I have not been walking like I used to. Balancing family, church and DMin responsibilities has been a challenge and getting in some exercise ... Well, it just hasn't been happening. But I am going to try to do better.
Right now I am typing this entry while walking on a treadmill and watching the Virginia Tech vs. East Carolina football game. I'm not breaking any speed records. There are about 12 minutes remaining in the 1st half and I have walked 2.7 miles and burned 323 calories according to the meter on this treadmill. I have also answered a few emails and checked some twitter feeds and "facebooked" a little while walking.
It feels good. I hope I remember that the next time that I am impressed with the need to drag myself to the treadmill.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
I can make you sick
It is my practice to get a flu shot because I have the potential to make people sick, including some people who may be particularly vulnerable. As a pastor I spend a lot of time in areas where sick people are--particularly hospitals. Then I go to nursing homes and congregational gatherings where people are not sick.
Because of my age and health I am not in a priority group for receiving a flu shot when there is a shortage of them but I wonder if I should be. I do not think I would be in great danger of being hospitalized or worse if I contracted the H1N1 virus, for example. But I am concerned that I have the potential to spread it to some who are vulnerable to adverse reactions maybe even before I know that I am sick.
According to this report of a few weeks ago Centers for Disease Control has recommended that priority be given to these groups when the H1N1 vaccine first becomes available: pregnant women; people who live with or care for children younger than 6 months of age; healthcare and emergency medical services personnel; children and young people between the ages of 6 months and 24 years old; and people ages 25 through 64 years of age who are at higher risk for 2009 H1N1 because of chronic health disorders or compromised immune systems. Actually the report says that the priority list includes the groups above. If there is an expanded priority list that also includes members of the clergy I haven't seen it.
Anyway, since members of the clergy move back and forth between large groups of sick people and large groups of people who are not sick, does it make since to include us on the priority list?
Because of my age and health I am not in a priority group for receiving a flu shot when there is a shortage of them but I wonder if I should be. I do not think I would be in great danger of being hospitalized or worse if I contracted the H1N1 virus, for example. But I am concerned that I have the potential to spread it to some who are vulnerable to adverse reactions maybe even before I know that I am sick.
According to this report of a few weeks ago Centers for Disease Control has recommended that priority be given to these groups when the H1N1 vaccine first becomes available: pregnant women; people who live with or care for children younger than 6 months of age; healthcare and emergency medical services personnel; children and young people between the ages of 6 months and 24 years old; and people ages 25 through 64 years of age who are at higher risk for 2009 H1N1 because of chronic health disorders or compromised immune systems. Actually the report says that the priority list includes the groups above. If there is an expanded priority list that also includes members of the clergy I haven't seen it.
Anyway, since members of the clergy move back and forth between large groups of sick people and large groups of people who are not sick, does it make since to include us on the priority list?
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Happy "Blasphemy Day"
I apologize, I am a day late, so a belated happy "Blasphemy Day" to you. According to a CNN report, the first ever blasphemy observance was held yesterday. The event was sponsored by the Center for Inquiry, headed by Ronald Lindsay. He was a devout Roman Catholic who once considered entering the priesthood but now he calls himself a non-believer and he defends the right to "ridicule, criticize--even lambaste God."
The date for Blasphemy Day was chosen to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the publication in a Danish newspaper of a controversial cartoon depicting Mohammed wearing a bomb as a turban. The drawing was protested by many Muslims as blasphemy. Wednesday's observance included a contest for the best blasphemous slogan. The winning phrase was memorialized on a t-shirt.
While I condemn blasphemy, I join with Lindsay in affirming the right of people to speak against God if they so choose. Rightfully the 100,000 supporters of the Center for Inquiry are outraged that some nations seek to execute blasphemers. Furthermore this CNN report made me aware that six states in this country (Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Wyoming) have laws against blasphemy on the books. This is disturbing.
According to Massachusetts law:
Some of the language of the anti-blasphemy laws of the other five states can be found here.
