Christian Witness, Moral Anthropology and the Death Penalty

"What role ought religious beliefs play in a pluralistic democratic society that often presumes strict boundaries between private faith and political life?" (141)

This is the question that Richard W. Garnett strives to address in his essay. He makes two arguments in this attempt: (1) that we shouldn't impose 'strict boundaries' as it is dishonest and distorting, and (2) we should bear authentic Christian witness to 'moral truth about human persons' not try to 'baptize policy analyses'. Garnett begins with establishing what type of argument this will be. He said that we need to make sure our presuppositions are truthful in order to continue moral analysis afterward. This is what he calls moral anthropology. In order to make sure we get the right answer about the death penalty we need to understand, "who these condemned persons are, what they were made to be and why it should make a difference" (144). As Christians, we have a countercultural idea about the specialness of human beings, that they are God's creation, imago dei, and therefore their value is unmeasurable. Regarding religious witness in the public arena, Garnett argues that faith has a legitimate place there. In fact, it is the opposite of liberalism to suggest that christianity is any less fit as a source of values than any other source. With that established, the question becomes, "if Christian believers - as Christian believers - do elect to engage the world, what should we say?"(152). What we should not say is something that is watered down to punditry. Garnett wants Christians define and speak of the moral truths about the human person, starting with the anthropological premise that humans being are sacred. This is followed by the moral claim that some things should never be done to a human being, such as capital punishment. Establishing this anthropological premise is important because it keeps us from joining in discussions about "human fallibility, discrimination, rehabilitation, or cost" (155). This discussions still share the same presupposition about humanity that those who are for the death penalty carry. Garnett demands that Christians turn those anthropological presuppositions on its head and be able to argue why someone who is 100% guilty of murder should not be executed. This is Christian moral anthropology, that our greatness comes not from our abilities to shape our destiny but being creatures of a loving God. Believing this does not allow any Christian to suppose that capital punishment is aligned with the dignity of the human person.

This is by far the best article I have read in this book so far (and I realize that I have probably already said that on a previous blog post but I really mean it this time). I previously have had my feet in two camps, involving myself in "human fallibility, discrimination, rehabilitation, or cost" discussion as well as the discussion about whether capital punishment is deserved by anyone. I have never realized until reading this article how different the moral suppositions of both these camps are so different. More shocking to me is that the former camp has the same supposition as that of those who support the death penalty. They both believe that not every human is infinitely valuable and not all humans share the same level of dignity. I think Garnett has offered up a position that is the most Christian as it is truly countercultural and not of this world, which are defining characteristics of Christianity. Our Christian moral anthropology or "story" should be different than the world's. It's easy to get caught up in superficial arguments about things such as the fallibility of the courts without realizing what the moral suppositions for those arguments are. It's hard for me to see now how Christians can believe we are created imago dei yet argue a position that devalues human worth.

Biblical Perspectives

The next chapter of this anthology is entitled, "Biblical Perspectives on the Death Penalty" written by Michael L. Westmoreland-White and Glen H. Stassen. This chapter focused specifically on biblical passages and creed. The authors analyzed the many ways the passages and idea of the crucifixion are used to argue for and against the death penalty. While there were many examples, the most significant passage for Christian death penalty advocates has been Genesis 9:6 which more or less says that whoever sheds the blood of someone, their blood will also be shed. Many DP advocates have interpreted this as a law code but the authors in fact point out that it is more likely it was a karmic proverb. The verse is structured in poetic recital and rhymes in Hebrew, so it is not structure in legal language. The authors interpreted this to mean that in the order of the world, those who murder will most likely be murdered eventually, either as a legal penalty or something informal like vengeance. However, this verse is most definitely not in imperative language and therefore not a legal penalty. The authors go on to address Lex Talonis which is also known as the "an eye for an eye" law code. Rather than how its interpreted as a minimum standard of justice it is actually a maximum standard of justice. The authors note, "The Lex Talonis is not a demand to force symmetrical justice on persons who would otherwise be inclined to overly merciful, but rather limits escalating vengeance cycles" (129). There is room for mercy in this law code, which in fact is only mentioned three times in the Old Testament anyways. The authors then move to the crucifixion of Jesus as a symbol that is inherently against capital punishment. Jesus was falsely convicted of threatening the temple, preaching sedition against Rome, and blasphemy. For this, he was subject to capital punishment. As the authors write, "Every time we contemplate Christ's cross, or partake of the Lord's Supper, we are reminded that the death penalty allows legal execution of innocent person. We should be biased against executing criminals, since our Lord was executed as one" (136). They conclude on the cross as being the ultimate defense against the death penalty and leave little room for those who honor the cross to think any differently.

