NOTICE:
I
will post a quote from a Christian in favor of capital punishment every
fortnight. The following article is written by the author itself and not by me,
I am not trying to violate their copyright. I will give some information on
them. As The Bali Bombers were executed today four years ago, I will post an
article from the Dean of Sydney at St. Andrew’s Cathedral, Philip Jensen, who
gives his opinion before they were executed.
PAGE TITLE: http://phillipjensen.com/
ARTICLE TITLE: Bali
Bombers
DATE: Thursday
6 November 2008
AUTHOR: Phillip Jensen
AUTHOR
INFORMATION: Phillip Jensen is an
Australian clergyman of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney and the Dean of St
Andrew's Cathedral. He is the brother of Peter Jensen, the Anglican Archbishop
of Sydney. In 2003 Phillip became the Dean of Sydney at St Andrew’s Cathedral
and Director of the Sydney Diocesan Ministry Training and Development
(MT&D). As Dean he is guiding the Cathedral in its development as a
thriving city church with the gospel clearly proclaimed as the Bible is taught.
He has planted congregations which are connecting with the city dwellers,
workers and players. As Director of MT&D he continues his lifelong passion
for training people in ministry as he leads the department in providing ongoing
training for ministers in the Sydney Diocese. In conjunction with these roles,
Phillip continues to accept many invitations to carry on his work of expounding
the scriptures at local, national and international conferences. Currently he
is developing a variety of visual media Bible teaching opportunities which are
broadcast on TV each week on the Australian Christian Channel, and posted on
different websites in Australia and internationally.
 |
| Philip Jensen |
Bali
Bombers
A regular article written by Phillip Jensen in his
role as Dean of Sydney at St Andrew's Cathedral.
Originally Published:
6th November 2008
At the time of writing Australians await with
ambivalence the execution of the Bali bombers. It is widely expected to happen
this weekend.
Many strong emotions are expressed about this
sentence—from outrage that it has taken so long, to indignation that we condone
the barbarity of execution.
These men killed over 200 people, 88 of whom were
Australians. They did it in a cold-blooded manner, not targeting military
personnel or strategic objectives but apparently innocent holidaymakers. There
is no doubt they are guilty for they are proud of their work. They are totally
unrepentant, and seem to enjoy their notoriety.
One victim's mother recently said: “The day that I
wake up and they're dead, I will be happy.” Yet other victims' families do not
want them executed.
The reasons for peoples' opposition to the death
sentence varies. Some are simply opposed to the death sentence. Others think
the death sentence gives the bombers what they want: martyrdom. Still others
think the death sentence is too light. As one mother put it: “If it was my
choice, crudely, I would have their penises shot off so they can't reproduce
and their hands cut off so they can't make another bomb and then let them rot
in prison forever.”
Few topics demonstrate so clearly Australia's moral
confusion.
Our political leaders are opposed to capital
punishment. They have removed it from Australian law. They oppose it on the
world stage of diplomacy. They appeal against execution on behalf of all
Australian citizens overseas irrespective how heinous their crimes.
But yet as politicians they wish to maintain public
support. And the public have never agreed with the blanket rejection of all
executions. The public have a well-developed intuitive sense of ‘justice’ that
requires retribution for crimes. In particular the public have not agreed with
clemency being shown to the Bali bombers. So the politicians are going very
softly on these executions.
Some people oppose capital punishment as a matter
of absolute morality. It is always wrong under all circumstances. They argue
that executions are essentially barbaric. They reject retribution and
vengeance. They say that executing people reduces us to the same level of guilt
as the killers—even if we are killing the guilty and the guilty killed the
innocent.
But most people argue against executions for
pragmatic reasons. The courts often make mistakes and the death sentence allows
for no errors. It never rehabilitates anybody. It does not prevent crime
happening. In the case of the Bali Bombers they argue that there will be riots
against the West, and the raising up of other terrorists. Furthermore, they
argue that it will increase the likelihood of the execution of some Australians
who are also awaiting execution in Indonesia. But the logic of pragmatism does
not adequately meet the victim's appeal for justice.
Vengeance is the motivation for justice as it calls
for retaliation and retribution. It gives people what they deserve. It is what
justice is all about. Remove retaliation, and justice is reduced to amoral
social engineering. Without retributive justice, governments become
totalitarian tyrannies.
Like anger, vengeance is right—and like anger it is
very difficult to control. We should be angered by criminal inhumanity like
rape, paedophilia, torture and the holocaust. Not to be angry at such iniquity
is to share in its guilt for we are accepting evil. Even mercy requires
justice—for without justice, mercy becomes the acceptance of evil. Without the
right to exact punishment, forgiveness is meaningless acquiescence.
But the problem with vengeance is the difficulty to
control it—especially if victims administer it. It is hard for victims to
remain cool headed enough to be sure of the guilt of the perpetrator. Vengeance
easily gives rise to payback killings and communal vendettas.
Furthermore it is difficult for the victim or their
families to deliver justice without losing control and exceeding just
retribution. It is important that two eyes are not taken for one or two teeth
removed for one. In sinful hearts, righteous indignation easily spills over to
excessive punishment.
But what of capital punishment—taking away
somebody's right to life?
Rights always imply duties. Our right to life is
the duty not to take it from others. The very passage that teaches the right to
life also teaches the punishment for taking a life. “Whoever sheds the blood of
man, by man shall his blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6). The death sentence is part
of the justice and mercy of God.
But it is not up to us to avenge ourselves. God has
given the work of justice to governments—“the servant of God, an avenger who
carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:4). We are to turn the
other cheek rather than to repay evil for evil. “Beloved, never avenge
yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is
mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’” (Romans 12:19).
God is angry, and in his just anger punishes
sin—even with death. He warned Adam against eating the fruit saying “in the day
that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:17). As the scripture
teaches us “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23) and “Without the shedding
of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Hebrews 9:22).
That is why Jesus died to pay for sin—not his but
ours. His death atoned for sin—turning aside God's righteous anger. When Abel's
blood was shed by his brother—it cried out for justice. When Jesus blood was
shed for his brothers—it fulfilled justice and declared mercy and pardon to all
who trust in him. By his execution God upholds justice while extending mercy.
Yet while it is true that the wages of sin is
death, “the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans
6:23).
No comments:
Post a Comment