Category Archives: Justice
There has been an incredible uproar (pardon the pun) over the killing of a beloved black-maned lion, Cecil. Actually, Cecil was not just killed – he was lured to his death from a safe game preserve, then shot with a bow and arrow. He suffered for 40 hours before the poachers managed to find him and finish the kill with a rifle. The supposed “hunter” was a rich American who paid $50,000 for the privilege to “hunt” a lion. This was not a hunt. This was an act of barbarism.
What has upset many others is that there appears to be more people upset over the killing of Cecil than the revelation that Planned Parenthood sells the harvested parts of aborted babies to medical labs and transplant clinics. The logic is that an unborn child is of far greater value than an African lion, so why are people not more upset over abortion? I am not sure that question is valid. I do strongly believe a human life is more valuable than that of a wild animal. But I also have a somewhat different take on the difference between the reaction to the killing of Cecil and the Planned Parenthood fiasco.
I think the two are actually related, and the furor over the killing of Cecil points to a fundamental crisis of the human spirit that is also demonstrated through abortion.
The killing of Cecil is so raw – so blatant, and the greed of the killers is so easy to spot. The greed of the abortionists is more obscure (indeed, to listen to their defenders, it does not even exist!). But there is another commonality between the lion poachers and the abortionists: arrogance.
What is it about a man who would pay $50,000 to kill an animal? Conservationism? Give me a break. If you want to preserve wild animals, you could donate the $50,000 to an animal preserve and take a picture. No – these people (and there are more than you might think, of both sexes) believe that because they have the money, and because the have the right equipment, and because they have the “right” to kill an animal, that those things justify these supposed “hunts.” What is it about those who believe it is perfectly acceptable to kill an unborn child? These people (once again, of both sexes) believe that because they have the money, the technology, and because the Supreme Court has discovered the “right” for them to take the lives of these unborn children, that they are justified in their murderous actions.
In both situations the commonality is arrogance – the same arrogance that was on display in the Garden of Eden and is on display every time we as humans decide that we are smarter than God. It is rebellion against God’s will. In the words of the Word of God – it is sin. And sin, whether the poaching of a majestic lion or the murder of an unborn child, has its root in the heart of the human being. We wantonly destroy because we believe we are gods, or perhaps that we are better than gods.
There was, and is, no excuse for the poaching of Cecil. I was sickened as I read the story. I hope the individual responsible for this travesty is held accountable in some form or fashion, and that the process of these “trophy hunts” is ended. I am equally sickened by the actions of Planned Parenthood. I would like to see all abortionists punished for the murders they commit. I do not have to choose between outrage over one or the other. Both reveal the depths of the emptiness of the human soul. When we decide that our ability to destroy God’s creation (for no other reason than to magnify our own importance) is more important than our responsibility to protect and maintain that creation, it does not matter whether the life is human or not. Once again, I am not saying the life of a lion is equal to the life of a human being. That would certainly not be biblical or moral. What I am saying is the disregard for God’s creation is equal in both situations.
As I know many hunters, and have hunted big game myself, I feel I must draw a distinction between fairly hunting for food and what these “trophy” hunts project. Many thousands of honest hunters harvest what God has given to man in order to eat what they harvest, and also to manage game herds and bird populations. This is what I refer to as “husbanding” or nurturing God’s creation. Paying $50,000 to kill an animal that is lured to you is not a hunt, it is not husbanding God’s creation – it is killing for the sake of seeing an animal die. There is no justification for such action. That people even attempt to defend this shooter disappoints me.
Just a thought for those who think that we can give the poacher a pass while focusing entirely on the abortionists – until we come to the realization that ALL of God’s creation is our responsibility to protect, we will NEVER be able to effectively end the scourge of abortion. In other words, we are going to have to come to grips with what God told Adam in Genesis 1:26-31 – God’s very first command to humankind. If we are to have dominion over God’s creation, we must humble ourselves and recognize that it is God’s creation, he created it to be good, and we are not permitted to destroy it for our own selfish, arrogant, desires.
Taking a break from writing to do a little writing...and it's been a long summer of writing!
~ ~ ~
Another example of the inability of America to move beyond its racist past has embroiled the country in a racial stare down. The major media outlets are full of articles and stories and editorials about how we can fix this problem or that problem. The biggest problem is, the solutions offered will only serve to make the problem (racism) worse. Every solution involves the distinction of races, making racism the measuring tool for the elimination of racism. It just won’t work.
For example, the overwhelming majority of articles, and editorials I have read over the past several weeks pontificate that “white people are going to have to…” or “white Christians are going to have to…” or more generically, “the white Church is going to have to…” When you identify a group of people by their skin color or some other ethnic identification you have become part of the problem. You are a racist.
I have noticed a glaring absence in all of these articles and editorials and blogs. Nowhere have I read, “the problem with black America is…” or “black Christians must…” or “the black Church must…” According to the overwhelming majority of mainstream media, “Christian” bloggers and preachers, the only people who have a race problem are white people.
That is simply racist, and you probably think I am racist for thinking so.