Baptists in the early days of this country affirmed the right of citizens to speak freely, including those who do not believe in God. John Leland, a Baptist leader, wrote in 1791, “Let every man speak freely without fear—maintain the principles that he believes—worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing …”
Leland aggressively proclaimed the gospel, baptizing more the 1,500 people in the course of his ministerial career. But he and his fellow Baptists of 200 years ago were equally aggressive in defending complete religious liberty and the separation of church and state. They were utterly against blasphemy, but they were also against blasphemy laws. They were convinced that the Lord would accomplish his purposes just fine without any coercive laws of the state.
They were right too.
The date for Blasphemy Day was chosen to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the publication in a Danish newspaper of a controversial cartoon depicting Mohammed wearing a bomb as a turban. The drawing was protested by many Muslims as blasphemy. Wednesday's observance included a contest for the best blasphemous slogan. The winning phrase was memorialized on a t-shirt.
While I condemn blasphemy, I join with Lindsay in affirming the right of people to speak against God if they so choose. Rightfully the 100,000 supporters of the Center for Inquiry are outraged that some nations seek to execute blasphemers. Furthermore this CNN report made me aware that six states in this country (Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Wyoming) have laws against blasphemy on the books. This is disturbing.
According to Massachusetts law:
Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or
contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars ...
Some of the language of the anti-blasphemy laws of the other five states can be found here.
Baptists in the early days of this country affirmed the right of citizens to speak freely, including those who do not believe in God. John Leland, a Baptist leader, wrote in 1791, “Let every man speak freely without fear—maintain the principles that he believes—worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing …”
Leland aggressively proclaimed the gospel, baptizing more the 1,500 people in the course of his ministerial career. But he and his fellow Baptists of 200 years ago were equally aggressive in defending complete religious liberty and the separation of church and state. They were utterly against blasphemy, but they were also against blasphemy laws. They were convinced that the Lord would accomplish his purposes just fine without any coercive laws of the state.
They were right too.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Baptist hippies
In Virginia, Baptists were the hippies of the 1760’s through the 1780’s. They did not take LSD or listen to psychedelic music but, like the hippies of the 1960’s, Virginia Baptists of the latter portion of the eighteenth century opposed much of the political and social orthodoxy of the day. As Rhys Isaac explains in is Pulitzer Prize winning book entitled The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790, Virginia Baptists were “countercultural.” However, unlike the libertine cultural dissent that characterized the hippie movement, Baptists offered an austere reaction to the dominant culture’s typical indulgences. Furthermore the emotional expression encouraged in Baptist gatherings of this period was considered ridiculous to the reserved worship practices of the aristocratic establishment.
At first the Baptist subculture of Virginia was easy for the dominant societal structure to ignore. Robert Baylor Semple, the earliest Virginia Baptist Historian, stated, “When the Baptists first appeared in … Virginia they were viewed by men in power as beneath their notice; none, said they, but the weak and wicked join them; let them alone, they will soon fall out among themselves and come to nothing.” The “men in power” were wrong; the countercultural Baptists grew rapidly. While there is clear evidence of the presence of Baptists in Virginia as early as 1699 their growth accelerated greatly after Daniel Marshall, who hailed from the historic Sandy Creek Baptist Church in North Carolina, began to preach in neighboring Virginia in the late 1750’s. By 1770 there were 18 or 19 Baptist churches with approximately 850 members and by 1774 there were 72 Baptist churches with over 5,000 members. By 1790 there were 210 Baptist churches with 20,861 members.
According to Isaac, Virginia Baptists aggressively pressed “a revolt against the traditional system” in the state. A gentleman from Loudoun County reported that the Baptists were “growing very numerous … and quite destroying pleasure in the Country; for they encourage ardent Pray’r; strong & constant faith, and an intire Banishment of Gaming, Dancing and Sabbath Day Diversions.” The solemn sobriety of Baptists seriously questioned the appropriateness of societal features that were considered crucial to the methods of association of the establishment. Not surprisingly, then, the Virginia power structure became alarmed by Baptist growth.
It may seem strange that a solemn movement that opposed dancing, drinking, games and other forms of merrymaking would become so popular. Isaac attributes the growth of the comparatively stern and sober Baptists to a need that they filled primarily among the poorer and less educated members of society. Isaac reports that the dominant Baptist message offered an escape from many harsh realities of the life of small farmers through a “supportive, and orderly community” that Baptist leader John Leland called “a congregation of faithful persons, called out of the world by divine grace, who mutually agree to live together, and execute gospel discipline among them.”
