion

Me: The whole context of Jesus's "ministry" (lame word really), and the Sermon on the Mount, is that the law needs not to be written in stone but on our hearts. Christianity is not a legalistic, law-driven belief structure - it is God's attempt to change our character and how we center our lives: To love God with our whole being; and our neighbor as ourselves. That is taken one individual at a time. He was HEAVILY amending (if not revoking) the Levitical law you quoted. He was, after all, here to revoke ( fulfill (as in complete) and replace the Mosaic covenant. Again, all of Matthew 5-7 is about the internal qualities and character of members of the Kingdom; and not about how society and government should behave. If you make the argument that a society of people having this character would approach its collective life, and relationship with other societies, differently - we would be on the same page entirely. [A quote from CS Lewis saying that the problem with political programs flowing from Christianity is that we go there to find support for our opinions rather than to see what our opinions should be]. The emphasis of Christianity is building our individual character to match that of Christ's, and have that character act as "salt and light" in the society around us - and that was the emphasis of the Sermon on the Mount.

Tgirsch: Jesus clearly is admonishing against violence here, even if in a limited context. I'd argue that it does Jesus' teaching a disservice to try to limit the scope of this admonition . . . I'm not aware of Jesus advocating violence anywhere, in any circumstance. So there's nothing else in Jesus' teaching that tells us we should limit our interpretation of that admonition. I believe he intended it to be broad (and many, many Christians concur, I might add). Given his habit of speaking in parables and using specific examples to illustrate broader principles (neither of which I suspect you'll dispute), the broad application makes the most sense here. Which brings us back to Stavrogin's original point: how is pacifism un-Christian? . . .Until you can show me where Jesus advocates war and capital punishment, I'll continue to argue that neither of these things helps "[build] our individual character to match Christ's," and in fact both are counterproductive to this end, and as such, Stavrogin's point stands.

Me: I think capital punishment is untenable from a Christian standpoint - but not everyone agrees (even the Catholics, who generally oppose it, aren't ironclad). As to war, you yourself I believe would fall into the just/unjust category on this - unless you would have bowed out of WWII even after Pearl Harbor; or finding out about the slaughter of the Jews. There is plenty of New Testament ground for government not having the same responsibilities as individuals. I think there are political responsibilities that flow from the character traits in the Sermon on the Mount - but I still argue for narrow interpretation of the Bible. I think we should be careful to fill in blanks with our own thoughts.

Nick: [on separation of Biblical view of individual vs state roles] I think that can be the basis of a Scripturally consistent defense of Christian pacifism. People like to point to Romans 13 for the role of government as an agent of God's wrath bearing the sword. But we might note that Paul is instructing the Roman Christians on how to respond to government. He doesn't indicate whether or not they should participate. However, in Chapter 12, he describes Christians as agents of God's mercy in a way that dovetails nicely with Christ's instructions in the Servant on the Mount and doesn't fit very well with the responsibilities of government in Chapter 13 . . .We might conclude that the code of conduct required of Christians is very different from the actions of government. We might also ask if it there is any support in Christ's instructions for the idea that it is possible to morally separate the things we do as private individuals from the things we do for the government. Even if we agree that government is established by God (perhaps in much the same way that he established the Babylonians and Assyrians as agents of his wrath in the Old Testament), weshouldd be very careful about concluding that we are permitted to do things as servants of government that we are not permitted to do as servants of Christ. To claim that Christians must always be ready to fight may be arrogating to much responsibility to ourselves. Christ calls us to be agents of love and mercy. He'll handle the wrath.

This is a magnificently important "brain cramp" for Christians and I have invited some people to help it continue. There are a couple of things I do not want this sidelined too: this is not a discussion on Iraq and whether we should be there; or whether any politicians who call themselves Christians are following Christ's example. I am inviting folks to the party - hopefully some will attend.

UPDATE: This topic does not need to be limited to the death penalty and pacifism. Discussion in general about how faith should, and should not, impact a Christian's secular political life would be great

Read more!