Orthodox - death penalty

[rusmeister]

The sad thing about the death penalty is that it often enforces that spiritual death. The death penalty quickens the time of ultimate spiritual death with no recourse on their part.

Yes, but if a person will not repent when knowingly faced with a definite and imminent time of death, then it hardly matters. If he chooses to harden his heart at such a time, he is already on a path that offers no hope. Imminent death is, for most of us, our best chance to stop living as if we had forever and prepare to face eternity. If it often enforces spiritual death (something we don’t really know), then surely it must also often motivate a turn toward spiritual life, toward pinning our hopes on the next world. We don’t really know what choices people actually make in that regard. But I think most of us would admit that we, and most people we know, would make some effort to prepare for death and to face God and eternity.

But Steve talked about this, too. I just see more thought from him that deals with both the teachings of our Faith and the realities of the fallen world than from the people who oppose the death penalty categorically. The latter seem to wish to both engage in Christian government and to avoid the necessity of the government wielding the sword, and commands clearly made to us as individuals are wrongly applied to governments (which goes for other commands as well, such as charity). Wherever there has been even ostensibly Christian government, there has always been the death penalty. Even in the Kingdom, it seems there is an eternal death penalty, the possibility of being finally and ultimately cast out of the Kingdom.

 

[All4Christ]

Yes, but if a person will not repent when knowingly faced with a definite and imminent time of death, then it hardly matters. If he chooses to harden his heart at such a time, he is already on a path that offers no hope. Imminent death is, for most of us, our best chance to stop living as if we had forever and prepare to face eternity.

That certainly isn’t always the case (not repenting later). If we are called to visit those who are in prisons, then perhaps that may help change their thoughts later.

If it often enforces spiritual death (something we don’t really know), then surely it must also often motivate a turn toward spiritual life, toward pinning our hopes on the next world. We don’t really know what choices people actually make in that regard. But I think most of us would admit that we, and most people we know, would make some effort to prepare for death and to face God and eternity.

Many would, but certainly not all.

But Steve talked about this, too. I just see more thought from him that deals with both the teachings of our Faith and the realities of the fallen world than from the people who oppose the death penalty categorically. The latter seem to wish to both engage in Christian government and to avoid the necessity of the government wielding the sword, and commands clearly made to us as individuals are wrongly applied to governments (which goes for other commands as well, such as charity). Wherever there has been even ostensibly Christian government, there has always been the death penalty. Even in the Kingdom, it seems there is an eternal death penalty, the possibility of being finally and ultimately cast out of the Kingdom.

Well, honestly I don’t like mixing the Church into the government. Maybe that is an unpopular view, but I think it opens up the door for additional corruption to come into the church, nominalism, mixing politics with theology, etc. I don’t consider Christian governments’ actions to be a defense for why we should have the death penalty.

I don’t expect the government to live by Christianity’s standards. I won’t, however, personally support things that I believe are wrong. If my vote can help prevent something from happening (for example, abortion or same-sex marriage), then I’ll vote for what I believe is right. If someone wants to be in government who is a Christian, then I’ll hope that they can help influence things for the better. A Christian government, however, is a totally different thing than a Christian being in politics.

 

[rusmeister]

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:



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:



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.

I’m reading you, Archer, but you’re not convincing me any more than I’m convincing you. It may be that no words of anyone could do anything. Here, you seem to have begun, not with any readiness to fairly consider Steve’s words, but just to debunk them with your own “sleight of hand”. You really don’t know Steve in the least if you think he’s dissembling, being tricky or manipulative.

You are not fair in the problems you cite. I can certainly agree that hierarchs have their own experience of evil, and a given hierarch might really have the kind of experience Steve does. But most don’t. Even most lay people don’t. Most of us have regular jobs, where we don’t encounter the dirty side of life that Steve actually has. Nor does Steve say that even having such experience is argument for the death penalty, as you imply.

