Grace versus Death Penalty

Someone recently wrote in a post in Facebook: "How can someone claim to be a grace preacher and still be in favor of the death penalty? It's a total contradiction. I believe it's time to make this very clear. If we preach grace, then we need to be consistent. Grace & death are poles apart. Grace and love will always protect, even if it means to distance oneself from the perpetrator or protect what is precious to us. Yes, there will be natural consequences to be accountable. South Africa is currently battling with violent crime. Whenever I hear about another rape or farm murder, it is human to be angry and upset. But there is grace for the criminals, even when they have to serve sentence as part of the consequences for their deeds. But there is no grace in an eye for an eye. I have especially targeted my statement to the so-called grace preaching pastors while simultaneously out of the same mouth they speak death. It does not make any sense."

I agree. Grace is not 'an eye for an eye'. Grace is forgiveness. Grace and love keeps no records of wrongs.

Grace and justice are perfectly compatible because justice is not law or legalism, nor is it about punishment or eternal torture. Justice is setting people free from the law and from condemnation. That's true justice.

Grace changes people from the inside out. Judgment or condemnation doesn't change anyone. It only inflicts guilt and creates more trouble in the society.

There are natural consequences for every action. People can learn from their own mistakes. No one will grow up if they are placed under do's and don'ts, or live under threats of punishment, such as the death penalty.

Grace teaches people to learn to take responsibility for their actions and not depend on outward laws. Under grace, all things are permissible but not all things are beneficial. People will learn to love their neighbour and do things that are beneficial because love does no harm to a neighbour.

Grace is also wisdom. Grace means taking measures to keep a distance from those who are abusive, so as to ensure one's own safety. Grace rules, not death penalty.

Those who receive ABUNDANCE of grace and gift of righteousness (or innocence) will reign in life over sin (or ignorance of God's love and of our true identity in Christ) and death (or condemnation).  

Thoughts on Troy Davis' case

I also agree with Troy Davis' view that true justice is about setting the innocent free from an unfair system. Even if a person has been guilty of a crime, the death penalty is not appropriate since it is equivalent to murder. At the most, imprisonment would prevent the person from carrying out further harm, and at the same time the person will have time to reflect and meditate on one's actions. Everyone deserves a second chance. Law and punishment never transform anyone, but only inflicts guilt and shame, which perpetuate problems in the society. I believe grace is the answer, for unconditional love transforms the heart. Hopefully, with the awareness of Troy Davis' case and his supporters' efforts, the death penalty can be removed from the judicial system one day.

Thoughts on commentary by Kevin Powell - "Troy Davis did not die"

I just read a heart-felt commentary by Kevin Powell, a fellow black man who is an activist, writer and public speaker based in New York. His writing resounded with me, especially the final part of his article, as he is also against death penalty. Like him, as much as I am aghast by the failure of justice in Georgia, I too believe Troy's death is not in vain but has created awareness in the world about the urgent need for reform in America's judicial system and change in people's mindset to overlook differences in skin colour. Love and justice shall prevail as we participate together in the movement with his supporters to end death penalty.

The issue of human dignity

It is about the value of human life, therefore death penalty in any form, whether lethal injection or other methods, can never be justified. I remember reading a news article recently which said that just by causing the person to wait for the lethal injection to be ministered would likely to have caused some psychological trauma. I once watched a movie "Dead Man Walking", which shows the actor Sean Penn who played the role of the condemned experiencing great fear and stress at the thought of dying before the execution. Death penalty is cruel and should be abolished for the sake of human dignity.

Update (24 October 2012)

I've been through my own seasons of disillusionment and cynicism about the lack of action and responsibility by the authorities to do something about the state of the world, and I am finding my own way to see what can be done. It is not easy to find hope, though I do see some small progress, such as the recent move by the local government to revise laws on death penalty, for example. It's thanks to my best friend's sharing with me about Troy Davis' case last year that I was eventually inspired to write to the national newspaper forum to abolish death penalty, and I believe this, together with other collective efforts by other activists, have helped make some positive changes in the laws.

