Albert Mohler is the President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a board member of Focus on the Family, and a major figure in Baptist / Evangelical / Fundamentalist theology. Which is why this sort of thing so seriously chaps my hide. Because people read this, and say, “Hey, here’s the official teaching of Christianity and Christ on Topic X,” ignoring that Mohler’s a dolt and no more speaks for Christ than, oh, I do.
(No, rumors to the contrary, I don’t think I speak for Christ. At most, I try to speak to my understanding of what I think Christ had to say, as reflected in the New Testament.)
In this case, Topic X is “Capital Punishment.”
Christians (American ones, at least) are by no means unanimous on the morality of the death penalty. Some are deeply troubled by the morality of state-sanctioned killing. Some are concerned that the application of the death penalty is so arbitrary and fraught with bias that it cannot be considered just. Some consider capital punishment a function of the state, and so outside the bounds of religion — and properly allowed, per “rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”
Of course, there’s also the whole “Jesus was executed, legally, by the state, so maybe Christians might want to consider how eager they are to execute people, too” thing.
And then there are folks like Albert Mohler, who attempt to justify capital punishment based on Christian principles. To argue that it is, in fact, a moral command. As described by the Associated Baptist Press:
A Southern Baptist seminary president says that according to the Bible, capital punishment is pro-life.
Yes, because there’s life, and then there’s life, and it is obviously up to humans to determine which killings are pro-, and which are anti-life.
“The death penalty is not about retribution,” Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said in a podcast Sept. 22.
Hold that thought, Albert.
I’ll note, by the way, that it’s funny that we keep talking about justifying the death penalty by “an eye for an eye” or for the sake of the victims’ families getting “closure” and “justice” … if the death penalty is not, in fact, about retribution.
“It is first of all about underlining the importance of every single human life.”
Including the ones we decide it’s okay to end, I guess.
Mohler, who has a Ph.D. in theology, …
Well, then, heck, he must be a holy man.
… said in Genesis 9, where capital punishment is mandated for murder, “it is precisely because the taking of one human life by another means that the murderer has effectively, morally and theologically, forfeited his own right to live.”
Ah. We will base our theology of capital punishment on … Genesis 9? Genesis 9:5-6 in particular, I assume:
And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Which seems pretty straightforward.
Of course the preceding passages have specified that every living creature is now specified for food for humans (Gen. 9:2-3, this despite later restrictions on what living creatures could be rightfully consumed), and that it’s not allowable to eat meat with blood still within it (Gen. 9:4, which is the foundation for Kosher butchery laws).
For some reason, Christians reject Kosher laws of butchery, but accept that they can eat everything and that killers should be killed.
Of course, Genesis 9 (as quoted above) doesn’t provide exemptions for, oh, self-defense. Or war. Or, in fact, for execution itself.
One could look, rather than at Genesis 9, at the New Testament. There might run across Matthew 26:52, where it’s noted that those who live by the sword will die by it. Or John 8:7, where Jesus’ one commentary on a capital crime being that only those who are without sin should consider actually executing others.
Or there’s that whole execution of Christ thing. Granted, he was killed for blasphemy and setting himself up as king, not for murder. But one would still think that would affect a Christian’s thinking on judicial execution.
But Albert seems to think that killing any killer is sanctioned by the Almighty Himself.
Of course, the Genesis passage doesn’t differentiate between types of killing. Vehicular homicide would seem as likely to warrant death as a mass slaughter of children … or negligent managers of mines where workers die as likely to be executed as cop-killers.
Is that what you’re arguing for, Albert?
“The death penalty is intended to affirm the value [and] sanctity of every single human life, and thus by the extremity of the penalty to make that visible and apparent to all,” Mohler said.
We had to destroy the village in order to save it. We had to take life in order to demonstrate how much life is valued.
Um … what?
Mohler said the differing reactions to two executions carried out a day earlier illustrated “how fickle we are in terms of our understanding of justice.” Thousands of people protested Georgia’s execution of Troy Davis, a black man convicted of murdering a white police officer on evidence his supporters said was shaky. At the same time, an execution in Texas of a white supremacist for the infamous dragging death of an African-American 13 years ago received far less attention.
“It seems that even those who oppose the death penalty outright believe there are some cases that ought to be opposed more than others,” Mohler said.
