Most issues, over time, become defined by their most radical viewpoints. This is when inconsistencies come to light. For example, I believe it is correct to say that most (at least many) who accept the label of Pro-Life also would claim the title Anti-Gun Control and Pro-Death Penalty. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to find the inconsistency here, however rationalized.

Today, I would like to talk about the tension in the middle when it comes to the death penalty.

As is the case with most of these types of issues, it seems there is not room for a middle. You are either Pro-Death Penalty or Anti-Death Penalty, right? Finding the middle requires first looking at the genesis of the ideology behind a death penalty. God used Moses to record laws for Israel. Among them we find offenses that require the death penalty (e.g., see Exodus 21:12-14 for pre-meditated murder). We must ask the question “Why were these laws originated?” to understand their place in our society today. There were two big why’s:

1. As a deterrent to keep people from committing murder, and
2. The unique circumstances surrounding the origins of the nation of Israel.

Let me add context for #2. Mankind across the face of the earth was corrupt to the core. Idol worship, children being sacrificed, sexual perversion, et. al. all were the norms of society. God had chosen – via Abraham – to create a nation (Israel) through which he would send the Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ. Accordingly, as the nation of Israel was being established, God established many detailed laws intended to keep His chosen people from falling into the same corrupt practices.

I contend that neither of these conditions exist today. It should be obvious that the death penalty is not a deterrent, and equally obvious that our justice system is incapable of administering it fairly. But more importantly, the Redeemer long ago arrived and so the unique circumstances surrounding the nation of Israel have changed. The chosen people of God are now a global community of followers of Jesus Christ, not contained within a national border. The Redeemer calls us to a better way.

“So”, you are probably saying at this point, “that makes you Anti-Death Penalty, right Randy? Where is this ‘middle’ you are talking about?” While I do not believe we can (or should) correctly carry out a death penalty policy, I also do not believe people should merely be left to rot in prison for the remainder of their lives, forgotten by the very society who locked them up. We could be tempted to say that this requires prison reform; that prisons truly become institutions that are reformatory in nature. And while that is important, we must not merely look to someone else (or the government) to make that happen. This becomes, then, a personal responsibility. Prison ministry and outreach, rather than calling for the death penalty, is the responsibility of every person in our society. If we were devoted to such a calling, then by extension we would see our calling to preventative programs such as mentoring, teaching and intervention. These become the deterrents that the death penalty has failed to be.

Therein lies the tension of the middle; we cannot simply take a position on one end of an issue, but we must also take on the personal responsibility to make the other end of the issue irrelevant.