I appreciated this chapter because I never thought about looking for imperative language when determining whether something in the Bible was poetic or legal code. I agree with the authors on their interpretation as God obviously did not enforce that outcome with many of the people who are mentioned in the Bible (i.e. Cain, Moses, King David). It is also fascinating to compare these proverbs with the way God actually acted toward His people in those biblical narratives. It almost seems like He is a just god and has a moral code He expects His people to live up to, yet He can't help but show mercy when they fall short. To think of Him this way gives us a standard of how to live mercifully, not only because that is how God acts, but also because we have been shown so much mercy. I was also struck by the juxtaposition of taking communion and the death penalty. I do not see how one can possibly truly believe in Jesus as someone who was the victim of government and its fallibility yet think that our government is somehow more able to make decisions on capital punishment. Unlike Mohammed of Islam who was a warrior and political leader, Jesus was outside of the political and governmental system and eventually a victim of it. This seems to be a fact that is often overlooked. It was no single man that killed Jesus, but a state-ordered crucifixion. That cannot be a coincidence. It must be an integral part of the story.

Muslim Perspectives

In this section, I read "The Death Penalty, Mercy, and Islam: A Call for Retrospection" by Khaled Abou El Fadl. El Fadl starts off his essay be reiterating the gravity of a killing state and capital punishment itself. Life belongs to the divine territory and therefore when one thinks about capital punishment, "one is treading upon divine territory and one does so at great peril to one's soul and ultimate well-being in the hereafter" (El Fadl 73). A killing state only kills as an act on God's behalf, not for security purposes or general consensus by the citizens, and this burden of responsibility is heavy. El Fadl brings up the idea of shubha which is doubt that God has authorized your actions or choices. The presence of shubha in a possible sentencing demands the preservation of the accused's life. Before concluding, the author cautions against two things. The first is against the value of a state "that is willing to share the seat of judgement with God and kill" (El Fadl 77). The second caution is against focusing on past Muslim practice in regards to the death penalty but rather to focus on better fulfilling the ideals of Islam. The author writes, "Islam is the product of the constant and evolving dynamic between the divine and the temporal -- between the scripted text, the unscripted text of creation and the reader of these texts" (El Fadl 78). El Fadl concludes that the only version of Justice based off Islam has to be premised on mercy and regard for the sanctity of human life. Decisions about the life and death are too serious for fickle states to handle.
I really enjoyed El Fadl's essay, especially his emphasis on how serious life and extermination of life is, whether through murder or capital punishment. In the previous essays, some authors did not seem to understand that concept as they purported that God will correct in the afterlife any wrongful death sentences we may commit in our time on life. And they believed that He would do so without any consequence to the executioners. This is a very contradictory belief. On one hand, humans want to be able to make decisions about life and death. Yet, they understand that only God can know what action truly is just and accordingly can dispense justice. They are treading on divine territory and know it but still don't want to acknowledge divine (or afterlife) consequences for their actions. I sympathize much more with El Fadl's position. I also enjoyed El Fadl's definition of Islam as fluid and dynamic. I think that allowing new information and experiences to inform how we read religious texts is not only legitimate but helpful. Perspectives that create tradition in Christianity or Islam or any other religion were equally fallible centuries ago as they are now. Time does not determine the legitimacy of a certain tradition.