It’s quite true that there was a lot of difference between reactions to the two executions. That’s because opposition to the death penalty is not monolithic in its basis. Some folks think it’s always wrong (or always too uncertain to justify). Others consider the individual circumstances — that, yes, there are some cases where it is justified by the crime and by the certainty that the person on Death Row is in fact the guilty party.
In this case, there was no particular question about Lawrence Brewer being guilty of his particular heinous crime. No witnesses recanted their testimony, no jurors their judgment. There was plenty of physical evidence. From my understanding, to the extent that such things can be certain, Brewer’s guilt was.
The same cannot be said of Davis, convicted solely on eyewitness testimony, much of it recanted afterward, in a case riddled with procedural irregularities. It’s understandable that even folks who support the death penalty in principle would have problems with the Troy Davis execution.
(I hold no truck with cop killers. Indeed, I even support the idea that cop killers deserve a special circumstances punishment, as killing of a police officer may well be not just a killing, but a strike against society more broadly. But I have no desire to see someone executed, even for cop-killing, who is not guilty.)
“And even those who support the death penalty almost always support the death penalty within certain, very clear, parameters. Even if those parameters are not defined by policy, they are defined by moral intuition. There is something within us that cries out for the fact that murder must be punished and that the lives of the innocent, in terms of being the victims of these crimes, must indeed be vindicated.”
Murder must be punished. But not necessarily by killing the killer.
And, Albert, so how would you differentiate between “retribution” (which you said the death penalty was not about) and “vindication”?
And, with all due respect, “moral intuition” is a poor basis for criminal law. Because my moral intuition may be different from yours — or from Albert Mohler’s. Or, say, Lawrence Brewer’s.
Mohler predicted the death penalty will become more and more controversial in the years ahead because the “general trend of secularization and moral confusion has undermined the kind of moral and cultural consensus that makes the death penalty make sense.”
I.e., “Once upon a time, everyone agreed that we should Kill the Beast. Now we’re not so unanimous, and that’s a bad thing.”
Disagreement and “confusion” aren’t necessarily an un-useful thing. And certainly aren’t necessarily a sign of evil. “Cultural consensus” justified slavery and the auto-da-fe, too.
He said societal attitudes about issues such as abortion and euthanasia indicate “we really do not now have the bedrock shared consensus that every single human life is a life made in the image of God and that every single human life at every stage of development is to be honored and protected and preserved.”
Except, of course, for human lives that are judged guilty of particular crimes, which are magically rendered expendable.
“That more than anything else explains today’s confusion about the death penalty,” he said.
Which would be believable, Alfred, if even Christians had a largely unanimous position on capital punishment. But that’s hardly true. The Catholic Church, for one, has a long opposition in modern times to capital punishment — they see their pro-life mission as being for all human life, regardless of circumstance.
Even the article quoted includes a Baptist dissenter to Mohler’s theological conclusion.
Alan Bean, a white Baptist minister who runs Friends of Justice, an organization opposed to racial and socioeconomic inequities in America’s criminal-justice system, took a different view. He accused the state of Georgia of murder.
“I don’t use the m-word casually or for rhetorical effect,” said Bean, a member of Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas. “But when it is no longer possible to distinguish guilt from innocence, when the state’s case lies in tatters and everybody knows it, there is no civil justification for taking a life.”
Blogging Wednesday night, Bean said, “State-sanctioned killing is never morally justified, but even those who support capital punishment in the abstract should have grave concerns about what happened tonight in Jackson, Ga.”
And, of course, I, as a Christian, object. I don’t feel particularly “confused’ about it — though doing a blog post like this lets me explore my beliefs and reasoning on the subject.
So what about the premise that the system itself is so flawed that, even if the death penalty is morally justified in the abstract, its application cannot be trusted in the particular.
Mohler agreed that if socioeconomic disparity makes some persons more likely to be executed than others “that certainly should be of concern to Christians.”
Gee, Albert, y’think?
But he said the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles concluded with the courts that the evidence against Davis was sufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Because, of course, the George Board of Pardons and Paroles would never be subject to political influence, nor to a desire to demonstrate that the system they are part of is correct and righteous.
In such a case, what is the actual harm done by granting clemency, life without possibility of parole — where, if there is exonerating evidence, now or in the future, it can be considered. Why should the state act to end any such consideration? Why are we to consider ourselves without sin, to cast that stone?
Mohler also said that because of advances in forensic investigation, wrongful convictions are less likely now than in the past.
