I have now read two of the transcripts of the podcasts by Steve the Builder and will reply to them here.
Part 1 - this is not really an argument, just an introduction to the series with a bit about Steve's personal story. There's no coherent argument put forth, and no claim that one is put forth, so not too much to say here. I personally don't much care for the "hey I was young and dumb once, too, but now I'm older and I've worked in a difficult situation, so I was wrong then and now I'm right" kind of introduction, but let it stand - nothing terrible about the guy telling us some about his background.
Steve responds here to a pastoral letter from 1999 written by then-Bp Seraphim, the OCA Bishop of Ottowa and Canada. In this letter, Bp Seraphim says that he personally cannot square the death penalty with the Gospel.
Steve replies:
Steve the Builder said:
I find it personally ironic that Bp Seraphim says “talk is cheap” and Christians should visit prisons instead of supporting the death penalty. It was because of and exactly the realities of my involvement with such ministries that my philosophical views of capital punishment have changed. Since my days at the Boy’s Home I’ve hired and worked with ex-everythings, and have a former drug addicted employee who is currently on death row for the brutal murder of his mother and girlfriend. These reflections are not written from a safe distance from human evil. They are because I’ve been in the trenches with it in various ministries for the last 40 years. I wholeheartedly agree with him that we should bring the hope of the gospel to those in prison, but I do not believe that automatically translates to being against the death penalty.
So, I’ll say up front that this discussion is not an attack on Bp. Seraphim, but his statement can be viewed as the creed of the anti-death penalty position. His statement succinctly summarizes the arguments against capital punishment, not just within the Orthodox Church, but within the broader Christian tradition.
A couple problems here:
1) "These reflections are not written from a safe distance from human evil," as if then-Bishop (now Monk) Seraphim had never dealt with evil deeds performed by himself or other humans, when Steve shows no evidence that this is so. This is a pretty common trick used in (apparently) reasoned arguments - show yourself to be living in "the real world," as opposed to someone who disagrees with you and who, you imply, doesn't live in the real world (and therefore that person's opinion is to be discounted). However, this is not an argument. Even if Steve somehow showed that Bp Seraphim lived his life "a safe distance from human evil," that would not be an argument for the death penalty.
2) "but his statement can be viewed as the creed of the anti-death penalty position..." - Another instance of sleight of hand. There is no good reason to view a single pastoral letter by a hierarch as the creed of any position. In fact, the quoted text does not present much of an argument at all:
Monk Seraphim said:
“I am saddened whenever I hear Orthodox Christians defend capital punishment, even though I know that there are, were, and always will be various and opposing opinions in our Church, and that these opinions may be justifiable within their own systems of logic. I cannot square capital punishment with any of my Christian experience. The Old Testament may be quoted, but I do not see it in the New. I cannot square it with the introduction to the Ten Commandments. I cannot square it with the Gospel. I cannot square it with the words of the “Our Father.” I cannot square it with “The Beatitudes.” I cannot square it with my knowledge of our canonical tradition. I cannot square it with my knowledge of the teaching of the Fathers. I cannot square it with my reading of any one of our saints. And most certainly I cannot square it with the teaching of Saint Silouan, that the real test of a Christian is being able to forgive one’s enemies. Since we Christians stand for repentance, and are called to live this daily, it is perhaps our responsibility to help the persons incarcerated for serious crimes to move in that direction also. Perhaps we Orthodox Christians should at last take seriously our call to visit those in prison, to become qualified for a prison ministry, even, and to bring some hope, consolation, and witness of something better to these persons who otherwise could well die without knowing anything else except misery. We always say “Talk is cheap.” Perhaps it’s time we proved we are Christians by doing something instead of philosophizing.”
To summarize very briefly: "I cannot square support for death as a punishment for crime with my understanding of the Christian faith. I think it is better to minister to people who are in prison than to support the death penalty."
Now, although I am inclined to agree with the gist of Monk Seraphim's position, I cannot say that his letter functions as a creed for anything. It is grossly misleading for Steve to suggest that all one needs to do to overthrow Orthodox objections to the death penalty is to deal with the content of this letter.
Part 2 - Some of what Steve says here seems pointless to respond to from an Orthodox position, since he tries to talk about atheistic and Christian objections to the death penalty at the same time, and includes here some (to my mind, pointless, in an Orthodox context) talk about what is cheaper or might be cheaper, and so on.
What strikes me as worth responding to is his treatment of the story about Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. First, Steve tells us that "This is the story about how God immediately strikes Ananaias dead before the congregation for lying about his tithe." Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that God struck them dead for a punishment, which the text does not say (though I admit I'm not up on the history of Orthodox interpretation of this passage), then Steve says "While it was God who did the killing, St. Peter did not pray to God for mercy, clemency or life in prison for either of them."
So...what? I'm against the death penalty (so far, at least, but I haven't read to the end of the series), but if I see God strike anyone dead, I will be inclined to take that judgment as final and won't be asking for them to...be restored to life, or be restored to life and then imprisoned. What are we supposed to make of this, exactly? It seems that Steve means, but doesn't quite say, that this passage, in which two people are struck dead, means that people killing other people, at least for certain crimes, is okay. What crimes, exactly, then? Lying about income realized from the sale of land? Lying to Apostles? Do our bishops today count? What are we to take from this?
Steve then says "And St Luke records that the result was great fear came upon the Church and all who heard about it. I take that to be biblical language for “public capital punishment for lying to the apostles and the Church was a deterrent”. "
More sleight of hand. God striking someone dead is not capital punishment in the sense in which we humans need to discuss it. It is, literally, an act of God. It is beyond our likes and dislikes and quite beyond our ability to do anything about it. We cannot appeal to civil authorities or Apostles or anyone else, because the highest authority has already spoken. There is not much to say.
But then it gets worse, when Steve boldly interprets the passage to mean "public capital punishment for lying to the apostles and the Church was a deterrent," using the word "deterrent," so common in discussions of capital punishment in our day. You cannot just slip that in without extended argument to show that this is a valid interpretation and a valid connection. Whether he knows it or not, Steve is trying to associate the divine authority witnessed to in this story with modern, often not at all Christian, arguments for the death penalty. This is not acceptable and not honest.
I will respond to other parts as I have time.