In this latest example of racial unrest, a young man was killed by a police officer. Oops, I forgot to mention those two adjectives: a young black man was killed by a white police officer. What would have happened if the officer was. . .black, or Latino? What if the officer was female instead of male? Would there have been riots? Where would Al Sharpton be?
You see, there is a huge racial problem in America. There can be no denying that fact. Deniers in this case are not only ignorant, they are stupid.
There may have been a racial component in the shooting of the young man in Missouri. Only an unbiased search for truth will bring that out. If the officer is guilty of a racial bias he needs to be punished appropriately. If there was no racial bias, and if, as has been suggested, the officer was fighting to save his life, then he needs to be exonerated.
But, this also needs to be said… Every day dozens of young black men are killed as the result of gangs, drugs, and other criminal acts. There are no riots, there are no marches, no caravan of satellite TV trucks show up, there is a glaring absence of the politicians crying out for justice and equality. The difference is that in Missouri the black man was killed by a white police officer, and in Chicago and New York and Los Angeles and Atlanta and in virtually every other major metropolitan city, when a black man dies at the hands of another black man no one seems to notice or care.
In God’s kingdom there is no such thing as race. Every human is equal. Every death matters – God does not wish that any should die (Ezekiel 33:11; 2 Peter 3:9). God certainly did not desire the death of the young man in Missouri. And God does not wish the death of any police officer who is killed in the line of his or her duty to protect the lives and property of the citizens he or she is sworn to protect.
The reality is, until we can learn to see past race and view each death as the death of a human being, without any attachments, we will never move beyond the issue of racism. As long as we use race as the measuring stick, we are doomed to be a nation of racists.
As Martin Luther King Jr. once so famously and correctly said, let us move toward the day when all young men and young women will be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
I have not been posting much this summer (and probably will not, except for a stray column now and then). I am working on finishing my dissertation for my Doctor of Ministry program and I am up to my armpits in writing crises. I just have not had time for this space this summer.
But, some things are just too good to pass up.
As a part of my dissertation I was reviewing some material from earlier classes at Fuller Theological Seminary. I came across a book that I did not realize how important it was the first time I read it, but now after the passage of some time and the focusing of my dissertation I have an entirely new appreciation for the material.
The book is titled, Dissident Discipleship: A Spirituality of Self-Surrender, Love of God, and Love of Neighbor by David Augsburger. It is published by Brazos Press out of Grand Rapids, Michigan, and has a 2006 publication date. In a sentence, the book is a description of the Anabaptist view of discipleship.
I don’t want to spoil anything for those of you who are curious about my dissertation, but finding this book on my shelves again was huge. Augsburger works through eight core practices of discipleship: Radical Attachment, Stubborn Loyalty, Tenacious Serenity, Habitual Humility, Resolute Nonviolence, Concrete Service, Authentic Witness and Subversive Spirituality. Augsburger then concludes with six appendices, the most valuable to me was the seven “Core Convictions” of the Anabaptists. As you can tell from the chapter headings, this is not fluffy reading. Although Augsburger works through some heavy theology, the book is not written in “technical jargon” and is easily accessible, if the reader will simply devote some time to absorbing the material. The content will challenge you, regardless of whether you accept Augsburger’s conclusions or not.
Coming from a tradition that values reason and logic above all else, there was much in this book that was difficult for me to understand. I do not agree with everything that Augsburger says in the book – I never agree whole heartedly with any author (well, almost never). However, after the passage of several years, a whole heap of a lot of study, and the focus of my dissertation, all of a sudden I think I realize just how important, and how powerful, this book really is.
The fact that the book is based on the “radical” Anabaptist tradition will, no doubt, be distressing to many. If you judge a book, or an entire movement, by the fly-leaf of a book review or by the shallow lecture of someone who knows nothing about the tradition, then this is probably not the book for you. It would rattle your cage to the point you would probably lose your sanity.
However, If you are serious about learning about an often misjudged and abused people, then by all means buy and study this book. If you are serious about learning about what it means to be a disciple of Christ, then by all means buy and study this book. If you are interested in deepening your walk with God and your service to the church and world, then by all means buy and study this book.
But be careful, you just might end up becoming a dissident disciple.
I just discovered that one of my recent professors, Dr. Glen H. Stassen, passed away today. Dr. Stassen was the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. This is extremely difficult news to hear. I only knew Dr. Stassen through a couple of phone calls and his comments on my course work, but even those all-too-brief encounters with Dr. Stassen were life changing.
I was assigned to Dr. Stassen as my professor of record in a guided study on Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I had visions that the course would be fairly easy – it was a topic of my own choosing and I knew nothing of Dr. Stassen. I guess I found out how serious a scholar and theologian Dr. Stassen was when he sent back some comments on my suggestions for my course work. He agreed with my list of books (although he had some comments) and he had a slight alteration on the book reviews I suggested. I suggested a page to a page and a half, double spaced. He said three pages. Single spaced. Oops – this was not going where I wanted it to go.
Well, I did the three pages, single spaced book reviews, and also some reviews of lectures that I heard on Bonhoeffer in Chicago, and a comprehensive paper comparing Bonhoeffer’s theology to that of the Restoration Movement, particularly Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone. It was over 90 pages of work. I really had no idea how Dr. Stassen would respond. I waited in equal parts terror and despair.
