Why I Cannot Support Death Penalty

[Josh]

Do you feel the supporting incarceration for life is compatible with your faith?

Ultimately, what should be done with murderers? The Bible clearly states that the magistrate “does not bear the sword in vain”; it seems odd for Christians to expect earthly government to follow New Testament principles. If anything, earthly government should be modelled over the Old Testament law.

So stoning for blasphemy and adultery, legalized slavery, and that sort of thing?

(1) Blasphemy is one of the Ten Commandments. I’m not sure why it needs to be legal.

(2) Adultery is a really bad thing. Why should it be legal?

(3) “Slavery” in an OT context was basically repayment of debts, modern debt slavery is essentially the same thing, just with different rights. If you owe the IRS or your ex spouse a lot of money, you might as well be a slave - you’ll have to work a lot and will barely be able to keep enough money to eat.

[Dan Z]

While Ken gave some very good pragmatic reasons why a just and modern society would question the death penalty, my reasons are more faith-based:

1) Because I am a follower of Jesus and I can't, in good conscience, support something that is contrary to Christ's teaching. The death penalty is grounded on the principle of Talion or Retributive Justice, where punishment is like-for-like; an "eye for an eye" a "life for a life." Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, overrode this principle saying "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." How can I, a servant of Jesus Christ, support something that he forbids.

2) Because I am Pro-Life. I understand life as a sacred stewardship from God, and acknowledge that HE alone should be the giver and taker of life. I would no sooner support the death penalty than abortion, or euthanasia, or eugenics, or lynching, or war.

3) Because history and prophesy teach that the death penalty is a threat to people of faith like me. My spiritual forebears have been tortured and killed as a result of state-sponsored capital punishment used against them, from Switzerland to Germany to the United States. Government-led persecution of people of faith continues to be a threat to the Church in various places across the globe. Furthermore, the death penalty was used to murder my Lord and most of his disciples - and they prophetically warn of its rampant use in the last days. Why would I lend my voice in support of that which has and will represent a grave threat to my brethren and my children?

Do you feel the supporting incarceration for life is compatible with your faith?

Ultimately, what should be done with murderers? The Bible clearly states that the magistrate “does not bear the sword in vain”; it seems odd for Christians to expect earthly government to follow New Testament principles.

It sounds like you're conflating your requirements for practice as a Christian, specifically a non-resistant Christian, with the responsibility of the state.

The state has a responsibility to punish evil doers, right? How do you believe that should be carried out in extreme cases?

These are good questions, and I've heard them often when conservative Mennonites attempt to give tacit support for things like war and the death penalty...while at the same time claiming these things to be wrong for followers of Jesus.

I would only answer by saying that my worldview as an Anabaptist, like yours, does not seek to impose the ethics of Christ's Upside-down Kingdom on earthly power structures - that's not how I believe the agenda of King Jesus is advanced. For me, there is a difference, between "expectation" and "support" however. I expect worldly governments will do all kinds of things that are "outside of the perfection of Christ" (as our forebears put it), and that God even may allow (ordain) this to occur to bring temporal order to a fallen world. However, while I'm not a direct participant in earthly government, it feels duplicitous to offer even passive support for any action Jesus clearly teaches as immoral. If Christ condemns "an eye for an eye," then who am I to say it OK in certain "official" circumstances? And if my Lord commands love for enemies, how do I dare grant exception to that teaching for people who kill on behalf of the state? In fact, by doing so I believe we Mennonites undercut our witness and send confusing mixed messages about or commitment to the way of Jesus.

Furthermore, Jesus didn't qualify his teachings in the Sermon on the mount - and I believe the Apostle Paul must be read in the context of his Master's commands. I think Paul would expect nothing less of us.

By the way, I don't think incarceration is necessarily immoral or unloving...so I don't have the same issue with just imprisonment that I do with execution - which I don't think can be "just." For the record, I don't believe in "just war" either.

[nett]

While Ken gave some very good pragmatic reasons why a just and modern society would question the death penalty, my reasons are more faith-based:

1) Because I am a follower of Jesus and I can't, in good conscience, support something that is contrary to Christ's teaching. The death penalty is grounded on the principle of Talion or Retributive Justice, where punishment is like-for-like; an "eye for an eye" a "life for a life." Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, overrode this principle saying "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." How can I, a servant of Jesus Christ, support something that he forbids.

2) Because I am Pro-Life. I understand life as a sacred stewardship from God, and acknowledge that HE alone should be the giver and taker of life. I would no sooner support the death penalty than abortion, or euthanasia, or eugenics, or lynching, or war.

3) Because history and prophesy teach that the death penalty is a threat to people of faith like me. My spiritual forebears have been tortured and killed as a result of state-sponsored capital punishment used against them, from Switzerland to Germany to the United States. Government-led persecution of people of faith continues to be a threat to the Church in various places across the globe. Furthermore, the death penalty was used to murder my Lord and most of his disciples - and they prophetically warn of its rampant use in the last days. Why would I lend my voice in support of that which has and will represent a grave threat to my brethren and my children?