On the second “problem”, Steve says “...his statement can be viewed as the creed...”. He says “can”, and I agree, and you disagree. You say “there is no good reason to view (it as such)” with just as little evidence as you complain Steve shows, though he proceeds - over 8 podcasts - to present his case.
You dismiss what Steve says about Ananais - again, I disagree with you. Sure, you have a case, which is based entirely on the fact that God, not the Apostles, did the killing. That is true. But he and his wife WERE killed, without any option to repent, etc etc. There certainly IS something to say, and that is that God saw death as something to be administered, directly and clearly, as a penalty, not as an accident, or a natural consequence of the behavior, but as instant execution in reponse to their deceptive actions. That IS relevant, even when Christ our God does it. And on deterrence, again, Steve offers EXTENDED argument. But it looks like you have already set your mind entirely to debunking, and so none of it will make any impact on you - you have already chosen. When I listened, I couldn’t see how he could be right, but I was really open to being convinced otherwise, and I ultimately was.

None of it is “OK”. The death penalty is NOT “OK”. It is a legitimate response on the part of a ruling government to evil action in the fallen world, but it’s NOT “a good thing”, and neither Steve nor I are trying to say otherwise.

 

[FenderTL5]

That certainly isn’t always the case (not repenting later).

Many would, but certainly not all.

Well, honestly I don’t like mixing the Church into the government. Maybe that is an unpopular view, but I think it opens up the door for additional corruption to come into the church, nominalism, mixing politics with theology, etc. I don’t consider Christian governments’ actions to be a defense for why we should have the death penalty.

I don’t expect the government to live by Christianity’s standards. I won’t, however, personally support things that I believe are wrong. If my vote can help prevent something from happening (for example, abortion or same-sex marriage), then I’ll vote for what I believe is right. If someone wants to be in government who is a Christian, then I’ll hope that they can help influence things for the better. A Christian government, however, is a totally different thing than a Christian being in politics.

I agree.
I consider the ability to discern what a Christian can/can't/should do as opposed to what a government can/can't to be paramount. e.g. it does not matter whether abortion is legal or not civically, it has no place in the life of a Christian. Similarly, killing for any reason has no place in the life of the Christian regardless of the status a government may take.
If one wants to make the case for capital punishment for civic/civil purposes, go ahead but leave the Church and Christianity out of the argument because forgiveness and mercy are the attributes of Christ teaching.

 

[rusmeister]

That certainly isn’t always the case (not repenting later). If we are called to visit those who are in prisons, then perhaps that may help change their thoughts later.

Many would, but certainly not all.

Well, honestly I don’t like mixing the Church into the government. Maybe that is an unpopular view, but I think it opens up the door for additional corruption to come into the church, nominalism, mixing politics with theology, etc. I don’t consider Christian governments’ actions to be a defense for why we should have the death penalty.

I don’t expect the government to live by Christianity’s standards. I won’t, however, personally support things that I believe are wrong. If my vote can help prevent something from happening (for example, abortion or same-sex marriage), then I’ll vote for what I believe is right. If someone wants to be in government who is a Christian, then I’ll hope that they can help influence things for the better. A Christian government, however, is a totally different thing than a Christian being in politics.

There’s a lot I agree with here, especially on mixing the Church and the government, which is always a disaster. The one thing I disagree on is your last sentence. If a Christian is in government he is going to be in politics, and if voting has any actual power, then it is the exercise of government, the “fleur-de-lis” when the will of the voter is enacted. Obviously, if voting is just playing with Monopoly money, and has no real power, then that is not true. It is only true to the extent that voting truly represents power.

I think it ought to be admitted, that under our own DP ystem, where people are on death row for an average of ten, twenty or more years, that they actually have lots of “later” to repent. But in the end, that’s between them and God. We can’t make anyone repent, even someone doing life in prison. All I was saying that being faced with an imminent certainty of death tends to push people to face the reality of it.

 

[rusmeister]

I agree.
I consider the ability to discern what a Christian can/can't/should do as opposed to what a government can/can't to be paramount. e.g. it does not matter whether abortion is legal or not civically, it has no place in the life of a Christian. Similarly, killing for any reason has no place in the life of the Christian regardless of the status a government may take.
If one wants to make the case for capital punishment for civic/civil purposes, go ahead but leave the Church and Christianity out of the argument because forgiveness and mercy are the attributes of Christ teaching.

I think the only case being made is the civic one. No one is saying that the Church “teaches the death penalty”. The only thing being argued is that Christians, as citizens in government, are wrong in trying to categorically forbid governments to have a death penalty on grounds that were never meant to be applied to governments, but to us as individual Christians.