When I received my work back I was blown away. I was pleased that Dr. Stassen liked my submission, but what astounded me was the detail with which he responded to my work. He commented on all of my book reviews. He commented on my lecture reviews. He made extensive comments on my paper. He critiqued, he corrected my grammar, he added insights, he challenged, and when appropriate, he agreed with me.
Dr. Stassen was an accomplished author and leader in the realm of Christian ethics. I have a couple of his books, and now I am challenged to add to this collection. His epic Kingdom Ethics (co-written with David Gushee) is a masterpiece in the genre. His A Thicker Jesus is thought provoking and life changing.
I will remember Dr. Stassen for many things. He was an accomplished scholar in Bonhoeffer studies. He was a leader in proposing new steps in Christian ethics. His scholarship cannot be questioned. He demanded his students to perform at a high level, and he rewarded that high level of work. But, most of how I will remember Dr. Stassen is what a wonderful gentleman he was. He was so kind. The couple of phone conversations I had with him will be treasures in my memory. I will also treasure his written comments on my papers until I am no longer around.
Dr. Stassen’s death is a huge loss to the Bonhoeffer studies community, those who work in the realm of Christian ethics, and especially hard hit will be the Fuller Theological Seminary community. I was profoundly lucky to have had the opportunity to work with Dr. Stassen. One of the things that I was looking forward to in finishing my Doctor of Ministry program at Fuller was the chance I was going to have to meet Dr. Stassen in person. Now that opportunity is no longer a reality, but in a very small way I did get to meet Dr. Stassen, and I hope that as I finish my dissertation I will remember what he taught me and that I will create a final product that would have met with his approval.
When will we be able to move past our racism? (I speak primarily of the United States, but other countries no doubt have their racial issues as well.) When will we, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech, judge a person based solely on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin? I have an answer, but I will save it for the end of this post.
I reacted very strongly to the verdict in the George Zimmerman murder trial. I thought the verdict was wrong, a fiasco, a blatant miscarriage of justice. Within 48 hours one of the so-called “unbiased” jurors revealed she had signed a book deal to “tell all” about the trial and the deliberations. Public outrage blew that bald-faced self-promotion out of the water. But this same juror showed up on a national TV show and spoke about her experiences. She referred to the defendant as “George” repeatedly. She spoke explicitly about a “stand your ground” law that was never even referenced in the trial, nor in the jury instructions (the wording, as far as I can tell, came from a self-defense provision, but not the law that received the nickname, “stand your ground.”) She allowed that Zimmerman should not have exited his vehicle that dark and rainy night, but almost in the same breath said that race had nothing to do with the jury’s deliberations, nor did she think that racial profiling was a part of the case.
In other words, this supposedly unbiased juror confirmed every one of my public and private fears about this trial. She connected totally on an emotional level with Zimmerman (poor little Georgie, he got a boo-boo on his noggin). Even though Trayvon Martin was doing absolutely nothing wrong, and that Zimmerman never should have exited his vehicle, she still bought into the defense argument that it was Martin that initiated the confrontation, not Zimmerman. We will never know who started that fight, and all we have is Zimmerman’s story. According to this juror there were three votes for guilty and three for acquittal when the jurors first started their deliberations. One juror actually felt Zimmerman was guilty of 2nd degree murder, two others felt he was guilty of manslaughter. That means that the three who leaned toward acquittal were able to change the minds of the three who leaned toward conviction. I wonder how they managed to do that?
Actually, I think I know. All through this trial Zimmerman was portrayed as the victim. Martin has been referred to as a thug, a hoodlum, a gang-banger, street trash. Zimmerman sat in the courtroom all spiffed up in his designer suits looking absolutely cherubic. And don’t feed me that “half Hispanic” line. Zimmerman looks as lilly white as Princess Kate. Those jurors saw this as a white/black issue, whether they would admit to it or not. It was simply inconceivable that a good white boy would be the instigator of a racial conflict. That black boy got what he “deserved.”
This morning a poll was released that just further confirmed my suspicions. As long as the link is valid, you can find the story here. To summarize, the poll revealed that by a significant margin white people and Republicans feel that there is no racial problem in the US, and that the justice system is just fine. Not surprisingly, black people and Democrats feel that racism is alive and well in the US, and that the justice system is broken. In my mind this disparity can only be interpreted one way – when you are in power, when you have absolutely no fear of being profiled by the color of your skin, when you do not have to fear having some vigilante with a loaded gun follow your 17 year old son simply because he “looks suspicious,” when you can put on a suit and tie and have a juror call you by your first name, then the world is pretty rosy for you. Conversely, when you cannot go to a convenience store and buy a snack without having somebody question your behavior, when you cannot walk down the street without having people move away from you, if you fear having your child pulled over by a policeman for “driving while black,” if your son can be shot dead and have the killer acquitted from even the most benign charges, then you are not going to have a very cheerful view of America and its judicial system.
By an overwhelming majority, white people and Republicans just simply do not get this. There is none quite so blind as he who will not see.
For the record, I am a white middle aged male. But a few years ago one of my very good friends told me about being stopped by a policeman in Houston, TX, for no other reason than he was a black man driving where he should not have been driving. “Driving while black” is what they call it. Maybe for the first time in my life I felt another man’s pain because of blatant racism. It changed me.