Do you feel the supporting incarceration for life is compatible with your faith?

Ultimately, what should be done with murderers? The Bible clearly states that the magistrate “does not bear the sword in vain”; it seems odd for Christians to expect earthly government to follow New Testament principles.

It sounds like you're conflating your requirements for practice as a Christian, specifically a non-resistant Christian, with the responsibility of the state.

The state has a responsibility to punish evil doers, right? How do you believe that should be carried out in extreme cases?

These are good questions, and I've heard them often when conservative Mennonites attempt to give tacit support for things like war and the death penalty...while at the same time claiming these things to be wrong for followers of Jesus.

I would only answer by saying that my worldview as an Anabaptist, like yours, does not seek to impose the ethics of Christ's Upside-down Kingdom on earthly power structures - that's not how I believe the agenda of King Jesus is advanced. For me, there is a difference, between "expectation" and "support." I expect worldly governments will do all kinds of things that are "outside of the perfection of Christ" (as our forebears put it), and that God even may allow (ordain) this to occur to bring temporal order to a fallen world. However, while I'm not a direct participant in earthly government, it feels duplicitous to offer even passive support for any action Jesus clearly teaches as immoral. If Christ condemns "an eye for an eye," then who am I to say it OK in certain "official" circumstances? And if my Lord commands love for enemies, how do I dare grant exception to that teaching for people who kill on behalf of the state? In fact, by doing so I believe we Mennonites undercut our witness and send confusing mixed messages about or commitment to the way of Jesus.

Furthermore, Jesus didn't qualify his teachings in the Sermon on the mount - and I believe the Apostle Paul must be read in the context of his Master's commands. I think Paul would expect nothing less of us.

By the way, I don't think incarceration is necessarily immoral or unloving...so I don't have the same issue with just imprisonment that I do with execution - which I don't think can be "just." For the record, I don't believe in "just war" either.

Seems like you would have to take issue with a great deal of laws in the country. Any kind of use of force is contrary to how Christians should behave. That doesn't really work for governments.

[Ken]

Do you feel the supporting incarceration for life is compatible with your faith?

Ultimately, what should be done with murderers? The Bible clearly states that the magistrate “does not bear the sword in vain”; it seems odd for Christians to expect earthly government to follow New Testament principles. If anything, earthly government should be modelled over the Old Testament law.

So stoning for blasphemy and adultery, legalized slavery, and that sort of thing?

(1) Blasphemy is one of the Ten Commandments. I’m not sure why it needs to be legal.

(2) Adultery is a really bad thing. Why should it be legal?

(3) “Slavery” in an OT context was basically repayment of debts, modern debt slavery is essentially the same thing, just with different rights. If you owe the IRS or your ex spouse a lot of money, you might as well be a slave - you’ll have to work a lot and will barely be able to keep enough money to eat.

We are getting a little off track here with Old Testament Law. But a prohibition on blasphemy would be in direct violation of the First Amendment on multiple levels. And, in any event, both Blasphemy and Adultery were death penalty crimes in the Old Testament. That is why I brought them up when you suggested that earthy government be modeled on Old Testament law. Are you advocating death penalty by stoning for those crimes that you say should be illegal?

As for slavery. It wasn't just debt slavery in the Old Testament. The Israelites captured war slaves as well as did most societies at that time. For example, Numbers talks about the Israelites defeating the Midianites and then killing the men and taking the women into slavery. The Israelites themselves were slaves in Egypt for generations. None of that is debt-based indentured servitude freely entered into. Joseph himself was sold into slavery in Egypt by his brothers. That had nothing to do with debts.

Old Testament Law is essentially what the ISIS caliphate tried to implement and the Taliban are doing now. I doubt there are very few Americans who would share your views on that.

[Josh]

I have far more respect for the OT law than I do for the American constitution, which, by the way, also had legal slavery.

[Gene]

I would suppose that the more perceptive among the denizens of this fine forum, those cognizant of Dan's past as president of that institution sometimes referred to as the College in the Cornfield, and thus his status as CMC poohbah of sorts, would question whether attempting to clarify his thinking' or at least his expression of it, is something I am qualified to undertake. But since I probably have less respect for denominational hierarchy than I ought, being rather perturbed when they tried to change the church name, having one of the options containing "Rosedale". Call me egotistical, but I would prefer persons I give money to not obscure their identification with our theological History.

Whatever my view of my ecclesiastical overlords, or their view of me, Dan is clearly wrong on this one, an articulation of opinion offered in good humor. In order to oppose capital punishment as public policy, consistency demands opposition to all violence by the state where the innocent may be inadvertently harmed, which would largely place warfare beyond the pale, and would cast great doubt on the probity of law enforcement. The honorable gentleman makes the common error of mixing affairs of church and state, something ostensibly settled about 500 years ago, but a temptation nearly irresistible to those who dabble in the political realm or comment on public issues. Separation of church and state works when both parties respect the other's domain.