It’s lovely to think so, of course. And, of course, in the Davis case, the conviction was not based on any forensic evidence, but on eyewitness testimony, gathered in questionable fashion, and much subsequently recanted.
Albert, I understand the desire to think that the authorities are always right, and fair, and just. But we know, unless we are blind, that is not always the case. The authorities — police, DA office, parole board, etc. — are subject to the frailties of humanity, any of which can lead to an error, or even a malicious act. Would Baptist theology deny such a thing might happen, Albert?
With such a possibility, Albert, on what basis can we morally justify, particularly (but not exclusively) in cases where there are such questions raised, the ultimate sanction against a fellow human being? How can we make it a Christian imperative? How can we possibly cast (as Jesus himself would put it) the first stone?
(via ThinkProgress and Friendly Atheist and Stan)
Insightful and thought-provoking as usual, Dave. Lots of commentary on this one.
I don’t speak for Jesus, either–and I don’t think I’ve ever spoken FOR any deity. Maybe from, but they were smallish, personal things for one or a few people only, and I tend to refer to myself more as directed by a finger of Deity: Deity points out something needing doing, usually someone in need of help I can render, and I go do it. NOT the same thing.
The bit about Jesus’ execution being state-sanctioned possibly making Christians think about parapllels is great.
I’m (thankfully?) not familiar with Mohler, but the first three statements of his that you quote seem somewhat contradictory of each other.
I am in agreement about the different kinds of killing.
•I suppose it’s that corporate personhood things that keeps mining companies’ executives from being tried for murder/willful negligence, because to me, that’s mass murder, when needed safety measures are ignored, nitpicked, and stalled by endless protests of hardship or innocence, and the like, and never just one, but several to a dozen miners are killed in preventable accidents.
•I see no way in which an execution is an affirmation of the value of life, the way Mohler puts it.
•Special circumstances punishment, unless for more than one lone incident, with either credible multiple witnesses, or DNA or other tangible evidence, should, IMNSHO, be multiple life sentences, consecutively, without possibility of parole. Why didn’t Charles Manson merit the death penalty? WHY is he ever eligible for parole?
•I can’t even begin to justify the use of capital punishment for anything short of mass/serial murders, military or civilian perpetrators aside.
•The Troy Davis trial apparently couldn’t be declared a mistrial after the fact, save for certain (not all) procedural misconduct. That is just plain wrong, when the blasted evidence was shoddy at best, most witnesses recanted afterwards & cited pressure to witness against him, AND it seems, that another person, who now cannot be tried (so I’ve heard) has CONFESSED to that murder. He is getting off scot-bloody-free. This is justice? Racism, anyone? Who’d suspect that in GA, right?
Where there is anything doubtful that comes up after a trial that leads to a death sentence, that needs to be examined, especially when witnesses recant, new evidence arises, or someone else credibly confesses. That’s more like what I think of as justice. I gather no one applied the philosophy that it is better than 99 guilty persons go free rather than one innocent be killed. Some cases where it is justified by the crime and by the certainty that the person on Death Row is in fact the guilty party
, as you said. The Troy Davis case was neither.
Mohler says: “we really do not now have the bedrock shared consensus that every single human life is a life made in the image of God and that every single human life at every stage of development is to be honored and protected and preserved.”
But not all cultures and religions of the world are in that alleged bedrock shared consensus. Euthanasia by one’s own choice honors the quality of life and the dignity of the person involved–is there a Deity anywhere on earth that personifies dementia and eternal coma? Didn’t think so.
I will agree that life begins at conception, but not that it’s human just yet. There is certainly the potential to become human, after enough development–after the stage when most abortions occur.
Many cultures hold that abortion is accepted only to the point of quickening. Most cultures would have it that saving the mother’s life at the cost of a develping fetus, who may not survive birth or be so crippled and disabled that one might have a difficult time regarding that as a life, at any stage of the pregnancy where that case was determined to be so. Rabbits (others, too?) reabsorb the fetuses if the circumstances change and it is not safe for the them or the mother to be born.
I agree with Rev. Bean’s statement regarding distinguishing guilt from innocence. It is too evident that for the same crime, a person of color is punished much more severely in our “justice system” than a white person. This needs fixing so badly it’s not vaguely funny. At least there are agencies reviewing old cases where there is a suspicion about identification of the perpetrator, and sometimes, if any crime was actually committed. Black men have mostly been the recipient of their attention, for good reason.