If I am not mistaken, God calls this behavior “sin.” And he has always called it “sin” and he will always call it “sin.”
How will America heal its racial divisions? The only way that I see forward is for all of us, white, black, brown, yellow, red – even green or purple, to actually confess that we have a racial problem. That’s right – all of us. White on black, black on white, brown on black, red on white – every color against every other color. Racism does not cut one way, or even two ways. Racism cuts every direction, and we cannot even remotely consider ourselves to be a Christian people as long as we harbor prejudices against someone simply because of the color of his or her skin.
Maybe one day we will be able to judge people based on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. But as the Zimmerman verdict, and the very public comments by that juror demonstrates, that day will not occur any time soon.
Certainly not as long as a few scratches on the back of one man’s head are viewed as more significant than a gunshot wound in a young man’s chest.
So far I held off on commenting about the George Zimmerman trial. Well, that’s not exactly true, but I had to delete the posts I wrote Saturday night. At the risk of severe overstatement, let me say I was crushed by the verdict that jury reached. Far more than the O.J. Simpson verdict, or even the Rodney King verdict, I felt that, as a caucasian, conservative, attempting-to-be-disciple of Christ I was truly injured by this decision. When a miscarriage of justice speaks so clearly to one of the fundamental sins of our culture, everyone in that culture is injured – whether they realize it or not, and whether they admit it or not.
Several facts that came out during this trial prove to me that race was the sole and determining factor in the verdict. The primary one is that Trayvon Martin was doing nothing, absolutely nothing wrong when he was racially profiled by George Zimmerman that cold rainy night. He was a young black man walking down the street in a “hoodie,” a hooded sweatshirt. He had just been to a convenience store to buy a snack. George Zimmerman saw him, saw that he was black, became his own judge, jury and police force, and set out to make sure Martin did not get away.
Trayvon Martin did not need to “get away.” He was not doing anything illegal. He was returning to his father’s house.
George Zimmerman instigated this whole event. He was the one who decided Martin was guilty simply based on the color of his skin. He was the one who followed – make that stalked – Martin on the way back to his father’s house. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and chased Martin some distance before an altercation occurred. What happened during that altercation no one will ever know – Martin was shot dead and the only witness to the shooting is a lying, self-serving, arrogant racist who claims self defense. And this became the greatest crime in the whole sordid story. In order for Zimmerman to make his case, he and his defense team had to turn Martin in to the aggressor. The victim of a shooting became the perpetrator of a fist fight. A man who was told not to follow Martin and who was carrying a loaded 9 mm pistol became the victim in a scenario that he created from start to finish.
And because Zimmerman looks lilly white (he claims Hispanic genetics as well) and because Trayvon Martin was black, and because Zimmerman represented law and order and because everyone knows that young black men are just murderers and rapists and burglars just waiting to happen, the predominantly white, all female jury let Zimmerman go totally free.
The Ku Klux Klan never had it so good.
This story would be despicable as it stands, but it gets worse. All across the country white people have gone on record throwing around some of the most hateful, vengeful, sinful racist comments imaginable – all worthy of coming out of a sweet little old church lady’s mouth. Martin “got what was coming to him.” Oh really – going to the convenience store deserves a death sentence? “Martin should not have been where he was.” Nice – he was visiting his father who lived in that gated community – and Martin was just walking home in the rain on a dark night. “If some punk jumps me and I have a gun you better believe I will use it to defend myself.” Oh, so racially profiling a young man (regardless of race is being profiled) and going against police dispatcher instructions and chasing (stalking) that same young man is perfectly okay, but having that young man defend himself is wrong? Here is the absolute tragedy of this case. Zimmerman, who is white, is afforded the right to shoot and kill a young man for the supposed reason of self-defense, but a young black man is not allowed to use his fists to defend himself. Remember – we do not know who started the fight. The only words we have are from the white killer who gunned down the black man. The same white man that, incidentally, was caught in multiple lies before and during the trial. Do you honestly think he would admit to starting the fight that ended in Martin’s death?
The prosecution of this case was a joke. I honestly believe the prosecutor wanted to lose this case. He did the defense’s job for them, and did not prosecute Zimmerman at all.
Perhaps worst of all was the racist venom spewed by national and regional news commentators. Sean “the white man’s Al Sharpton” Hannity was the worst, although several others came in closely behind. To these individuals all you need to do is look at the color of a man’s skin and that tells you who is innocent and who is guilty. Zimmerman – white = innocent; Martin – black = guilty.
Where does this story intersect with Christianity? Just this – anytime a racial or economic power can force its will, and warp justice, because of that race or because of that economic power, God will condemn those who perpetuate that hegemonic power. Just read Mary’s song in Luke 1:46-56. Read the scathing denunciation of the abuse of power in the book of Amos. Read Jesus’ own words of turning racial hatred upside down in the parable of the good Samaritan or in his dealings with the Samaritan woman at the well or the Canaanite woman and her demon possessed child. (Luke 10:25-37; Matthew 15:21-28) Read the concluding passages in Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians and see how Paul commanded Christians to view others and treat others differently than what the prevailing culture sees and treats them.