In Isaac’s view a vitally appealing feature of the supportive fellowship offered in Baptist churches was the comparative equality within the congregations. Baptists “conducted their affairs on a footing of equality so different from the explicit preoccupation with rank and precedence that characterized the world from which they had been called.” To Isaac the fact that numerous Baptist preachers rose from obscurity to assume important leadership roles in the movement is evidence of the equality fostered by the group. Persons of such low position would never have been given opportunities for leadership in the traditional order.
Semple cites a spiritual dimension as the reason for the popularity of the stern and sober Baptists rather than sociological factors only. He reports a revival—a miraculous spiritual awakening—that began in 1760 with a church formed from Daniel Marshall’s missionary efforts from North Carolina. The revival continued until the beginning of the Revolutionary War when a period of serious spiritual decline commenced. Shortly after the war, in 1785, another period of revival began and continued through 1791 or 1792 during which time “[t]housands were converted and baptized.” Baptist historian H. Leon McBeth reports that the latter period of spiritual awakening produced as much as an elevenfold increase in Virginia Baptist numbers.
Whether the growth of Baptists in Virginia in the last half of the eighteenth century should be attributed to sociological factors or spiritual awakening or some combination of the two, there can be no doubt this growing movement that aggressively opposed the customary bonding methods of the establishment and cast aside traditional notions of rank and privilege posed a great threat to those in power. Baptist success in converting slaves also inspired a good deal of hostility from the Virginia aristocracy. According to Semple, among the earliest converts apparently resulting from Daniel Marshall’s missionary work in Virginia “were several white members besides a large number of blacks, belonging chiefly to the large estate of Colonel Byrd.” As these slaves, many of whom “became bright and shining Christians,” scattered from Byrd’s estate, many persons in other areas were “brought to the knowledge of the truth.” The success of Baptists among slaves “was spectacular” according to Isaac and aroused great enmity from the establishment.
Therefore, as Isaac notes, it was because this new religious movement in Virginia was “a rejection of the style of life for which the gentry set the pattern” that Baptists began to be persecuted greatly. In a letter from Urbanna Prison dated August 12, 1771, Baptist minister John Waller relayed his account of the scene when an enraged county magistrate, the pastor from the local parish of the official state church and several others broke up a Saturday gathering of Baptists. Waller and five others were taken into custody. Two of the Baptist prisoners were scourged by one persecutor and then other persecutors, presumably squeamish over the violence, put a stop to the whipping. The Baptist who was most severely scourged before the beatings were halted was released and commanded to leave the county by noon the following day or he would be imprisoned. One Baptist was set free for unknown reasons. The rest were handed over to the sheriff to be placed in jail with the order that they were not to “walk in the air” until their court date which was two weeks later. According to Waller, the offensive gathering of Baptists was listening to a sermon based on James 2:18 when the meeting was broken up by the authorities. The prisoners were held on the charge of “mutiny against the authority of the land.”
This particular incident of persecution was cited because it so explicitly shows how Baptists were the hippies of Virginia for a while in the latter part of the eighteenth century—their worship gatherings were considered “mutiny against the authority of the land.” They were countercultural, struggling mightily against cultural norms. It should be noted that there were many other incidents of persecution of Virginia Baptists in this period, some of them far more severe than the one described above. During this period more than half the Baptist preachers in the state were jailed.
Largely because of their firsthand experience with religious persecution, Baptists became a countercultural force pressing for religious liberty expressed through the complete separation of church and state. Their efforts were effective not only in Virginia but in the nation as Baptists became crucial players in a chain of events that gave us the Bill of Rights. So we can be thankful for the “Baptist hippies” of the late 1700’s.
At first the Baptist subculture of Virginia was easy for the dominant societal structure to ignore. Robert Baylor Semple, the earliest Virginia Baptist Historian, stated, “When the Baptists first appeared in … Virginia they were viewed by men in power as beneath their notice; none, said they, but the weak and wicked join them; let them alone, they will soon fall out among themselves and come to nothing.” The “men in power” were wrong; the countercultural Baptists grew rapidly. While there is clear evidence of the presence of Baptists in Virginia as early as 1699 their growth accelerated greatly after Daniel Marshall, who hailed from the historic Sandy Creek Baptist Church in North Carolina, began to preach in neighboring Virginia in the late 1750’s. By 1770 there were 18 or 19 Baptist churches with approximately 850 members and by 1774 there were 72 Baptist churches with over 5,000 members. By 1790 there were 210 Baptist churches with 20,861 members.
