Against the Death Penalty

Earlier this month, Al Mohler wrote an editorial on CNN's Belief Blog about why Christians should support the death penalty. There were so many things wrong with this article that I was going to write some of my reactions. Thankfully, Roger Olson (who has FAR more followers than I do) wrote an excellent piece noting the many inaccuracies in Mohler's regularly flawed "logic."

One of my big areas of interest is in transformation and motivation (both of particular interest to both theology and psychology). I'll reiterate what Olson said in response to Mohler: the death penalty does NOT act as a deterrent. While many Christians may say it is a deterrent for them, they also probably wouldn't ever engage in the kind of crimes that would get the death penalty anyway. So who is it really a deterrent for?

This gets into a larger discussion of motivation. Many people (especially fundamentalist Christians) advocate for aversive punishment. While that may work for people who normally follow rules anyway, it's not terribly effective for those who are not necessarily automatically compliant. I would put the death penalty as an aversive punishment. And people who commit crimes to earn the death penalty are likely not terribly compliant. So we need to figure out a different approach.

Hint: Reinforcing desired behavior is the most effective approach for all people. But that means we have to approach people with grace, and why would Christians want to do that?!

This, then, also gets into the idea of transformation and redemption, absolutely central concepts to the Gospel and for me, a much more compelling reason to oppose capital punishment. If central to our faith is the idea that anybody can be redeemed (and ultimately at any time), then we need to give that opportunity. By killing someone, we are essentially stating that there is no hope for this individual. Is that our right? Should we really remove the ability of God to touch this person's life? Or some good to come through this individual? There's plenty of biblical stories about such redemption, transformation, and God using evil for good...

But Mohler and others argue that some people deserve death. We can get into long and drawn-out arguments over who can decide who deserves death. But let's suspend that. Let's assume some individuals do deserve death (frankly, hearing just a synopsis of the crimes the Oklahoma individuals have been convicted of gives me a gut reaction of them deserving death) AND that there is no doubt of guilt. Particularly for those who believe in the penal substitutionary theory of atonement (which Mohler avows), then we all deserve death. Yet because of Christ's sacrifice, we are spared.

If God will grant a pardon from death, why shouldn't we do so, even if death is deserved?

The Emotion of Grace @MaxLucado #MaxOnLife @LucadoTeam @christianaudio @caReviewers

Grace seems to be a theme in my life lately. It's been a topic at my church, at a Rob Bell event I went to, and has been on my mind a lot dealing with unethical behavior from a home repair company and an adoption lawyer (we've lost about $8000 on the two in the last few months). So when I had the chance to review Max Lucado's latest book, Grace, I was eager to do so, especially since I'm a Lucado fan anyway.

Lucado's book is short, which is actually nice. Rather than engaging in a deep theological treatise on grace, Lucado does what he does best: He tells stories. He makes the concept of grace come alive in a real human way that is not abstract or theoretical. Much of what I see written on grace is really more of the latter, which is ultimately grace-less. Without the dirt and grit and hard-core reality, grace is useless and worthless.

Despite my profession as a psychologist, I can have a strong tendency to be very rational and cognitive, dissociated from my emotion. This can be especially true in theological and intellectual contexts, and particularly true when I'm extra busy. But the emotion is important. As I teach my adolescents and parents in group, without emotion, it's really hard to build a relationship. Faith without emotion loses the relational element with God. And grace without emotion is just theory.

Lucado's book helped me emotionally experience the power of grace again. There were several times I got teary listening to some of the stories (despite riding my bicycle on my commute). It made me think several times, "That's right, this is what it's all about." Lucado provided what in psychology we call a corrective emotional experience, emotionally experiencing something different than we have before.

Yet in Lucado's traditional style, it is not heavy-handed or preachy or even prescriptive. It describes what a grace-filled life is like and lets you figure out how it fits in your life, which is very appropriate for grace.

I remind my clients frequently to have grace for themselves, reminding them when appropriate, that this is what God does for us. Showing grace to others is one way, I believe, that God incarnationally gives grace to his creation.