As you said, no forensic evidence was gathered, nor likely attempted to be gathered. Minds were set, do not distract them with facts.
The murder of an innocent man occured this week. Only following the laws as set down for dealing with death penalty appeals? Change the damned laws, federally. I will be writing to legislators, state and federal, about this.
You know, Marina … I could set you up with your own blog … 🙂
A few random responses:
– It is possible for corporate officers to face criminal charges for the actions of their companies. It doesn’t happen very often — or as often as I suspect it ought.
– Manson was, in fact, sentenced to death. Then in 1972 the Calif. supreme court ruled California’s death penalty unconstitutional, which commuted his sentence to life. (There are some confusing items in the Manson Wikipedia article that I don’t quite follow as to why it didn’t gt turned into life without possibility of parole.)
– I’ve heard it said that the conservative / right-wing mind-set is more authoritarian, in terms of wanting things to be ordered and settled. I suspect that’s a significant reason why that’s why the Right seems more “law & order” type — and why they are willing to accept a procedural, legal conviction as final, regardless of whether subsequent evidence comes to light. The idea is that as long as the established system “worked”, that’s the definition of justice. (And that’s why “compassion” is such a dirty word now during judicial approvals.)
Now, there’s something to be said for that stance. The rule of law is important. But it’s not the be-all and end-all. The justice system cannot be a matter of emotional desires (that way vengeance lies), but mercy and compassion should be a part of , as well as a desire to see what is right, not just what is correct.
– “It is better than 99 guilty persons go free rather than one innocent be killed.” I’m afraid the authoritarian, legalistic position of the Right (to generalize) would disagree. There are those who would console themselves that if someone is found guilty, then they must be guilty (by definition). Others might console themselves that anyone unjustly killed will be nestled to the breast of Jesus.
It’s ironic that adherence to the law and legalism, in lieu of mercy, was just what Jesus criticized.
– “Not all cultures and religions of the world are in that alleged bedrock shared consensus.” Yes, well, so far as Mohler is concerned, the only religion of the world worth listening to is his own, and the only culture he wants is one that listens to it.
– “No forensic evidence was gathered, nor likely attempted to be gathered. Minds were set, do not distract them with facts.” More than minds — reputations. Again, admitting to error is a personal failing, and, worse, may betray others. You don’t make your fellow cops, or fellow DAs, look bad.
As to me having a blog, I’ll remind you that it was early January the last time I had time to read my LJ pages….
I think even if corporate officers face criminal charges, their nice expensive attorneys keep them from getting the same sentences and penalties as individuals do. Don’t know that I’ve ever heard of a corporate officer being tried for manslaughter/murder/reckless endangerment. I can think of a few mining companies’ executives who deserve that.
I’d forgotten about the 1972 change wrt death penalty in CA. Too bad when it was reinstated, Manson’s previous sentence was not similarily reinstated. You’re right, I have no idea why his sentence was not commuted to life w/o possibility of parole, either.
Re: the rule of law–Portia’s words, that old “koala tea of Mercy not being strained” thing.
Unless it’s one of their own family or friends–then, it’s a miscarriage of justice, he’s a good kid, and it was a youthful mistake, ad nauseum.
I find certain self-described Christians seem to forget the kinder aspects of Jesus.
Yeah, Mohler and his ilk conveniently forget that this is a country of diverse cultures and religions. I am also aware of the closing of ranks within the various law/military/clergy “brotherhoods” in defense of their own, wrongly or rightly.
I don’t think the conveniently forget it — I really do believe that they consider themselves exceptional (because they are right), and thus not bound by the same restrictions as others. That this is a “country of diverse cultures and religions” is something they consider a bug, not a feature.
Alternately, they are so immersed in their own world, that they simply are not aware of that diversity, except as fringe elements out to pollute their precious bodily fluids.
Group identity — us vs them — is an inevitable part of human behavior. The more distinctly different the group, or the more their experiences are radically different from others, the more profoundly it bands together — bands of brothers, the thin blue line, etc. Privilege, too, creates that sort of elite tribalism. I would expect cops, soldiers, clergy, to have unique and sympathetic appreciation for the pressures and actions and faults of their fellows. But the more it’s set up as an “us vs them,” the more the kneejerk reaction (even if one of “us” is condemned in private) is to defend the “us” vs the “them” who just don’t understand, don’t see the big picture, etc.