According to Isaac, Virginia Baptists aggressively pressed “a revolt against the traditional system” in the state. A gentleman from Loudoun County reported that the Baptists were “growing very numerous … and quite destroying pleasure in the Country; for they encourage ardent Pray’r; strong & constant faith, and an intire Banishment of Gaming, Dancing and Sabbath Day Diversions.” The solemn sobriety of Baptists seriously questioned the appropriateness of societal features that were considered crucial to the methods of association of the establishment. Not surprisingly, then, the Virginia power structure became alarmed by Baptist growth.
It may seem strange that a solemn movement that opposed dancing, drinking, games and other forms of merrymaking would become so popular. Isaac attributes the growth of the comparatively stern and sober Baptists to a need that they filled primarily among the poorer and less educated members of society. Isaac reports that the dominant Baptist message offered an escape from many harsh realities of the life of small farmers through a “supportive, and orderly community” that Baptist leader John Leland called “a congregation of faithful persons, called out of the world by divine grace, who mutually agree to live together, and execute gospel discipline among them.”
In Isaac’s view a vitally appealing feature of the supportive fellowship offered in Baptist churches was the comparative equality within the congregations. Baptists “conducted their affairs on a footing of equality so different from the explicit preoccupation with rank and precedence that characterized the world from which they had been called.” To Isaac the fact that numerous Baptist preachers rose from obscurity to assume important leadership roles in the movement is evidence of the equality fostered by the group. Persons of such low position would never have been given opportunities for leadership in the traditional order.
Semple cites a spiritual dimension as the reason for the popularity of the stern and sober Baptists rather than sociological factors only. He reports a revival—a miraculous spiritual awakening—that began in 1760 with a church formed from Daniel Marshall’s missionary efforts from North Carolina. The revival continued until the beginning of the Revolutionary War when a period of serious spiritual decline commenced. Shortly after the war, in 1785, another period of revival began and continued through 1791 or 1792 during which time “[t]housands were converted and baptized.” Baptist historian H. Leon McBeth reports that the latter period of spiritual awakening produced as much as an elevenfold increase in Virginia Baptist numbers.
Whether the growth of Baptists in Virginia in the last half of the eighteenth century should be attributed to sociological factors or spiritual awakening or some combination of the two, there can be no doubt this growing movement that aggressively opposed the customary bonding methods of the establishment and cast aside traditional notions of rank and privilege posed a great threat to those in power. Baptist success in converting slaves also inspired a good deal of hostility from the Virginia aristocracy. According to Semple, among the earliest converts apparently resulting from Daniel Marshall’s missionary work in Virginia “were several white members besides a large number of blacks, belonging chiefly to the large estate of Colonel Byrd.” As these slaves, many of whom “became bright and shining Christians,” scattered from Byrd’s estate, many persons in other areas were “brought to the knowledge of the truth.” The success of Baptists among slaves “was spectacular” according to Isaac and aroused great enmity from the establishment.
Therefore, as Isaac notes, it was because this new religious movement in Virginia was “a rejection of the style of life for which the gentry set the pattern” that Baptists began to be persecuted greatly. In a letter from Urbanna Prison dated August 12, 1771, Baptist minister John Waller relayed his account of the scene when an enraged county magistrate, the pastor from the local parish of the official state church and several others broke up a Saturday gathering of Baptists. Waller and five others were taken into custody. Two of the Baptist prisoners were scourged by one persecutor and then other persecutors, presumably squeamish over the violence, put a stop to the whipping. The Baptist who was most severely scourged before the beatings were halted was released and commanded to leave the county by noon the following day or he would be imprisoned. One Baptist was set free for unknown reasons. The rest were handed over to the sheriff to be placed in jail with the order that they were not to “walk in the air” until their court date which was two weeks later. According to Waller, the offensive gathering of Baptists was listening to a sermon based on James 2:18 when the meeting was broken up by the authorities. The prisoners were held on the charge of “mutiny against the authority of the land.”