[Robert]

In order to oppose capital punishment as public policy, consistency demands opposition to all violence by the state where the innocent may be inadvertently harmed, which would largely place warfare beyond the pale, and would cast great doubt on the probity of law enforcement. The honorable gentleman makes the common error of mixing affairs of church and state, something ostensibly settled about 500 years ago, but a temptation nearly irresistible to those who dabble in the political realm or comment on public issues. Separation of church and state works when both parties respect the other's domain.

I see them as two different tracks. Law Enforcement purpose is to "serve and protect." It is there to bring order and to help be the enforcement arm of the justice system. It's purpose is not to kill or harm. This does happen, and sometimes too often, but that is not the purpose. Governments have to use the sword. I would not serve as a Police officer, but glad some do.

The role of executions is to kill. That is the purpose. It is the last act of the justice system. It is final. There are no appeals. There is no longer time for repentance. There are so many things that kill people must a society add to it by executing? There have been multiple death row inmates who have been finally found innocent by advances in DNA and other technology. I would want to give all the time in the world for this to happen for all.

If Taliban looping of the heads of Christians is wrong, then the US executing those it sees as guilty is wrong also. It is the same practice. Both feel justified. Both are following their law.

[Heirbyadoption]

In order to oppose capital punishment as public policy, consistency demands opposition to all violence by the state where the innocent may be inadvertently harmed, which would largely place warfare beyond the pale, and would cast great doubt on the probity of law enforcement. The honorable gentleman makes the common error of mixing affairs of church and state, something ostensibly settled about 500 years ago, but a temptation nearly irresistible to those who dabble in the political realm or comment on public issues. Separation of church and state works when both parties respect the other's domain.

I see them as two different tracks. Law Enforcement purpose is to "serve and protect." It is there to bring order and to help be the enforcement arm of the justice system. It's purpose is not to kill or harm. This does happen, and sometimes too often, but that is not the purpose. Governments have to use the sword. I would not serve as a Police officer, but glad some do.
The role of executions is to kill. That is the purpose. It is the last act of the justice system. It is final. There are no appeals. There is no longer time for repentance. There are so many things that kill people must a society add to it by executing? There have been multiple death row inmates who have been finally found innocent by advances in DNA and other technology. I would want to give all the time in the world for this to happen for all.
If Taliban looping of the heads of Christians is wrong, then the US executing those it sees as guilty is wrong also. It is the same practice. Both feel justified. Both are following their law.

Unless, perhaps, the Divinely authorized role/calling of temporal (and implicitly unregenerate) governments really IS to maintain order in general society and mete out temporal justice (ie "bear the sword) against violators based upon the principles of Divine order and morality as revealed throughout the Scriptures (even to the point of equal retribution), as was the similarly calling and responsibility of the geo/political entity of Israel prior to the incarnation of Christ and the Cross...? That calling and responsibility being a far different animal than the higher calling of a born-again individual or group of individuals not to bear the sword, but to extend grace, mercy, forgiveness, etc...

[Josh]

A rather obvious question is how it is just at all for a government to tolerate someone stabbing a cashier to death in order to rob them.

The magistrate does not bear the sword in vain. In situations like this, either the life of the innocent is taken, or the life of the guilty.

[Dan Z]

Whatever my view of my ecclesiastical overlords, or their view of me, Dan is clearly wrong on this one, an articulation of opinion offered in good humor. In order to oppose capital punishment as public policy, consistency demands opposition to all violence by the state where the innocent may be inadvertently harmed, which would largely place warfare beyond the pale, and would cast great doubt on the probity of law enforcement. The honorable gentleman makes the common error of mixing affairs of church and state, something ostensibly settled about 500 years ago, but a temptation nearly irresistible to those who dabble in the political realm or comment on public issues. Separation of church and state works when both parties respect the other's domain.

Hi brother Gene. Thanks for your thoughtful response. I'm always glad when you emerge from the shadows, now and then, to offer your perspective.

The bottom line for me; I'm pragmatic enough to grant any state an allowance to operate outside of the ethics of Christ, because they are functioning in the worldly realm (I think that's what Paul is doing in Romans 13). They don't know any better, and I don't expect more of them. I accept the fact that they will use carnal means to keep order in a carnal context...but I can't, in good conscience, give them an endorsement to violate the teachings of Christ, especially knowing that, according to scripture, they will ultimately be in conflict with the end-game of Jesus (I Cor. 15:24-28).

The Kingdom of Jesus is coming, as he prayed, "on Earth and in Heaven" - and it advances in power and scope as we disciples give ourselves to radically obey "everything that he commanded us." He turned conventional wisdom like "an eye for an eye" and "love your neighbor, hate your enemy" on its head. If we really believe that the love-driven cause of Jesus will change the world, and if we believe that we are modeling that reality as salt and light, then we ought not to undercut our own witness by, at the same time affirming, state-sponsored killing.

(P.S. - Oh, as a committed anabaptist, CMC's decision to drop "Mennonite" from its name bothers me as well. )