(Those three groups mentioned are particularly distinctive examples, but almost any group would be vulnerable to this activity — gender, family, employees at a given company, professions, co-religionists (particularly on a local level), members of the frat/sorority, etc.)
Actually, he is dogmatically correct:
Exodus 21:12 “He that striketh a man with a will to kill him, shall be put to death.”
Leviticus 20:10 “If any man commit adultery with the wife of another, and defile his neighbour’s wife, let then: be put to death, both the adulterer and the adulteress.”
Deuteronomy 22:25–26 “25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:”
Leviticus 20:13 “If any one lie with a man se with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them.”
Exodus 21:16 “He that shall steal a man, and sell him, being convicted of guilt, shall be put to death. ”
Exodus 22:19 “Whosoever copulateth with a beast shall be put to death. ”
Exodus 22:18 “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.”
Deuteronomy 13:1–10 “1If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
2And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
3Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
4Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
5And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
6If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
7Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
8Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
9But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
10And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.”
Deuteronomy 22:24 “Thou shalt bring them both out to the gate of that city, and they shall be stoned: the damsel, because she cried not out, being in the city: the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife. And thou shalt take away the evil from the midst of thee.”
Genesis 9:5 “For I will require the blood of your lives at the hand of every beast, and at the hand of man, at the hand of every man, and of his brother, will I require the life of man.”
Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill it.”
Romans 13:1-5 “1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.”
Really, I think the biggest problem that the right wing christianist’s have with Islam is that Islam actually follows the laws as handed down to them by god…while at the same time demanding that this country follow the same laws and not understanding where that what that would lead to.
P.S. god is also a big believer in Slavery too.
There are certainly plenty of death penalties in the Old Testament. I focused on the Genesis 9 passage because that’s what Mohler focused on.
As you suggest, plenty of Christians handwave away a lot of other capital punishments from the Bible — adultery, bestiality, homosexuality (male), rape, kidnapping/enslavement, sorcery, spreading of blasphemy, etc. Though one wonders which of those might come back into style were they to obtain Dominion.
Re: Exodus 22:18 “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.”
I could be wrong, not having studied Exodus, but I thought James translated the word for “poisoner” to “witch”, not “wizard”. Clarification, please?
That’s the Douay-Rheims translation, the Catholic version of the KJV. More interesting stuff on that here. (One interesting note there is that the Douay refers to the last book of the NT as “The Apocalypse,” as opposed to “Revelation”; it’s the version that I grew up with.)
Most translations seem to use “witch” or “sorceress”.
“Poisoner” seems less common, or attributed to weaker translations for the Exodus term MeKhashefah. Part of the problem is that the KJV also uses witchcraft for Galatians 5:20, when the underlying Greek word is pharmakeia, which is clearly more poisoner-like. There are a variety of words in the Bible, in Greek and Hebrew, that were simply translated into “witch” in the KJV, even though they seem to have different associations. Add to the joy the translations from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English, and all sorts of “Operator”-style hilarity ensues.
Some further info here, here, here, here.
A. Marina Fournier, being dogmatically correct it is from the one true bible, the Douay–Rheims.
Interestingly, The Message (which tops the list of bad translations of the Bible) also uses the gender based noun –
18 “Don’t let a sorceress live.”
However, it also translates the Lord’s Prayer as follows –
Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what’s best— as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You’re in charge!
You can do anything you want!
You’re ablaze in beauty!
Yes. Yes. Yes.
I love the “You’re in charge! You can do anything you want!” passage.
@Mary: That seems to be a fun rephrasing of the “For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever and ever, Amen.”
Interestingly, that doxology at the end is considered a late addition to the version of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew, and is not included in the version in Luke. In most Protestant churches (including the Episcopal) it is automatically tacked on, but in my Catholic upbringing it was always treated as a separate liturgical blurb.
More here.
Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what’s best— as above, so below.
Hmmm. Pagans use that last line’s philosophy in a lot of areas. “Reveal who you are”, though, has a lot of interesting possibilities.
A link to piece on another interpretation of the bible. This one takes out the naughty bits and unnecessary ‘uns.’
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2011/09/an-american-king-noah-websters-holy-bible.html
Fun. I’ll do an Unblogged Bits link to it.