CON/science

I think the word "CON/science" is a creative play on the spelling and captures the essence of many religious teachings about the human "conscience". Yes, religion majors on the art of pricking people's conscience to the point it becomes a science of conning people to think there is something wrong with them and they need to fast, confess sins and/or do a thousand and one things to appease a displeased deity. It plays on people's guilt and fear of rejection, abandonment and punishment.

The preaching of penal substitution view of the cross doesn't really alleviate guilt either; it only perpetuates the illusion of an imaginary god with anger and ego problems. Hence, I believe when Jesus said you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free, He was saying that the truth will make us free from illusion, guilt, shame, fear and condemnation.

What is truth? 

Some evangelical christians think that telling the truth is telling people they will go to hell if they don't believe in Jesus. That's not truth because truth is synonymous with grace. Truth is about being free from illusion and ignorance. The good news is about God's unconditional love and our true identity in Him.

I also have been thinking about the question Pontius Pilate asked Jesus. After Jesus had told him "Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice", Pilate asked "What is truth?" I believe Jesus was saying those whose eyes have been opened to see the kingdom of God within themselves have known the truth, and therefore they hear His voice of love, grace and mercy. Those who were under religion (including the Pharisees) and world system (including the Roman governor) were still living in illusion and ignorance. They neither knew God as unconditional love nor knew their true identity.

When Jesus began preaching the gospel in Israel, He was essentially warning the Jews that in the days to come, there would be no more temple and no more sacrificial system. What then would the Jews do to get right with God (or at least they thoughts so)? They would probably experience a sense of alienation and condemnation when these outward rituals ceased to be. In the same way, today's religions still very much depend on outward rituals, like going to "church" etc, to get in the good books of "god". It's living in illusion. Truth is the antidote to illusion.

Truth is not con/science. Truth says we are already innocent, already blameless, beloved and favoured.

Some Reflections on a Trinitarian View of the Cross

The following is a very interesting article by Bill Nieporte, which refutes the penal substitution view of the cross in a positive way. I can relate to this article because like the author, I used to subscribe to the penal substitution view of the cross, and later realised that this view faces several problems. I think he summarised the main problems of that view well, such as the triune God – the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – is not separated from Himself or one another, and the fact that Jesus came as a revelation of God as our loving Father.

After all, in the past few years, I have listened to preachings like this: “Yes, God is love, but God is also just. God hates sin and has to punish sinners, so God punished His Son on our behalf at the cross.” Or “Yes, God is our Father, but God is also a Judge. As a Father, He wept for His Son, but as a Judge, He had to turn His back and forsake His Son at the cross – He was forsaken by the Father so that you and I will be accepted by the Father.” I have accepted this view without much questioning in the past, because the preachers sounded convincing in the way they presented this view of the cross. It was also a popular view, as it seemed to be widely accepted by people among the evangelical christian circles.

I guess the penal substitution view might even sound logical to most people because we tend to equate our human sense of justice with God’s idea of justice. In most (if not all) societies, the law court would impose on an offender some form of punishment, such as fine, jail or death penalty, depending on the severity of the crime. But this punishment is mainly retributive and serves as a deterrent for others – it is neither remedial nor restorative. The judge also gains nothing out of it. God, on the other hand, has a different view of justice – He judges on behalf of the poor, the downcast, the oppressed, and the sinners. God is love, and His justice must be viewed from the perspective that His nature is love — love wants the best for us.

So who did God judge at the cross? Not us. Not His Son. I believe God judged the devil, who is the accuser of the brethren, and he is none other than our guilty conscience, so that today, our conscience can no longer condemn us or make us think God is angry with us or out to punish us. God saves us from wrong thinking (which began in the garden of Eden), by sending His Son to open our eyes to the truth of the gospel – through His finished work at the cross, He has cleansed our conscience so that we can have the boldness and freedom to fellowship with God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who is all the while with us and for us. We can boldly and freely enjoy the warm fellowship and love with the triune God in our daily life.