Yet it is a struggle. Is grace always appropriate? Grace and forgiveness often go together, although they are not the same. We are often told to forgive everyone. But I'm not sure that's correct. Does God really give grace to everyone, or just the people who ask for it? He wasn't terribly gracious to the Pharisees. And where does restitution fit in? Can you give grace and still demand repayment? Are they paradoxical? These are questions I would love to see someone tackle...

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Devilish Forgiveness @christianaudio @caReviewers

I recently listened to the audiobook version of The Devil in Pew Number Seven. This is an autobiographical tale of Rebecca Nichols Alonzo, whose family was terrorized for several years by a neighbor who also attended the church her father pastored.


While not spoken by Alonzo herself, the narrator, Pam Ward, did a very nice job making the story come alive and feel real. I have listened to many crime audiobooks, and the audio kept up with those decently. The structure, organization, tone of the tome was great; I wanted to keep listening and find out what happened next. I could easily see this book transformed into a gripping film.


What I kept having trouble fathoming was that this was not fiction. It was very much real. Alonzo's various media interviews provide some photographs of the people involved, which add a level of authenticity to the  story. Her CBN interview, in particular, did this nicely. If you don't want to know the major plots points, though, don't watch it; it's a rather detailed synopsis of the whole book. On that note, before you read further, here's a...

**MINOR SPOILER ALERT WARNING**

The tale did a fabulous job exploring the dilemma of standing up against evil rather than running. Alonzo's parents chose to stand and fight through faith (they never engaged in physical violence or character assassination), believing God put them in this church for a reason. Yet the amount of harm they encountered poses an interesting question of whether God would put children, in particular, in harm's way. As a psychologist, if they came to me, I would be required to make a CPS report. The terrorists would be the perpetrators, but could the Nichols be sanctioned for failing to protect their children?

Over time, the protection of the home definitely increased, including a guard. But I was amazed how long that took. I would imagine in many small communities that at least the church members might take turns standing guard.

I don't mean to be judgmental here. This community faced something extraordinarily difficult. My comments are more to explore moral and ethical questions and how we, as humanity, can improve in the future. I think this community did very well under the circumstances.

I absolutely loved the narrative of the book. It was a wonderful look into real-life struggles of faith and how to face adversity. It even dealt with mental health issues pretty well.

The last section, though, changed directions. It moved from telling the story of Alonzo's life to essentially becoming a sermon on forgiveness. It was well-written; it just felt out-of-place. It also felt preachy at times. Ultimately, my reaction was that this took away from the emotional power that the rest of the story and Alonzo's experience with forgiveness. This section should have been shortened into a simple epilogue.

Overall, though, I give it a high recommendation. It combines the best elements of nonfiction and the structure of nonfiction into a tome that really encourages the reader (or listener) to consider and struggle with the ideas of persecution, faith, and forgiveness.

Note: I received a complimentary copy of this audiobook in exchange for a review (with no obligation for a positive review).

Article Round-up 2 (Theology)

This is the theology edition of articles. :)

The Parable of the Good Muslim: Nice redeux of the Good Samaritan.

What is Forgiveness: Self-explanatory. Not over-simplified, though.

The Secret Formula of the Kingdom: There is no formula.

Hell: A struggle with the theology of Hell. Nice, honest reflections.

A Mother's Dilemma Regarding Hell: Another struggle with Hell theology.

The Problem With Literalism: Noting interpretive problems with using literal interpretations of the Bible.

Letters to God... Pornographic?: Examining the definition of pornography and how else it can appear and be damaging.

What Do You Mean By Literal?: An exploration of how the word literal can actually mean different things, making its application to biblical interpretation very different.

Does the Slippery Slope Always Go To The Left: Noting that the fear of the "slippery slope" is always that people will become more liberal, not conservative. I think both ways can be quite scary.

Thoughts on Unity and Integrity: Excellent post on what actually unites people. It feels similar to my post on Big Tent Christianity.

Who Says That's an Error?: Exploring the definition of error in Scripture.

Permission to Speak Freely @speakfreelybook @flowerdust @christianaudio @caReviewers

This last week I had the privilege to listen to an audiobook version of the soon-to-be-released Permission to Speak Freely by Anne Jackson courtesy of a complimentary copy from christianaudio's reviewers program.