 

[All4Christ]

There’s a lot I agree with here, especially on mixing the Church and the government, which is always a disaster. The one thing I disagree on is your last sentence. If a Christian is in government he is going to be in politics, and if voting has any actual power, then it is the exercise of government, the “fleur-de-lis” when the will of the voter is enacted. Obviously, if voting is just playing with Monopoly money, and has no real power, then that is not true. It is only true to the extent that voting truly represents power.

I think it ought to be admitted, that under our own DP ystem, where people are on death row for an average of ten, twenty or more years, that they actually have lots of “later” to repent. But in the end, that’s between them and God. We can’t make anyone repent, even someone doing life in prison. All I was saying that being faced with an imminent certainty of death tends to push people to face the reality of it.

Yes, being on death row for a long period of time does make a difference.

Honestly, I’d prefer to have issue based voting or something other than what we have. I’m not politically savvy enough to say what would be best, but often our votes only make a difference in getting someone into office who may be pushing the issues that we want to be addressed.

And yes, we can’t make someone repent, even if they are in for life. I think we all should, however, make a point to follow that command of Jesus to visit the sick, those in prison, etc, as if they were Him.

I like the last bolded part of the last paragraph from the 8th segment of his podcast:

In the end, in light of Scripture and the Fathers, I believe that Christians cannot be categorically anti death penalty. However, we CAN be anti death penalty for individual persons, like Augustine was. In this sense Bp. Seraphim is ultimately correct: the call of the gospel is for us to visit those in prison regardless of what they are in prison for. In my opinion it is unchristian to light candles outside a prison wall when someone is executed and we’ve never met the person. It IS Christian to visit those in prison and then to advocate for justice or mercy based on a personal relationship. Jesus said, I was in prison and you visited me, not, I was on death row and you wrote philosophical journal articles, passed joint statements, blogged and lit a candle when I died.
So, ultimately, can someone believe in the sanctity of life and mercy, work with prisoners and convicts and still believe in the death penalty?

I think so. I do today.

 

[All4Christ]

The only thing being argued is that Christians, as citizens in government, are wrong in trying to categorically forbid governments to have a death penalty on grounds that were never meant to be applied to governments, but to us as individual Christians.

So the question I have with this - and I’m not saying I have the answer - is to what extent to we hold this position?

Are we wrong for wanting government to prohibit abortion or same sex marriage? Are we wrong for wanting any Christian principle to be upheld in court?

Does it only apply to protecting the innocents, ie abortion? If that is the differentiation, the logical conclusion from my POV is that same sex marriage should be allowed in the secular world.

I’m not trying to be dense here; it is a question I have based on what the Church teaches. Do we purely act as sojourners here on Earth - and shun all worldly influence - or do we try to protect our way of life and the innocent by working with the secular authorities or pushing what we believe is right? Is there some middle ground?

If we drop all influence on morality in government, since we aren’t to dictate what government does or enforces, then should we move towards a libertarian government, in the concept of leaving all morality to the individual and not be governed by State? (Of course, some aspects of that party would conflict with support of the death penalty and other issues, so I am using a loose application of the term).

 

[rusmeister]

So the question I have with this - and I’m not saying I have the answer - is to what extent to we hold this position?

Are we wrong for wanting government to prohibit abortion or same sex marriage? Are we wrong for wanting any Christian principle to be upheld in court?

Does it only apply to protecting the innocents, ie abortion? If that is the differentiation, the logical conclusion from my POV is that same sex marriage should be allowed in the secular world.

I’m not trying to be dense here; it is a question I have based on what the Church teaches. Do we purely act as sojourners here on Earth - and shun all worldly influence - or do we try to protect our way of life and the innocent by working with the secular authorities or pushing what we believe is right? Is there some middle ground?

If we drop all influence on morality in government, since we aren’t to dictate what government does or enforces, then should we move towards a libertarian government, in the concept of leaving all morality to the individual and not be governed by State? (Of course, some aspects of that party would conflict with support of the death penalty and other issues, so I am using a loose application of the term).

I think it’s a great question.
My answer, for what it’s worth, is that when we have power and influence of any sort, we should exercise it for good. And that means influencing morality in government, protecting our neighbor as part of the command to love him, and so on - when we can. When we can’t, we accept whatever comes our way, up to and including martyrdom.

So as I see it, that means that if I do have that influence and power, if only by voting (if the vote has any real power) with fear and trembling before God it must mean approving of police to use deadly force when necessary, soldiers to defend our borders with armed force when necessary, and a justice system that may and probably does include the death penalty.