by Steve Kindle, Energion Discussion Network Editor

 
Henry Neufeld, our publisher, has drawn some criticism lately for publishing on this blog and in Energion books opinions that favor LGBT inclusion in our churches. It should be noted that he also has writers with the opposite opinion. Henry will not oblige us with his own point of view on the matter as he sees his role as a facilitator in the discussion, not the arbitrator.
Now, Henry doesn’t need me to take his side, (nor has he asked) as he is quite able to articulate his own views, as he recently did here. Why I am entering into this discussion is because I see a profound vision of what not only publishing should be, but about how we as Christians should comport ourselves. It is a vision of humility, love, respect, and openness to correction.

On Humility

It is presumptuous to assume that one knows all there is to know on a subject, especially one as controversial as gay issues. To assume such a stance places one as judge and jury on a subject that precludes any further possibility of correction, something which the haughty despise. By giving the reading public options in the search for answers, the public is served well. Exposure to many opinions can often lead to a well thought out conclusion. In that vein, Henry/Energion is not going to tell you what you should believe in this or any other matter. But you will find much help along the way to a decision.

On Love

By examining the mind and lives of those with whom we disagree, for the purpose of actually learning from them, we open ourselves to the “other” as an act of love. We do this not to convert, or belittle, but to treat them with the dignity of a human possessing God’s image. To reach out to another is to welcome one into your life. And if this is done with no strings attached, it is an act of love.

On Respect

Engaging in honest, open dialog with those we disagree with means that we find them just as capable of discerning truth as ourselves.
Martin Buber taught us the difference between treating a person as a human being (a Thou—one like yourself) or an object (an It—a thing to be used). If our purpose in discussion is to win someone over, we no longer treat our conversationalist as a person, but as a thing to dominate. If, on the other hand, our objective is to discover something valuable and give our conversation partner an opportunity to teach us, we and our partner are one, or I/ Thou.
We cannot allow differences of opinion to come between us and another created in the image of God. Always bear in mind that we are not the one another is called to please. Follow the Golden Rule. After all, we learn not to appear scholarly, or erudite, or to win arguments, but to follow Jesus as a faithful disciple. That’s the difference between being right and righteous. It’s also the point of why we study in the first place. And I think this is why Energion exists.

On Openness to Correction

I’m sure that most of us have changed our minds about many things over the years. I know I have. This seldom occurs in a vacuum. Rather, we engage the questions over time, usually in the company of others or with their books. Had I not changed over time, I’d still have the “know-it-all” attitude of my teenage self, the opinions of an unformed mind, and the inability to appreciate when I am wrong. Being open to correction is a wonderful gift that produces rewards our whole life. Wise people try to surround themselves with people smarter than themselves. This has often led to successful presidencies!
I have taken advantage of the wide choices in the Energion catalog and will continue to do so. Among my selections are books chosen for what I thought would be more helpful as illustrating an incorrect position. But I actually found them to be enlightening. (I hate it when that happens!) Life is so much easier when we finally realize we’re not Truth’s arbitrator. Rather, working within a community of seekers, truth finds us.
Therefore, I find in the publishing philosophy of Energion Publications a model for Christian behavior. One that, if taken into one’s life, will yield a humble spirit and a loving heart. Thank you, Henry.
[slideshow_deploy id=’2356′]

Click on any book for more information and ordering

I did not have to see your face to know that I loved you.

I would listen to your voice and I found that it soothed me.

When you were upset, I wanted to cry. But I did not have tears!

I could hear your laughter and if I would have known how to laugh, I would have laughed too.

The sound I was so very fond of was the beat of your heart.

The percussion echoed with pitch perfect rhythm.

It was so peaceful and relaxing.

Its replicating melody was the best part.

You provided me shelter from the world, and gave me a place to grow.

I could not see much in there but would hear your voice loud and clear.

Inside I would toss and turn, I would flip and flop.

You kept me nourished through a cord attached to your belly from below.

A very long time passed. In that water I swam.

Then the strangest things happened? My water was gone!

I heard your voice, it was clearer, I saw an image.

It said, “Yes my baby here I am!”

At first I was in shock. I did not understand.

I started to cry. Where am I? What is going on?

Who is this that, is looking down at me?

You had my body in your arm and head under your hand.

You placed me on your warm chest.

That is when I realized, I heard the distinct music in my ear.

I began to smile.

I fell asleep listening to the sound I loved the best.

The most unconditional love is the love that a new born child feels for its mother.

This love is so innocent, so sweet.

This love is so pure. So full of emotion.

For that one moment in time is all about her.