This particular incident of persecution was cited because it so explicitly shows how Baptists were the hippies of Virginia for a while in the latter part of the eighteenth century—their worship gatherings were considered “mutiny against the authority of the land.” They were countercultural, struggling mightily against cultural norms. It should be noted that there were many other incidents of persecution of Virginia Baptists in this period, some of them far more severe than the one described above. During this period more than half the Baptist preachers in the state were jailed.
Largely because of their firsthand experience with religious persecution, Baptists became a countercultural force pressing for religious liberty expressed through the complete separation of church and state. Their efforts were effective not only in Virginia but in the nation as Baptists became crucial players in a chain of events that gave us the Bill of Rights. So we can be thankful for the “Baptist hippies” of the late 1700’s.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Do Baptists of today still believe in a believer's church?
I am reading Rhys Isaac's Pulitzer Prize winning book entitled The Transformation of Virginia 1740-1790. Baptists were new to Virginia in the period outlined by Isaac's and I was impressed by these lines describing the fast-growing Baptist movement:
Underlying intense Baptist efforts to "patiently and endlessly ... control" sin within their congregations was the insistence on a believer's church. Foundational to Baptist identity was the conviction that local churches were to be made up of baptized believers in Jesus Christ. If church members were known to engage in certain sins or if they failed to attend services faithfully such behavior was confronted. If sinful members failed to repent then they were publicly voted out of the church. In this way Baptists sought to make sure their church rolls were made up of believers only.
Of course, few Baptist churches operate this way anymore. I wonder if any Baptists of our culture really want a full return to our previous method of safeguarding the ideal of a believer's church. Which sins would be worthy of calling a member before the church? Drunkenness? Fornication? How about gluttony or greed?
The old Baptist method of nurturing a believer's church has fallen from favor today but what has replaced it? Do we still take seriously the doctrine of a believer's church? Are we deliberate about holding members accountable to commitment to the Lord and to his body, the church?
Symptomatic of our lack of commitment to a believer's church are the membership rolls of most Baptist congregations. In my old home church in Virginia, founded in the mid-1800's, it used to be that any member missing four weekly business meetings in a row was removed from the roll which, I am told, was a typical practice of Baptist churches some years back. Now the rolls of most Baptist churches are filled with many names of individuals that have not been seen in any church gathering in years. Does it appear that Baptists are truly committed to the principle of a believer's church when they have high numbers of inactive and non-resident members?
We cannot abandon the doctrine of a believer's church because it is ultimately about commitment to Christ. While out methods may vary from generation to generation the followers of Christ must unashamedly demand commitment to Christ among the followers of Christ. And Jesus stated his plan to build his church (Mat. 16:18). He loved the church and gave himself up for the church (Eph. 5:25).
I just don't see how we can stop insisting that our church members be truly committed Christ by being committed to his body, the church.
Conversion could ultimately be validated among [Baptist] church members only by
a radical reform of conduct. The Baptist church books reveal close concern for
the disciplinary supervision of such changes. Censure, ritual excommunication,
and moving expressions of penitence were invoked as means to deal with
persistent problems like drunkenness. Quarreling, slandering, and disputes over
property were other endemic transgressions that the churches patiently and
endlessly sought to control within their own communities. (p. 169)
Underlying intense Baptist efforts to "patiently and endlessly ... control" sin within their congregations was the insistence on a believer's church. Foundational to Baptist identity was the conviction that local churches were to be made up of baptized believers in Jesus Christ. If church members were known to engage in certain sins or if they failed to attend services faithfully such behavior was confronted. If sinful members failed to repent then they were publicly voted out of the church. In this way Baptists sought to make sure their church rolls were made up of believers only.
Of course, few Baptist churches operate this way anymore. I wonder if any Baptists of our culture really want a full return to our previous method of safeguarding the ideal of a believer's church. Which sins would be worthy of calling a member before the church? Drunkenness? Fornication? How about gluttony or greed?
The old Baptist method of nurturing a believer's church has fallen from favor today but what has replaced it? Do we still take seriously the doctrine of a believer's church? Are we deliberate about holding members accountable to commitment to the Lord and to his body, the church?