The verdict in this case is nothing more than a repugnant stain against any claim of racial equality that white Americans want to delude themselves into believing.
I mourn this verdict. I mourn because Trayvon Martin did not get any justice. I mourn because his family if forced to deal with the incessant and vitriolic hatred of white so-called “Christians.”
And, I mourn this verdict because at the very core, if a young black man or black woman cannot walk home from a convenience store without being profiled by some racist vigilante, then my very white, very blond and very blue eyed daughter is not safe to walk home from that same convenience store.
As long as a person’s skin color is allowed to define innocence and guilt, no child is ever safe. But it appears in this country, African Americans have the most to fear.
(Postscript: Just to highlight my claim of racism, this story was brought to my attention. In the same state in which George Zimmerman was acquitted of killing Trayvon Martin, and just few months more than a year ago, a young single mother was convicted of shooting a gun into the air when she felt threatened by her abusive husband. No one was injured, certainly no one was killed. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison. The judge in that case rejected her plea that she was simply “standing her ground” and defending herself. And, oh, by the way … she was a young single black woman. Here is the link, as long as it is valid – http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/?tag=socsh. Do you still think racism is not an issue in this case? By the way, I do not know if subsequent to this sentence there has been any appeal or overturning of the sentence. The point is that Zimmerman’s claim of self defense only works if the supposed victim is white, and the supposed aggressor is black.)
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. (Exodus 20:16)
For many people this rather simple command was revised into an even more simple one: do not lie. Now, heaven forbid I be accused of condoning lying, cheating on math tests, and telling your doctor you exercised for 30 minutes every day when all you did was watch the golf channel on TV, but lying is not what this command refers to.
What God is forbidding here is the presenting of false testimony in a legal dispute.
When you really stop and think about it, what is the one single function of government that, if the government gets it wrong, it doesn’t matter how many other things it gets right, the government becomes cruel and inhuman? Not taxation, not health care, not whether someone of a particular sexual orientation can get married or not. Therefore, not anything about which most Americans are all in a tizzy over right now.
No, the one thing that will destroy any government if allowed to exist for any length of time is the one thing that Americans seem to be the least concerned about and that is the judicial system.
If the rights of the citizenship are not carefully protected, if the rights of a victim are not carefully protected, and if the rights of an accused are not carefully protected then it doesn’t matter how efficiently the streets are paved or how regular the trash pickup occurs. The government becomes inhuman and, given time, will fall of its own inhumanity.
And the bedrock foundation of a just and fair judicial system is the requirement that everyone, from the judges to the lawyers to the juries to the witnesses, act in an honest manner. That means telling the truth first, foremost, and always.
I have verbally stated several times that our judicial system is broken, and I almost always get verbally disciplined by someone who happens to hear me say that. But I’ll put it in writing here – our judicial system is broken. I simply do not care that it is the “best judicial system in the world.” It is broken. It stinks. There is no “justice” in our “justice system.” Our system is a financial system, and he or she who has the money will win in the overwhelming majority of cases. Occasionally a judge or jury gets it right – but I would offer that those cases are in the minority. Even if the verdict is correct, the punishment rarely, if ever, fits the crime. Case in point: because of the “three strikes and you are out” laws that many states have, we have “criminals” whose only crime is possessing illegal drugs incarcerated for longer periods of time than someone who intentionally kills someone. Folks, that is just wrong.
I sat on a jury involving a Driving While Intoxicated case. The driver was caught “dead to rights.” It was a text-book open and shut case. However, we had two jurors who had bad experiences with the police previously and they refused to allow the rest of us to convict the driver. He walked with just a slap on the wrist – a meaningless little citation of not being able to maintain his driving lane. This was a perfect example of “bearing false witness.” The jurors lied to the judge and lied to the attorneys who presented the case. They had no intention of allowing the accused to be found guilty. The defendant walked out of the courtroom with a “cat who ate the canary” smirk on his face and the citizens of the community in which we lived lost more of our safety.
On the other hand, many cases have made national headlines involving individuals who have been convicted of serious crimes -rape and murder among them -being released upon further examination and, most commonly, DNA evidence. That raises a profound and disturbing question: how many innocent young men (mostly young black men) have been executed because of a racially stacked jury, with incompetent defense attorneys and blood thirsty prosecutors? It is a chilling question to ask.
Why do we allow this broken system to remain? Two quick answers.
One, we want the system to remain because in the back of our minds we fear being at the defense table, and we want a system that is most likely to work in the favor of the defense. If you have to convince a large number of people that a person is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, the cards are stacked in favor of the defense. Intuitively we know that. That is why very, very few people will opt to have a judge decide the case, although that is always an option. It is better to cast your fate into the hands of 6, or 12 uneducated “peers” than it is to trust it to one solitary person.
Two, and basically conversely, the system is rigged to favor the side who has the most money. The laws will never change because the lawyers own the politicians, and the politicians are not going to bite the hands that feed them. So, if you can afford an expensive attorney, you stand a better chance of winning. If you cannot, and the state has the most money (which is usually the case), you had better accept a plea bargain. That way everybody wins – the defense keeps you out of significant punishment (even if you are guilty) the prosecution can chalk up a “conviction” (even if you are innocent) and the judge gets to clear a case off of his or her docket. Then, all the principal actors get to go out to the bar and have a drink and laugh about the whole sordid affair.