The basic idea intrigued me: Jackson asked on her blog, "What is one thing you feel you can't say in church?" The book is an outgrowth of the responses she received from that and her own experiences.

This is definitely one of the absolute best books I have reviewed for christianaudio. It is also one of the best nonfiction Christian books I have ever read (or listened to). It very much coincides with the mission of this blog of encouraging people to be honest and authentic about their struggles and having the permission to speak freely about difficult matters.

Jackson does a beautiful job of describing the problem of restricted dialogue, not only in the institutional church, but also throughout society. It causes more damage than good.

The way she humanizes the struggles is phenomenal. It is the first book in a very long time that has brought tears to my eyes, not only from sadness of the pain we all cause others, but also because of the hope she reminds readers/listeners of.

Through her commentary on the core of problems that take our attention (like addictions to substances and sex), she also helped me remember why I entered the field of psychology and not give into the push to focus on symptom management. It reminded me to take a wider and deeper perspective with myself and others.

She states at the end of the book that she cannot give some nice, easy steps to solve the problems like most self-help books do. While it's true she does not provide a formula (which would have ruined the book), she did provide a solution: Relationships. Honest, authentic relationships where people can engage one another, challenge one another, and grow IS the solution.

It's not easy. And it takes a lot of courage. I loved her recognition of this in discussing giving the gift of going second (if you want to know more, read or listen to the book! :) ). If we can use this courage, though, the results are astounding.

However, we still have work on developing a culture, both inside and outside of the institutional church, where we can give people the permission to speak freely about anything. The church building should be a safe place, a sanctuary, where people can openly struggle. Instead, it's often turned into the exact opposite.

On a final note, I also love the fact that Jackson read the book herself. As I have said before, I prefer books read by the author, even if they are not all that polished. This book is intensely personal on many levels. It would have definitely lost some significant meaning if a professional narrator was hired.

Forgiveness Takes Two

One of the devotionals I subscribe to is called PeaceMeal, put out by Peacemaker Ministries. I thought the latest PeaceMeal was particularly interesting and useful. I like the focus on full forgiveness requiring two people, not just one. It's not our usual way of thinking about forgiveness. And you know I like making us think and challenging our usual way of thinking about things. :)

Here's the devotional:

PeaceMeal is a publication of Peacemaker^® Ministries. Copyright 2009. Reprinted with permission. To sign up for this free weekly email publication, go to the Peacemaker Ministries website at www.Peacemaker.net.

It Takes Two to Tango (And to Grant Forgiveness)

When an offense is too serious to overlook and the offender has not yet repented, you may need to approach forgiveness as a two-stage process. The first stage requires having an attitude of forgiveness, and the second, granting forgiveness. Having an attitude of forgiveness is unconditional and is a commitment you make to God (see Mark 11:25; Luke 6:28; Acts 7:60). By his grace, you seek to maintain a loving and merciful attitude toward someone who has offended you. This requires making and living out the first promise of forgiveness, which means you will not dwell on the hurtful incident or seek vengeance or retribution in thought, word, or action. Instead, you pray for the other person and stand ready at any moment to pursue complete reconciliation as soon as he or she repents. This attitude will protect you from bitterness and resentment, even if the other person takes a long time to repent.

Granting forgiveness is conditional on the repentance of the offender and takes place between you and that person (Luke 17:34). It is a commitment to make the other three promises of forgiveness to the offender. When there has been a serious offense, it would not be appropriate to make these promises until the offender has repented. Until then, you may need to talk with the offender about his sin or seek the involvement of others to resolve the matter (Matt. 18:1620). You could not do this if you had already made the last three promises. But once the other person repents, you can make these promises, closing the matter forever, the same way God forgives you.

Adapted from The Peacemaker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict
by Ken Sande, Updated Edition (Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 2003) pp. 210-211.

Food for Thought

Today's Food for Thought is pretty simple: When it comes to granting forgiveness, don't forget to involve the offender! Many times, forgiveness is described as "letting go" or "getting over it." This is true and absolutely necessary, to the extent that "letting go" is, in essence, a matter of taking your eyes off the offense and the offender and putting them on the cross, where the ultimate act of reconciliation took place. But again, this only gets us to the beginning of the first stage of forgiveness. To be able to make all four promises of forgiveness (i.e., to experience complete reconciliation), however, we must involve the other person.