[Editor’s Note: This is another post in our series of “Why I changed my mind.”]

by  Bob Cornwall

If we keep an open mind, if we seek the truth wherever it might lead, then we will occasionally, even frequently, have a change of heart and mind. That has been true for me on more than one occasion. Among those changes is my understanding of the status of my LGBT brothers and sisters. Like many I grew up believing that the only appropriate coupling was a heterosexual one. I based this in part from what I imbibed from the surrounding culture. I was also informed by what I read in the Bible. God seemed to create the man and the woman for each other (Genesis 2). Then there were the passages that seemed to speak negatively of same-sex relations (were they not an abomination before God?). Finally, there was nature. Didn’t the church prove that man was intended for woman, and woman for man? It was a matter of plumbing. Thus, culture, Bible, and plumbing were in agreement. Or so I thought!
I recently submitted a manuscript on marriage to Energion’s publisher, Henry Neufeld. It will be part of the Participatory Study Guide series. I wrote the study for a couple of reasons, one of which has to do with the conversations within my congregation about marriage equality in the aftermath of last summer’s Supreme Court decision. We have been fairly welcoming of LGBT persons, but we hadn’t come to a conclusion on marriage, especially whether they could take place in the sanctuary. What I realized was that the biggest hurdle in the way of full inclusion had to do with marriage. The question before us was what the Bible had to say about marriage. Thus, the book!
So, how did I get to where I am today? How did I move from rejecting the idea that being gay and Christian was incompatible into embracing full inclusion?
I need to start with the Bible. I do believe that the Bible is the foundational document for the Christian faith. You might call it our primal norm. It’s the starting point for our conversations. The problem facing us, in my estimation, isn’t whether the Bible is authoritative, but how we interpret it. That is where, I believe, the changes have occurred. Like I said before, for much of my life the issue seemed clear. One couldn’t be gay and Christian, at least not a good Christian and a “practicing homosexual.” I didn’t believe in discrimination in the public sector, but when it came to the church, well that was a different story. Membership was fine, but leadership and marriage—those were off limits. Then something happened that opened my eyes to a new reality.
My change of mind began when my younger brother came out. His reality, and my relationship to him, forced me to go back to the text and ask new questions. He’s my brother. I love him. I can’t and I won’t shun him. If he was gay and he loved God, then what was I going to make of this reality? So I began to read the Bible anew. I read science anew. I read testimonies of people who had struggled with their sexuality. I learned that this wasn’t merely a choice. In fact, with all the prejudice against the gay community, especially against gay men, why would my brother put himself in this situation? He was in his 30s at the time. He was a Young Life leader. He lived in a small town. There was no benefit to him to come out as gay. Besides, he had an older brother who was a pastor, and he didn’t know how I would respond. After all, I had never shown any real sympathy for gay people. So with this new reality in my life, what had always been an academic issue became personal. What is true for me is true for so many others. Most people who have had a change of mind on the matter of inclusion have done so because of a personal relationship.
So, I went to the text and I asked new questions. Many of these questions were the same ones that had led me to affirm the full equality of women and embrace God’s call of them to ministry. These were questions about cultural context. They had to do with questions of intent. We as a culture had wrestled with similar questions with regard to slavery. After all, the Bible told slaves to obey their masters. That was Bible, and it seemed to support slavery. When it came to this new question I had ask what was going on at the moment. Why would these passages that seemed so condemnatory be written, and did they speak to our own day?
The passage of Scripture that helped me see things in a new light was the story of Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10 and 11. It took a vision from God to turn Peter’s heart toward the Gentile Cornelius. God had to tell Peter that what God deemed clean, Peter needed to receive as clean. Then, when the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his family, Peter felt he had no choice but to baptize this Gentile, opening the doors of welcome. I’m thankful for this change of mind on Peter’s part, because I would be counted among the Gentiles! My encounters with gay Christians has led me to believe that God has poured out the Spirit on all Christians—both gay and straight. So when it comes to full inclusion, where is God leading? Where is the Spirit? If I believe that God has given a blessing to inclusion, then what about marriage? That was my final hurdle. It is the final hurdle for many. But if God has declared, as I believe is true, that my LGBT brothers and sisters are clean, then who I am to bar their way into the life of the church? And if my brothers and sisters who find themselves both attracted to persons of the same gender, and who have demonstrated in their own relationships a strong covenantal bond, then how can we as the church withhold the blessings of covenant marriage?
[slideshow_deploy id=’2343′] To review or order any of Bob’s books, just click on one.