The victim never wins, however. And it is the VICTIM that God is most concerned about in his judicial system. And the only way for the VICTIM to get any justice is for the entire system to be built upon a relentless and unswerving search for truth.
The judge must be compelled to seek the truth of the case – not who has the slickest attorneys, but whether the defendant is guilty or not. The defense attorneys must be compelled to present the truth – not some slick slight-of-hand that gets a defendant released on a technicality. And the prosecutor must be compelled to seek the truth – not just another conviction in his or her resume to be used in seeking higher office. The police must be held to the highest standard in the process of investigating and arresting suspects. And the witnesses must be compelled to tell the truth, all of the truth, and the whole truth when testifying.
I have previously mentioned one simple, foolproof method of making sure this process happens. Simply place the police, the judge, the jury, both attorneys and all witnesses under the same possible sentence as the accused. Then, if it is later determined that anyone dealt falsely during the investigation, the trial or the sentencing (or the acquittal) of the accused, then the person or persons responsible for the “false witness” must be sentenced to the maximum the accused was liable to be punished. That would clean up an awful lot of false witnessing. Or it would fill up our prisons – one or the other. If you question my sanity, read Deuteronomy 19:15-19. I know I extended my solution beyond what is specifically mentioned, but according to our system of “justice” you have to include more characters in order to clean up the mess we are in.
You shall not bear false witness. You shall not allow false witness to be presented. You shall not allow false witness to be purchased, or to be bartered. You shall demand your justice system to be based on a search for truth and the protection of innocent victims. You shall hold your police departments to the highest of standards, realizing they are human. Attorneys, Judges, and juries must be completely above any reproach – and that means trafficking in false testimony.
Convict and punish the guilty, acquit the innocent – provide justice for the victim. That is what the “justice” system is all about.
You shall not steal. (Exodus 20:15)
A very good friend gave me a surefire way to determine whether you have violated this commandment. Just follow these questions –
Is it in your possession? (yes)
Did you buy it? (no)
Did you trade something for it? (no)
Did someone give it to you? (no)
Did you make it? (no)
Then you stole it. Give it back.
That logic is pretty easy to follow if we are talking about a candy bar at the local convenience store. But when the discussion gets to adult issues the answers are not so easy to come by.
Is gambling stealing? Well, at least if you win something?
What about the lottery, is that really gambling? And if you win something, are you guilty of stealing other people’s money? (They obviously don’t have it anymore!)
And, (drum roll please) what about the 6 million dollar question – is making a living off of welfare considered stealing? A person on welfare (and a whole host of other governmental give-aways) is not earning anything, is not receiving the benefit of any labor. A whole bunch of other people do not have the money that they did earn by hard work that was taken from them (by force of law, by the IRS). So, is welfare stealing?
Some would argue that living off of welfare is simply being taken care of by a benevolent government. I would agree with that argument if the government was accepting donations for the welfare system. I would also be more willing to accept it if the recipients were required to produce something in order to get the benefits. But when you coerce people into surrendering large portions of their income to support a systematic method of discouraging industry and self-reliance then I have to question whether there is any benevolence in the system at all.
In God’s economy as illustrated in the Old Covenant, a wealthy land owner was able to cultivate, plant and harvest his crops. This provided for his family, and no doubt the families of his hired hands (or slaves, as the case may have been). Perhaps he also sold or bartered his crops for the other things his family needed. It was an economy that was certainly not capitalistic as we use the term, but it did allow for hard work and industry to be rewarded. However, the land owner was specifically commanded not to harvest to the very edges of his field, and was not to scrape every last grape from his vine. He was to leave the edges, the corners, and the odd bunch of grapes for the poor, the homeless, the landless, and the outcast. There was no welfare system in God’s economy. Provision was made so that poor people could eat, but they had to get out and harvest or glean for their well-being and the care of those who were depending upon them. It was a perfect system of checks and balances. The wealthy could earn a decent living, the poor could be taken care of. But everyone had to contribute.
In my opinion, welfare is nothing other than legalized stealing, big government sanctioned theft. As I mentioned, that goes for a host of other government sanctioned subsidies and grants. We are simply stealing from the industrious and giving to those who cannot work, or more insidiously, are able to work but are simply not willing to work.
What about gambling and playing the lottery? A case could be made that, since everyone involved plays willingly, there is no theft as such. While the issue is not as clear-cut to me as the issue of welfare and other governmental “redistribution of wealth,” I do have some serious misgivings about such “games of chance.”
For one, gambling and the lottery have been rightly described as a repressive tax against the poor and ignorant. There is a reason wealthy people do not use gambling and the lottery as a way to get more wealthy – they know that the house always wins. It is true beyond question that the wealthy gamble, and gamble in huge amounts (just consider horse racing, the “sport of kings”). But I would suggest that for wealthy people gambling is primarily a recreation – a sport, a competition that raises their adrenaline level and makes their otherwise boring lives a little more interesting. On the other hand, the poor and the ignorant see gambling and the lottery as a way to move up, “I’m gonna hit it rich sometime.” There is a joke that says rich people have IRAs, 401(k)s, stocks, bonds, and other retirement portfolios; rednecks have PowerBall. That would be a lot funnier if it were not so true, and so very sad. Billions of dollars are wasted annually that should have been spent on rent, food and clothing.
