By Mark Taylor | Echo
I'm writing in response to the Nov. 21 editorial "Death to the death penalty," which made a number of points arguing for Christian opposition to capital punishment. The author concluded the death penalty is inept in its implementation, regressive in the modern world, expensive for taxpayers, impotent as a deterrent and incompatible with Christian theology.
Though well-presented, these objections to the death penalty seem unpersuasive. There remain good reasons for Christians to support capital punishment.
Last week's article left me unconvinced because it isn't clear that the objections raised did indeed show the wrongness of the death penalty. For example, how are atypical, botched incidents of capital punishment arguments against the death penalty rather than just for greater oversight of it? Why are the capital punishment policies of other U.N. members relevant to our own. Isn't this the fallacy of popular appeal? And why isn't the high cost of the death penalty an argument for its streamlining rather than its removal?
These objections might show how the death penalty is unpopular or inefficient in its current form, but couldn't a Christian accept that and still support capital punishment, at least in cases such as serial killers and war criminals?
Still, the theological objections which were presented are not easily avoided. As the author pointed out, Christian theology cherishes reconciliation, and the death penalty is "so severe it negates any possibility of reconciliation between a criminal and his victims-or worse, between a criminal and God." Should Christians therefore reject the death penalty? I don't think so, because this isn't the full picture of the Christian mandate.
Christians are indeed called to reconciliation, but they are also called to justice. Justice demands we give to each what they deserve. For example, if a worker is refused his paycheck, we should condemn it because a worker deserves his wage. But equally, just as we should support the payment deserved by positive contributions, we should also promote the negative payment deserved by criminal acts.
Offenders against the law receive a punishment, not just because it will deter future crimes or help to rehabilitate criminals, but because the offender earned that penalty. As crime deserves punishment, greater crimes deserve greater punishments. Murderers who have rejected others' right to life have earned the appropriate payment of death as their reward.
Who determines when death is the just punishment? Paul indicates that it is those who have been placed in authority, and who bear the sword-a weapon of death-for the purpose of bringing "wrath upon the one who practices evil." This is also why, during his trial, he admitted, "If I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die" (Acts 25:11). If Paul was really guilty, then his punishment would be deserved and he would have no grounds for leniency.
The importance of justice through retribution is deeply rooted in the whole of our theology, not just a few passages here and there. For at the center of our salvation lies the knowledge that we deserved the wrath of heaven for our sin. And while we were still guilty, God himself did not ignore justice for the sake of redemption by simply overlooking our offenses or the retribution we deserve. Rather, in his forgiveness and grace, he provided atonement for sins.
It is the fundamental importance of justice-giving to each as they deserve-which undergirds Christ's death for us with such rich significance. If reconciliation allows us to overlook justice, then there was no need for Christ to act as our sacrificial Lamb. Denigrating the justice enacted though retribution cheapens both the cross and the reconciliation it brought us.
My point in all this is simply that we need to take the idea of guilt seriously. Guilt isn't a mistake or something that happens to us. It is the result of a choice-sin against God, crime against man. Both sin and our crime produce guilt which makes us deserving of more than just constraint, more than mere correction. Fundamentally, guilt deserves wrath.
