Kelly Gissendaner, the Death Penalty, and Being Pro-life

The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.

This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty.

Pope Francis in his address to Congress

Kelly Gissendaner is set to be executed later tonight by the state of Georgia. Despite her repentance, exemplar attitude, complete rehabilitation, and serving as a role-model for her peers, the state of Georgia prepares to murder her tonight. My heart is heavy for my sister in Christ.

It’s not just that she’s my sister in the faith, though. I’ve often advocated for the abolition of the death penalty. I struggle to grasp a worldview in which one could proclaim to follow Christ but yet advocate for the death of their fellow human. Many times, when in conversations about this issue, one of the main arguments that is thrown back is that I should be more concerned about all the children who are aborted every year; as if those two views are somehow mutually exclusive.

So let me go ahead and say that I am pro-life. I understand that there are extenuating circumstances, moral grey areas where life is at risk or no life is possible. I’m also aware that in modern day America, abolition of abortion is unlikely, and therefore it is oftentimes more worthwhile to advocate for measures that reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, thus reducing abortions.

In order to be consistently pro-life, however, I’m also anti-death penalty, anti-war, anti-torture, etc. To me, the ethic of Jesus allows no other option. That is something that was hinted at by Pope Francis in his address to Congress. It can be seen in the quote above, and here you can read all he had to say on the matter.

What was telling, however, was congressional response to the two above phrases. “The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development,” was followed by uproarious applause. The Pope had to stop his speech for a standing ovation that delayed the Pontiff’s remarks for a long time.

What was embarrassing was that the second phrase, “This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty,” was met with a only a few claps. The sense in the air was that all those who had just stood in support had been betrayed.

Pope Francis, though, is on to something that all of us who profess to follow Christ need to learn. The same God who asks us to defend the life of the unborn requires us to defend the life of the condemned as well.

Jesus, when he was at a capital trial in his day said that those without any sin should be the first to cast the stones. Jesus also said that we should love our enemies, pray for those who persecute us, and do good to those who do us evil. I fail to see where there is room for the death penalty.

Or as the Pope said, the golden rule in it’s simplicity leads us to abolish the death penalty. All of us when, we do wrong, plea for mercy and grace. That, then, is what we ought to offer everyone else. Mercy, grace, and forgiveness.

At the heart of our country’s support for the death penalty is a misunderstanding of justice. Justice is not equal to punishment. Justice is the restoration of right relationships. Justice is reconciliation. Justice is rehabilitation. Kelly Gissendaner lived into a life of justice after the crimes she committed. The state of Georgia, however, prepares to murder her. That is an affront to justice, to the Gospel, and to life itself.

5 responses to “Kelly Gissendaner, the Death Penalty, and Being Pro-life”

Kelly Gissendaner, the death penalty, and being pro-life | Baptist News Global Perspectives – Conversations that matter

October 1, 2015

[…] Kelly Gissendaner, the Death Penalty, and Being Pro-life Tags: abortion, Blake Hart, curated, death penalty, justice, Kelly Gissendaner, Pope Francis, pro-life (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_EN/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); Tweet Pin It […]

LikeLike

Reply
J. Michael

October 1, 2015

You are wrong on so many levels it is actually hard to believe you are in ministry, let alone read the Bible. And that is not an ad hominem attack, I will point out the MOST incorrect thing you pointed out…
“Jesus, when he was at a capital trial in his day said that those without any sin should be the first to cast the stones.”
Jesus was NOT at a Capital Trial….this was a couple of “Holier-Than-Thou” wannabes who were looking to get their jollies killing a woman WITHOUT a proper “Evidence Hearing” and they only brought 1 of the 2 people involved, and the LAW says BOTH must be presented to a priest and if cause is found by 2 or 3 witnesses, then BOTH are stoned…SO Jesus stood up for Law & Order…He knew they didn’t have proof to convict her, they didn’t want to convict her, they just wanted to kill someone, so since they were doing it unjustly,
Jesus said “Let he who is without sin.” MEANING GOD WOULD JUDGE INCLUDING THEIR HEARTS…
Now that we corrected that, I will mention I too am against the death penalty in almost all cases, I have signed petitions to make it harder to send people to death. But I value human life enough, that I do see a reason for it in some rare cases. Those being ones like this case: See this isn’t an abortion done in when life looks pointless, this isn’t punching a person in a bar then they fall and die, this isn’t driving drunk and hitting a child on the curb. This is a grown woman coming up with a way to kill a person, then convincing another person to stab her husband to death, just so she doesn’t have to file for divorce. In this case, a death sentence can be a deterrent, that even though the justice system is flawed, it doesn’t pay to stab people to death.
In all honesty, I would have had no problem with them commuting the sentence to life… my biggest issue is you misusing Jesus and the Bible for this type of thing, especially when you’re wrong….I guess I don’t expect much else from “Christians” these days…but I would hope a high-ranking member in a denomination would have more respect for our Lord and Savior than to mischaracterize Him to fit some decades old political agenda….
But, that’s just me…
Take care.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Blake Hart
  