“The reason I am ‘hung up’ on this (as you put it) is that I am passionate about biblical theology. What is advocated by those who hold ‘penal substitution’ view of redemption is a hermeneutic that is imposed on the scripture from the outside. It does not rise up from the text. I once believed otherwise – but as I have more carefully studied the Bible – I am no longer able to accept the schizophrenic view of God that teaches that Father was dumping anger or wrath out on Jesus when he was on the cross. My foundation has been a renewed understanding and appreciation for the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.

The ‘penal substitution’ view is in error in that it divides God into parts differing personalities, rather than a Triune who share the same nature (LOVE). The early church fathers referred to this as perichoresis – a Greek term that means ‘cleaving together.’ It describes the fellowship (Baxter Kruger calls it ‘the Divine dance’) that exists between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as they embrace and infuse each other. This is more than just intimacy and self-sufficiency. It is also the understanding that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one in being. Karl Barth considers the  doctrine of the Trinity so important that it became the lynchpin of this entire theology. In fact, the doctrine of the Trinity (Barth referred to the ‘one in threeness’ and ‘three in oneness’ or God) was the prolegomena of his systematic theology.

Here is where the problem lies. The idea that one part of God could be angry at us and the other loving toward us is contrary to this core biblical doctrine of the Christian faith. The idea that Father could in any way pour out anger or wrath on Jesus in anathema to a good Trinitarian, as it cuts up the Godhead into separate entities, rather than affirming the unity of the Godhead. This is unbiblical.

Compounding this biblical error is that it serves as a basic denial of the doctrine of the Incarnation which teaches us that Jesus was the perfect expression of the Father in human form (see Hebrews 1:3). In Jesus, God is seen not as some wrathful God of vengeance who must be appeased. Rather God is full of compassion and mercy, as witnessed in Jesus.
What Trinitarians advocate is that the place from which to understand scripture and all doctrines of the Christian faith is by looking at the love and kindness of Jesus, who came to reveal what God was really like (as John 14:9 says, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.”) Those who work from a ‘penal substitution’ view say that the discussion about the nature and identity of God begins with ‘the law’ and not with Jesus. In fact, ‘penal substitution’ draws the attention so much to ‘the law’ that even God must submit to its dictates. In this view, God is so uptight about sin (disobedience against the law) that God MUST punish lawbreakers. So, then, the two hermeneutical principles that inform my interpretation of scripture are the doctrine of the Trinity and the conviction that the nature (DNA, if you will) of God is LOVE. Both these principles rise up from the scripture, where as the ‘penal’ view does not. So, while you may disagree with me, please don’t see my objection as merely a visceral discomfort with the notion of God’s ‘anger’ or ‘wrath.’ Rather these ideas (as they are understood from a ‘penal substitution’ viewpoint) are simply inconsistent with biblical theology.

So, then, the logical question is this: “If God was NOT pouring out wrath on Jesus as a penal substitution for us, then what exactly was happening at the cross?” The answer is that the cross is a unified expression of LOVE from our Triune God. Texts that affirm this include 2 Corinthians 5:19 and Hebrews 9:14 which together place Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together, on the cross, bringing all humanity the gift of salvation. Beyond all else, salvation is an invitation to participate in ‘the Divine dance’ (perichoresis).

As I said earlier, God is not schizophrenic. He does not suffer from a multiple-personality disorder. There is not a good guy God in a white hat named Jesus, and a mean God in a black hat called the Father. There is one Triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who loves without condition and has not only forgiven us, but has removed sin from us, and has made a way for full participation in the love relationship the Godhead shares. The word Paul uses is ‘adoption.’ God becomes one of us in Jesus. God takes up our cause. God draws us into relationship. (Ephesians 1:4-5)

Now with this picture in mind, how do we see this concept of God’s wrath? God’s wrath is God’s anger at sin because it hinders our ability to have intimacy with God. As a parent, I have often been angry at my children’s behavior. But I have never stopped loving them. I have never disowned them. Jesus makes this exact point in Matthew 7:9-11, when he says, “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!” The message of the cross under the ‘penal substitution’ view is that God is angry with you and poured out His wrath on Jesus. The message of the cross from a proper Trinitarian understanding of the scripture is that God loves you. That’s why we call it GOSPEL.”

- Bill Nieporte