Now ideally, the granting of forgiveness takes place in the context of a confession by a repentant offender. When the offender can't or won't repent, then it is true that our only choice is to maintain an attitude of forgiveness. But when our offender hasn't had a chance to confess, then we owe it to him (or her) to go to him and give him that chance. As we "gently restore" the offender, and God works in his heart, then we both have opportunity to experience the joy of true and complete reconciliation. Forgiveness is a gift--so let's remember to let the offender know he received it!

Hope for Another's Success

Continuing from yesterday, when we forgive another or have a conflict with another person, group, or organization, we often are told to pray for them and hope for their success. I believe that is biblical. However, I do not believe we often practice accurately.

When we refer to success, we usually mean that the person/group achieves their goals. I have to say that I do not believe that is biblical. People and groups do awful things. I truly doubt Jesus would have us pray for them to continue that.

Rather, I believe that when we hope and pray for another's success, we are to hope and pray that they become closer to Christ and succeed in his name.

Doing this in practice can be difficult. As one elder said, we should not criticize our brethren in Christ. I have been on the receiving end of unjustified attacks, and no good is produced from them. And such dissension and attacks have led to the fractured nature of the Church now. Yet evil is done, and it needs to be addressed. I posted a letter from John Eldredge a few months ago on this topic, in which he supports calling out incorrect practices.

However, this can be a slippery slope. What is the balance?

My current position is that one should not make public (or perhaps even private) criticisms (especially absolute condemnations) of groups and people they do not have enough information about and do not truly understand. This would account for most of the criticisms given in this world, I bet... :)

However, sometimes we are well enough informed to make an accurate and appropriate call about whether or not a wrong has occurred. How we handle that information is important, too. Name-calling is unhelpful. We should use that information constructively. A press release is rarely constructive in this area. Frankly, I am prone to saying that private comments are the most appropriate. In many ways, it can be a form of passive resistance. This can include stopping tithes, referring people away from an organization, providing education about a group's practices, etc. But this has to be done wisely and with the appropriate information and understanding. Again, we too often do this without sufficient and accurate information, in which case we likely sin (and you know how often I use that term...). We also need to be ready to provide reasons for our statements.

It's delicate, and I'm not sure there's a clear answer about how to deal with such situations. I don't know if my current conclusions are even remotely right, but it's where I've landed thus far in this struggle.

What do you think? How should we handle such circumstances?

Forgiveness

Whenever there is conflict and an impending church split, there is also a lot of dialogue about forgiveness and praying for one's enemy. I'm not saying that there are enemies in our situation, but that's often the language used.

What I have observed is that forgiveness often takes on the form of the passive acceptance I discussed yesterday. I don't think that's healthy, and I definitely don't believe that's what God had in mind when he discussed forgiveness. It's much more active. As many people say, forgiveness is not a feeling, it's a decision. There is absolute truth to that.

However, as I said that Christian often simplify our psychological states, forgiveness is not as simple as a decision. There are intense emotions involved, positive and negative, and they need to be addressed. Ev Worthington is a specialist in forgiveness research, particularly within Christianity (he's a Christian himself). One of the things he mentioned is that it can be damaging to the person to forgive too soon... or too late. There is a delicate balance and timing.

I would also argue (and I believe Worthington does too) that forgiveness does not coincide with forgetting. We can forgive someone, but we often should remember. It relates to the boundaries we discussed before. Forgiveness is separate from the other person changing and from reconciliation. We may forgive Hitler, but would we let him lead anything? I sure hope not.

Anger and pain can still arise in us as we forgive. Sometimes a person may re-injure us, or that process of reconciliation is uncompleted (sometimes it will never be complete). That is painful. And angering. What was done is wrong. When we remember it, it is appropriate and acceptable to be anger, as long as it is not all-consuming. But we have to have grace for ourselves, as this is a process.

So what does this mean as we pray for those who have hurt us and are told to hope for their success? That's tomorrow...