  October 2, 2015
  
  Let me start by saying people can disagree without questioning someone else’s calling or intentions. You can say that what you said is not an ad hominem attack, but it was in that you questioned who I am and what I do without knowing me. That being said, we can disagree, and I invite alternative viewpoints in comments. But I request you don’t attack me, my calling, or anyone else who comments.
  
  You took great issue with my use of Jesus’ saying that he who was without sin should cast the first stone. You said that meant that only God would judge. I fail to see where that leaves room for the death penalty. To me, though, that story is somewhat secondary. It’s important, but Jesus dealt with this explicitly when he taught that we should love our enemies, do good to those who do us evil, and pray for those who persecute us. Also, as I mentioned in the article, the golden rule speaks against the death penalty, because when I do something wrong I want mercy. Therefore I ought to give mercy.
  
  Let me say this to end. I used to support the death penalty. I thought it was biblical and I truly thought it was a deterrent to violent crime (which statistics show it is not). The more I read my Bible, and the more I encountered Christ, the more I realized I could no longer support such a heinous thing as the death penalty. I can give a plethora of reasons. It isn’t a deterrant. It’s racially biased. It costs more than life in prison. Many innocent people have been exonerated off death row and others weren’t so lucky. On and on I could go. But those are all secondary to the fact that Jesus proclaims a Gospel of life and forgiveness. As a follower of Jesus, (who deeply respects Jesus), I have no choice but to argue for life and mercy in all cases. You can say that I’m wrong in my interpretation, and you can say that you disagree with me. But you can never question my faith or the fact that my convictions stem from my relationship with Christ.
  
  Peace to you.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. J. Michael
    
    October 19, 2015
    
    NOT IN THIS CASE, you are misusing the words of our Lord and Savior to push a political agenda. And that is not okay.
    AND It is not an ad hominem attack because I am going directly at what you DID….and I have to either assume you unknowingly misstated the situation and changed the story involving the Lord to incorrectly state what happened. OR you purposely changed the details and purposely incorrectly stated it…..which do you want to be the case? I’ll let you decide
    
    It is not up to interpretation to say WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED in the Bible….that is not our own interpretation.
    
    As per what I would have expected, you completely sidestep my statement and even go so far as to say “that story is somewhat secondary” so the story you are using to make a point is secondary, so that means it doesn’t matter what actually happened in the story, just make some stuff up?????? I’m sorry, but that is not okay. You may disagree, but its just not.
    
    Your Red Herring of “The Golden Rule” doesn’t work because there is a difference between PERSONAL responsibly and GOVERNING responsibility….The Golden Rule is telling YOU what YOU should do if people offend YOU….and I agree. Those people who forgave Dylann Roof, DID THE RIGHT THING…does that mean he is free to go without punishment? NO. He will be punished. NOT BY USE INDIVIDUALS. But by the GOVERNMENT.
    
    Capital Crimes are under the GOVERNMENT, and as I stated the OT makes it clear what the standards are and what should be met for the GOVERNING AUTHORITY to handle the situation correctly. And not a single one of those were met in John 8. So what are we seeing??? People trying to take their PERSONAL frustrations out on a woman. So Jesus stepped in and BELIEVE IT OR NOT Jesus stood up for the GOVERNMENT, which had no way to prosecute her, since no male was presented and no witnesses.
    Which here if you want to speculate, one could speculate that she was innocent, since there was no male or witnesses, thus the mob used hearsay….now that is going beyond what the text says, so let’s just stop at “There was no evidence to convict. So she was let go by Jesus from vigilante violence.”
    