Symptomatic of our lack of commitment to a believer's church are the membership rolls of most Baptist congregations. In my old home church in Virginia, founded in the mid-1800's, it used to be that any member missing four weekly business meetings in a row was removed from the roll which, I am told, was a typical practice of Baptist churches some years back. Now the rolls of most Baptist churches are filled with many names of individuals that have not been seen in any church gathering in years. Does it appear that Baptists are truly committed to the principle of a believer's church when they have high numbers of inactive and non-resident members?
We cannot abandon the doctrine of a believer's church because it is ultimately about commitment to Christ. While out methods may vary from generation to generation the followers of Christ must unashamedly demand commitment to Christ among the followers of Christ. And Jesus stated his plan to build his church (Mat. 16:18). He loved the church and gave himself up for the church (Eph. 5:25).
I just don't see how we can stop insisting that our church members be truly committed Christ by being committed to his body, the church.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Reflections on the death penalty at lethal injection number 1,000
Marvallous Keene and three accomplices went on a three-day murder and robbery rampage in Dayton, Ohio that began on Christmas Eve 1992 and left six people dead. His victims included an 18-year old mother gunned down in a phone booth. He was executed on Tuesday and he became the 1,000th person to be put to death by lethal injection in the U.S. since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.
Keene's crime was horrible and the state was right to take his life but it should have done so through life imprisonment rather than execution.
You might respond that the Bible supports the death penalty. If the scriptures support the death penalty, it certainly cannot be argued that they support a mandatory death penalty. If the Bible supported a mandatory death penalty then Moses would have been executed for murdering the Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew. If the Bible supported a mandatory death penalty then David would have been executed for murdering Bathsheba’s husband. If the Bible supported a mandatory death penalty then Cain would have been executed for killing Abel.
Cain’s case is particularly interesting. Moses and David went on to become biblical heroes even though they were also murderers. But Cain, according to the Bible, had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. In the New Testament, 1 John 3:12, we are told that Cain “belonged to the evil one.” Yet, even though Cain is said to belong to the devil himself, God spared this murderer and warned that anyone who dared to take matters in to their own hands by killing Cain would suffer a harsh punishment. So God punished Cain, the first murderer, but he would not execute him and he took steps to see that no one else executed him either. That’s God’s direct pattern to us for punishing murderers based on his own punishment of the first murderer.
So if you say the Bible supports the death penalty you cannot say it supports a mandatory death penalty. However, if you wish to strictly follow the biblical guidelines for capital punishment, then you need to push for some new laws. You need to press for legislation that makes provision for the execution of rebellious children. The Bible allows this (Deut. 21:18-21). I know some parents who may from time to time wish this were the law of the land, but are you ready to start state executions of rebellious kids?
If you want to do the death penalty strictly as the Bible allows then you need to push for legislation providing for the execution of adulterers. The Bible allows this too (Lev. 20:10). I know some spouses who may wish this were the law of the land, but do you think we should have state sponsored killing of unfaithful spouses?
We as a society have never practiced the death penalty exactly as the biblical law allows.
Our culture outlawed slavery over 140 years ago even though the Bible allows slavery. The Bible regulated slavery in a society in which it was strictly the norm as it regulated the death penalty in a society in which capital punishment was strictly the norm. While it could be argued that the Bible allows slavery, historians say principles of the New Testament ended the practice here and in other Western societies. In like manner it is time that the principles of the New Testament end the death penalty as well.
Romans 1:16 tells us that the gospel is "the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes" (TNIV). The power of God is powerful enough to transform anyone, even murderers, but not if we give them lethal injections first. We can protect society from murderers short of killing them. Because life is precious and because the gospel, the power of God, can transform anyone we must put murderers in prison for life rather than executing them.
Evangelical Christians tend to have a serious inconsistency in their thought process on this point and this inconsistency has shown itself several times down through the years, perhaps most pointedly in one particular case. Back in 1998 Karla Faye Tucker was to be executed in Texas for murdering two people with a pickax. But Tucker had also undergone a jailhouse conversion. You may remember the TV news footage showing her worshipping and reading her Bible. By all accounts she underwent a genuine salvation experience. Because of her profession of faith, many evangelical Christians, including the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, began to plea for Karla Faye Tucker to be spared the death penalty.