(I suppose in the interest of open disclosure, I have been known to occasionally buy the tempting PowerBall ticket myself. The baby always needs a new pair of shoes. What was I saying about “ignorant”?)
It all boils down to those simple little questions and the heart of the disciple. Did you earn it? Did you make it? Was it a gift fairly given? Did you buy it or trade for it with money or something else you fairly earned?
If not, you stole it. It does not belong to you.
Give it back.
Just Peacemaking: The New Paradigm for the Ethics of Peace and War (Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 2008) 234 pages including end notes.
I have not mastered the art of making proficient book reviews. If you have read any of my other reviews they are basically extended comments about why you should obtain the book for yourself. A proper book review includes summaries of the author(s) main arguments and an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the book. Like I said, I’ve never really been taught how to do that exceptionally well, and I’m lazy to boot. But, that having been said, I will try to evaluate this book a little more carefully.
How is that for brevity? I was guided in a study of Dietrich Bonhoeffer by Dr. Stassen as a part of my Doctor of Ministry work at Fuller Theological Seminary. I read and loved his Kingdom Ethics. I appreciated his Living the Sermon on the Mount although it was written on a much more popular level and I felt like he oriented the book a little too much toward the popular reader. I was excited to purchase this book, which Dr. Stassen edited, as a continuation of his discussion on the importance of “Just Peacemaking” in a world that has basically gone mad.
This book simply disappointed on so many levels. I will attempt to share with you some of my frustrations.
The book begins with a 40 page introduction that needed an introduction. It was kind of like turning on the TV and hearing the announcement, “We now return to our regularly scheduled programing already in progress…” There are five names associated with the writing of the introduction, and it genuinely reads like the product of a committee. The first eight pages contain a rambling discussion of terrorism with no real context to frame the discussion. It is not until page nine that a coherent discussion of Just Peacemaking begins. The rest of the introduction is valuable, but perhaps overly lengthy. The purpose of an introduction is to introduce the subject. At 40 pages the introduction was a chapter in and of itself. As I said, the introduction needed an introduction.
The first chapter, “Support Non Violent Direct Action,” written by John Cartwright and Susan Thistlewaite, was, in this blogger’s estimation, simply dreadful. Not only dreadful, but profoundly contradictory. The authors state as the lead of the second paragraph, “Nonviolent direct action is a strategy that lances the festering boil of violence and produces healing without resort to war.” (p. 42) All well and good, if not a little flowery in the language. What “nonviolent” actions do the authors recommend? The first is boycotts, which they define as “…a concerted action designed to isolate an individual, group, or nation in order to express disapproval and to coerce change.” (p. 44) I nearly gagged on my coffee when I read that sentence. Let me get this straight – we are to lance the festering boil of violence by isolating and coercing people that we disagree with into behaving the way we want them to. It gets better. The lead of the next paragraph reads, “After 1880 the term soon came into common use, broadening to describe and include all forms of nonviolent intimidation.” So, now the priests of nonviolence have encouraged their followers to use isolation, coercion and intimidation to achieve their goals. I almost put the book down right then, but I soldiered on. (Pardon the pun).
The next nonviolent action the authors recommend is a strike. They suggest that, “Strikes have often met with considerable violence on the part of both business owners and government.” (p. 47) I suppose the authors have never heard of, nor read about, the horrific violence that strikers have used against business owners and non-workers alike. Oh well, if you are going to advocate coercion and intimidation, a little violence might not be too bad. Except that the whole point of the chapter was supposed to be “nonviolent” actions. This chapter was clearly the worst of the book, and if you can get past this entry, the rest of the book is not that bad.
The next chapter, “Take Independent Initiatives to Reduce Threat” by Glen Stassen is quite good. It is brief, to the point, and well written – all hallmarks of Dr. Stassen’s expertise. The third chapter, “Use Cooperative Conflict Resolution” is a little bit longer, but still valuable. I found the fourth chapter, “Acknowledge Responsibility for Conflict and Injustice and Seek Repentance and Forgiveness” written by Alan Geyer and Donald W. Shriver to be particularly valuable. Once again the chapter was direct, fairly brief, full of legitimate examples, and the concepts espoused fit directly into the title of the book, Just Peacemaking.
In the second (chapters 5 and 6) and third (chapters 7 – 10) sections of the book the second major flaw of the book was revealed. These chapters read like a manifesto produced by the Democratic party of the United States. The only American Presidents who received any positive mention were Democrats, and Jimmy Carter was clearly the favorite of all the authors. Ronald Reagan was vilified at every opportunity. Likewise, the Palestinians and their cause received all the positive comments, whereas the Israelis were never described as anything other than land hungry war mongers. I do not doubt but what the Palestinians have a legitimate complaint against the colonization of their land. But the one-sided nature of the treatment in this book made it sound like the suicide bombers and the indiscriminate missile firing of the Palestinian terrorists are somehow justified. The political stance of the authors was utterly transparent. And that was unfortunate in a book that was designed to be about Just Peacemaking. You cannot be a peacemaker if you are lobbing verbal hand grenades at your political opponents.