    Us living in the Post-Modern Society, I’m not at all surprised that your response started with “Yours and my interpretation is different.” and then it it immediately becomes about feelings….I get it. But its just bad form to use that as your lens for reading scripture. And I understand that is what 90% of Pastor do, but that doesn’t make it right.
    
    I have no doubt that you have a ton of ‘feelings’ that you allow to direct you in your daily life and theology. I don’t question your faith, I believe you believe what you believe, and you have faith in those beliefs. But I question the disrespect you show by misusing Jesus and his words to fit into your feelings.
    
    I too have things I feel, and things I want to be true. And sometimes the Bible doesn’t say what I want it to say….but that doesn’t give me license to just make applications by changing things and incorrectly paraphrasing the Bible to make it fit whatever you’re trying to push. I have to say “God even though I don’t get this, and it seems wrong to me, I’m trusting you know better.” Does that mean there are feelings I have that aren’t backed up by the Bible? Yes. But do my feelings trump the bible? NO. And especially my feelings don’t give me the right to cannibalize scripture to fit my feelings. Or to mix up personal responsibilities and governments roles. But even that is because our justice system is broken, and you are seeing the results of the broken system. Should we try and fix it? Yes, but not to be LESS biblical and fit our feelings. But to be more biblical would be nice.
    
    Such as, instead of locking up accidental killings such as bar fights that a single punch killed a person, instead of them serving 25yrs, how about the Bible says “Pay a fine”?? I think that makes sense. And that’s more biblical…not less biblical.
    
    Look, does it hurt when someone points out an obvious flaw in something you did? Yep. Could I have been nicer, of course. I’m a hard person. I know that.
    
    But your feelings don’t change scripture.
    And don’t give us to treat scripture as secondary to our wishes and hopes and feelings.
    
    And it doesn’t allow us to just claim the Bible says whatever we want it to say……even if 90% of other christians do that, it still doesn’t make it right.
    
    PS. You can make statistics say anything….which the more liberal crowd does as good as anyone….so let’s use sense instead of statistics.
    
    PPS. The only reason it costs more to execute people than life in prison is because people, not unlike yourself, have made it to where they get up to 13 appeals. So the lawyer and judge costs of 13 appeals is more than the 3 to 5 million dollars it takes to house them for their lives. Besides I don’t think arguing “cost effectiveness” is a good argument for whether or not punishments should be carried out.
    
    PPPS. Go back and read the Bible again….this time without agenda, I had to do this 6 years a go, read it without agenda or personal bias, just read what it says, and you’d be SHOCKED at how much sense those Old Testament Laws make. And how much closer they are to what you are currently arguing for, than you currently think.
    
    LikeLike
  2. Blake Hart
    
    October 27, 2015
    
    I’m not going to be long here but simply want to say two things.
    
    First of all, you state that the only reason Jesus did not agree to the death penalty in this case of the woman caught in adultery was because they had not followed the law and did not present the man with whom she had committed adultery. If that is the case, why didn’t Jesus say so? Instead Jesus says that those who are without sin should be the ones to cast the first stone. Then, upon seeing them all drop their stones and walk away, Jesus says that he will not condemn her either and that she should go and sin no more. So let me ask you, if Jesus’ reason for not stoning her was because the man wasn’t present, why didn’t he simply say that? Why didn’t he send the pharisees to go find him? Why does he instead speak about forgiveness and condemnation? You say that Jesus’ words saying that he without sin should cast the first stone meant that God would judge, but according to Jesus’ own words the one without sin (himself) was the only one who could carry out that punishment, and he chose not to condemn her. You blame me for reading things into the story, but don’t be so quick to judge. If Jesus wanted to take issue with their mishandling of the law he could have. Instead he chose to go to the heart of the issue, the very nature of condemnation and God’s infinite forgiveness. That’s what I see happening in John 8:1-11.
    
    Second. We all have an agenda in reading the Bible. Our cultural presuppositions guide us much more than you would like to admit. So through studying the ancient contexts of the authors and trying to understand our own context we can attempt to get to a more faithful reading of the text, but I think it’s probably more complex than you (or many of us) would like to believe.
    
    LikeLike