If she had been unconverted, hardened criminal headed for hell, many evangelical Christians would have said, “Yeah! Serves her right! Let her have it!” But since she had been converted and headed for heaven many fought to keep her alive in her prison cell. Didn’t these evangelicals have this backwards?
I mean, if we care about keeping people out of hell, shouldn’t we be begging for a little more time to witness to those on death row who are headed for hell? Why fight for the lives of inmates going to heaven while pushing for the deaths of inmates going to hell? It does not seem to make good biblical sense.
Do you see the inconsistency here? We believe the gospel is the power of God that can transform anyone, even murderers. We believe that Jesus wants for us to use the gospel, the power of God, to keep people out of hell. But then many evangelicals want to hurry up and execute inmates headed for hell while they try to save inmates headed for heaven.
There is a serious problem in that thinking, and do you know what the problem is? Hate. We love inmates like Karla Faye Tucker that are headed for heaven, but hate the other inmates that we think are going to hell. Did Jesus call us to hate?
"Life for life" is the principle given in Deuteronomy 19:21 and several other passages. I agree with that principle. I am in full agreement that the state should take the lives of murderers like Keene. But this should be done through life imprisonment. Either way they die in state custody where they are no threat to society and with life imprisonment we uphold the biblical principle of "life for life" while also upholding the crucial scriptural principle of the sanctity of human life.
Being true to the biblical principles related to the punishment of murderers does not require us to execute murderers. We can take their lives behind bars where they are no longer a threat to society and where the gospel, the power of God, can still transform them. Study after study has shown that capital punishment has no deterrent effect on crime. Moral questions should not be decided based on money, but if we were to factor in dollars and cents, the death penalty costs a lot more than life imprisonment. Furthermore the Bible does not require the death penalty for murderers even in the Old Testament and it could be argued that principles of the New Testament are against the death penalty.
Would that we could end the death penalty in this country before we get to lethal injection number 1,001. But, since Ohio has another execution scheduled for next month, this seems unlikely.
Keene's crime was horrible and the state was right to take his life but it should have done so through life imprisonment rather than execution.
You might respond that the Bible supports the death penalty. If the scriptures support the death penalty, it certainly cannot be argued that they support a mandatory death penalty. If the Bible supported a mandatory death penalty then Moses would have been executed for murdering the Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew. If the Bible supported a mandatory death penalty then David would have been executed for murdering Bathsheba’s husband. If the Bible supported a mandatory death penalty then Cain would have been executed for killing Abel.
Cain’s case is particularly interesting. Moses and David went on to become biblical heroes even though they were also murderers. But Cain, according to the Bible, had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. In the New Testament, 1 John 3:12, we are told that Cain “belonged to the evil one.” Yet, even though Cain is said to belong to the devil himself, God spared this murderer and warned that anyone who dared to take matters in to their own hands by killing Cain would suffer a harsh punishment. So God punished Cain, the first murderer, but he would not execute him and he took steps to see that no one else executed him either. That’s God’s direct pattern to us for punishing murderers based on his own punishment of the first murderer.
So if you say the Bible supports the death penalty you cannot say it supports a mandatory death penalty. However, if you wish to strictly follow the biblical guidelines for capital punishment, then you need to push for some new laws. You need to press for legislation that makes provision for the execution of rebellious children. The Bible allows this (Deut. 21:18-21). I know some parents who may from time to time wish this were the law of the land, but are you ready to start state executions of rebellious kids?
If you want to do the death penalty strictly as the Bible allows then you need to push for legislation providing for the execution of adulterers. The Bible allows this too (Lev. 20:10). I know some spouses who may wish this were the law of the land, but do you think we should have state sponsored killing of unfaithful spouses?
We as a society have never practiced the death penalty exactly as the biblical law allows.
Our culture outlawed slavery over 140 years ago even though the Bible allows slavery. The Bible regulated slavery in a society in which it was strictly the norm as it regulated the death penalty in a society in which capital punishment was strictly the norm. While it could be argued that the Bible allows slavery, historians say principles of the New Testament ended the practice here and in other Western societies. In like manner it is time that the principles of the New Testament end the death penalty as well.