After finishing the book, especially the last sections, I could not help but think of the irony that the authors of the book really needed to read chapters 2-4 of the book and put those principles into practice in their own chapters. The authors of chapter one just need to re-write their chapter from scratch.
Okay, so I am not an accomplished book reviewer. I usually only review those books that I genuinely love and want others to read. I made an exception here, not that I do not want people to buy this book, but only that if you are interested in the title of the book that you purchase it carefully. If your politics are even moderately left-of-center you will probably love the book. The more left-of-center your politics the more you will like the book (if you can get past the theological arguments and the references to the Bible). But, if you are like me and have somewhat to moderate right-of-center politics and you are fairly conservative in your theology, this book is a frustrating read.
I will recommend you purchase the book with the above caveat in mind. If you are interested in the “new paradigm” of Just Peacemaking (a concept, by the way, that I approve of whole heartedly) then this is a good resource. The middle chapters are good, and the later chapters do have some good points. I simply wish the authors had checked their politics in the coat room when they entered the conversation hall. It would have made the book much more valuable, and also much more enjoyable to read.
Many of you have followed my series of articles on the Sermon on the Mount, and several have commented on one or more of the entries. I realize that there are many who would like a more in-depth treatment of the subject, but are either unable or unwilling to access the material I referenced because of two very good reasons: (1) Dr. Glen Stassen’s book Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context is 491 pages long and not everyone wants to wade into a volume that long and complicated, and (2) the article “The Fourteen Triads of the Sermon on the Mount” is found in the Journal of Biblical Literature, a resource not many people have access to or even the desire to access. In order to alleviate those two issues I suggest a third possibility – Dr. Stassen’s smaller and much more accessible book, Living the Sermon on the Mount: A Practical Hope for Grace and Deliverance (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006) 201 pages in an easy-to-read format with many pages consisting of graphic illustrations.
This book eliminates several of the problems that are associated with longer, college text-book type volumes, and especially with articles in peer-reviewed journals. The book is written for the common member of the church, with few (but adequate) endnotes and a non-technical writing style. However, in terms of content, the book follows Dr. Stassen’s explication of the fourteen triads of the Sermon on the Mount and even goes beyond the more technical works in providing some concrete proposals for how the “transforming initiatives” can be worked out in our contemporary society. The book is divided into 10 chapters, but in his preface Dr. Stassen provides information about how to divide three chapters in half, thus providing for a 13 week study of the Sermon on the Mount to fit into a congregational Bible class format.
Even though the book is relatively short (the 201 pages are easily read – this is not a cumbersome technical exposition) do not be misled – there is a lot of “meat” in this book. Dr. Stassen has studied the Sermon on the Mount in-depth and his writing reveals his research. One thing I found particularly valuable was the many ways Dr. Stassen ties the Sermon back into the prophets, particularly the prophet Isaiah. This is important because I think that all too often we believe that Jesus was teaching something new and never-heard-before, while all along he was teaching what His Father had been teaching through the prophets for generations.
Another aspect of the book that I genuinely appreciated was the illustrations depicting the “traditional teaching, the vicious cycle, and the transforming initiatives” that are located throughout the book. For those of us who are visually oriented, this is a big help.
Another thing I like about this book is that Dr. Stassen included a much longer section about the spiritual disciplines in this book, as opposed in particular to the JBL article, and this is a significant addition. In fact, Dr. Stassen goes to great lengths to show that the section on prayer is the pinnacle of the sermon, and every other teaching found in the sermon is incorporated into Jesus’ model prayer. It is this kind of working through the text as Matthew constructed it that makes this little volume so valuable.
This book is NOT a critical commentary on Matthew 5-7. If you are looking for a careful definition of terms and high-falutin’ biblical language, you will not find it in this book. This is a book designed to the the word of the Sermon on the Mount into our hearts, and therefore into our hands and feet. The scholarship behind the book is solid, but the presentation is in a popular writing style.
The standard caveat directed to every book applies to this one as well. I am sure that you will find something that Dr. Stassen writes with which you disagree. So be it. I have more than one question mark placed in the margin of my copy, along with an editorial “hmmmm” or two. But I do not buy nor do I read books simply to reinforce that which I already believe. Those volumes are okay to a point, and I have several of those type books on my bookshelves. But what I really look for in a book is the answer to the question, “What does the author have to tell me that I do not know, or that furthers my understanding of a particular topic?” Closely related to that question is another: “How well has the author prepared himself/herself to write this book, and how well does he/she present his/her research?” On the basis of these two questions I can recommend Dr. Stassen’s works on the Sermon on the Mount unreservedly. He is an accomplished scholar and knows how to write both professionally and popularly. He challenges with his insights, and even when you disagree with him you have to accept that he has done his homework well and that he presents his case energetically.
Bottom line – this is a fine addition to your “Sermon on the Mount” section in your library.