Romans 1:16 tells us that the gospel is "the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes" (TNIV). The power of God is powerful enough to transform anyone, even murderers, but not if we give them lethal injections first. We can protect society from murderers short of killing them. Because life is precious and because the gospel, the power of God, can transform anyone we must put murderers in prison for life rather than executing them.
Evangelical Christians tend to have a serious inconsistency in their thought process on this point and this inconsistency has shown itself several times down through the years, perhaps most pointedly in one particular case. Back in 1998 Karla Faye Tucker was to be executed in Texas for murdering two people with a pickax. But Tucker had also undergone a jailhouse conversion. You may remember the TV news footage showing her worshipping and reading her Bible. By all accounts she underwent a genuine salvation experience. Because of her profession of faith, many evangelical Christians, including the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, began to plea for Karla Faye Tucker to be spared the death penalty.
If she had been unconverted, hardened criminal headed for hell, many evangelical Christians would have said, “Yeah! Serves her right! Let her have it!” But since she had been converted and headed for heaven many fought to keep her alive in her prison cell. Didn’t these evangelicals have this backwards?
I mean, if we care about keeping people out of hell, shouldn’t we be begging for a little more time to witness to those on death row who are headed for hell? Why fight for the lives of inmates going to heaven while pushing for the deaths of inmates going to hell? It does not seem to make good biblical sense.
Do you see the inconsistency here? We believe the gospel is the power of God that can transform anyone, even murderers. We believe that Jesus wants for us to use the gospel, the power of God, to keep people out of hell. But then many evangelicals want to hurry up and execute inmates headed for hell while they try to save inmates headed for heaven.
There is a serious problem in that thinking, and do you know what the problem is? Hate. We love inmates like Karla Faye Tucker that are headed for heaven, but hate the other inmates that we think are going to hell. Did Jesus call us to hate?
"Life for life" is the principle given in Deuteronomy 19:21 and several other passages. I agree with that principle. I am in full agreement that the state should take the lives of murderers like Keene. But this should be done through life imprisonment. Either way they die in state custody where they are no threat to society and with life imprisonment we uphold the biblical principle of "life for life" while also upholding the crucial scriptural principle of the sanctity of human life.
Being true to the biblical principles related to the punishment of murderers does not require us to execute murderers. We can take their lives behind bars where they are no longer a threat to society and where the gospel, the power of God, can still transform them. Study after study has shown that capital punishment has no deterrent effect on crime. Moral questions should not be decided based on money, but if we were to factor in dollars and cents, the death penalty costs a lot more than life imprisonment. Furthermore the Bible does not require the death penalty for murderers even in the Old Testament and it could be argued that principles of the New Testament are against the death penalty.
Would that we could end the death penalty in this country before we get to lethal injection number 1,001. But, since Ohio has another execution scheduled for next month, this seems unlikely.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Hat's off to Albert Mohler
In case you missed it, Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said in April that "President Obama's statement [on April 6 in Turkey] that America is not a Christian country is ... both accurate and helpful, though he is being criticized by many conservative Christians for making the claim." Mohler's support of President Obama's comment is in line with another Baptist writing 218 years ago. As noted below, Baptist minister and leader John Leland wrote in 1790, during the ratification process of the Bill of Rights, "The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever."
Dr. Mohler is correct that many conservative Christian leaders (including James Dobson) have attacked Obama's contention that the United States is not a Christian nation. Hat's off to him for breaking ranks and affirming both the veracity of the president's statement and his own Baptist heritage. Making Christianity the official religion of the government would not be a Christian thing to do.
Baptists in Virginia in the days of John Leland knew what it was to be severely persecuted by a "Christian" government establishment. This experience along with the teachings of Christ inspired them to be advocates for the complete separation of church and state. That effort was wise at the founding of this country and it remains wise today.
Dr. Mohler is correct that many conservative Christian leaders (including James Dobson) have attacked Obama's contention that the United States is not a Christian nation. Hat's off to him for breaking ranks and affirming both the veracity of the president's statement and his own Baptist heritage. Making Christianity the official religion of the government would not be a Christian thing to do.
Baptists in Virginia in the days of John Leland knew what it was to be severely persecuted by a "Christian" government establishment. This experience along with the teachings of Christ inspired them to be advocates for the complete separation of church and state. That effort was wise at the founding of this country and it remains wise today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