[Editor’s Note: Often on the weekends, we will stray from our series of the moment and engage in interesting posts that catch our eye.]

by David Alan  Black

When was the last time you changed your mind about something? I mean something important? For me that was on Tuesday. I had just cracked open the latest issue of Filologia Neotestamentaria. In it was an essay called “The passivum divinum: The Rise and Future Fall of an Imaginary Linguistic Phenomenon.” Authors Smit and Rennson argue that the so-called “divine passive” construction in Greek exists only as an urban myth. Agentless passives with God as their implied agent are due, not to a desire to avoid pronouncing the Divine Name, but rather to other motives (e.g., the agent is already clearly implied in the context; the agent is not in focus but instead the subject is, etc.).
Besides being obviously impressed by the authors’ arguments, I was a bit perturbed to think that I had been teaching the “divine passive” for years. Get this wrong, and you’re probably going to be just as guilty of eisegesis as this preacher who insists that non-tithers have opened themselves up to demons. My, oh my! So keep on thinking, dear reader—and remember that Jesus came to lift every noose from your neck, both the ones you put there and the ones others put there. (See David Croteau’s excellent book, Tithing After the Cross—what one Amazon reviewer calls “… a Biblical but not dogmatic approach to a complicated topic that was treated with great care and biblical support.” Go David!)
People, we need each other. We need iron sharpening iron. So once again, I stand corrected, and I’m glad for that. Being open to correction helps us to run our races well and to practice the grace-filled living we were created for. Amen?

[Editor’s Note: Often on Fridays, we will stray from our series of the moment and engage in interesting posts that catch our eye.]

by Drew Smith

The Christology of the Gospel of Mark has been and continues to be a point of debate among biblical scholars and theologians. Indeed, we could say this about all four of the canonical Gospels. Recently, New Testament scholar Michael Bird sparked an online debate when he offered his summary of Mark’s Christology:
The Marcan Jesus participates in the kyricentricity of Israel’s God. He is identified as a pre-existent heavenly figure who has come to earth, who carries divine authority, who embodies royal and priestly roles; and in his person, words, and deeds he manifests the holy presence, the redemptive purposes, and the cosmic power of the Lord of Israel.
I am not going to quibble with much of what Bird offers as his summary of Mark’s Christology, but I do believe he has no evidence that Mark’s Gospel offers a view of Jesus that is pre-existent. Unlike Matthew and Luke, there is not in Mark a birth narrative communicating the miraculous nature of Jesus’ birth. Moreover, certainly unlike John, Mark does not even slightly suggest that Jesus is the Word that was in the beginning and who was God, but who has become flesh. No, it seems to me that Mark’s Christology is more restrained in the claims the narrative makes about Jesus.
What I do think is going on in Mark’s presentation of Jesus, Mark’s Christology, is actually an aspect of the presentation of God, Mark’s theology. In other words, while Jesus is not portrayed as pre-existent, that pushes the evidence too far, Jesus is certainly presented in close relationship to God. Indeed, while there is a distinction between God and Jesus in that both play roles in the narrative, there is also an inseparability between God and Jesus.
This might be seen from the beginning of the narrative, where the narrator of the Gospel introduces a mixture of quotations from the Old Testament and attributes them to the prophet Isaiah (1:2-3). Mark’s use of these Old Testament passages, and the attribution of them to Isaiah, is for the purpose of persuading the audience to understand the following narrative within the context of the eschatological hope found in Isaiah 40, and to see this hope coming to fulfilment.
The use of these quotations at this juncture in the story picks up the story of the past and continues the hope begun at that former time in the time of Mark’s audience. In appropriating the context of Isaiah in their understanding of Mark’s beginning, the audience would understand that God is at work within Mark’s story, fulfilling the promises of the past.
In particular, the narrative introduces the voice of God, through the quotation of scripture, who announces that “I”, God, “am sending my (God’s) messenger ahead of you (Jesus).” The one who sends is God. The one sent is interpreted by the Gospel as John. And the one who John goes before is Jesus.
But, the narrative says that the purpose of the messenger (John) is to “Prepare the way of the Lord (kyrios)”. To whom does kyrios refer in this verse in Mark’s opening? It seems somewhat ambiguous.
Certainly the Old Testament text that Mark is quoting here refers to God as the Lord, and, in my view, the narrative does not remove this title from God. Rather, it seems that in extending the term to Jesus, Mark intends to demonstrate the inseparability of God and Jesus. Thus in his identity as the kyrios Jesus acts with the authority of and in concurrence with God who is also kyrios.
Moreover, God is presented as the sender of the messenger, John, who is to prepare the way of the Lord, and to make straight the paths of Jesus. The paths of which God, through scripture, speaks is the way Jesus will walk through the narrative. Thus in sending John, the messenger, ahead of Jesus to prepare the way for Jesus, God is presented as the one who also sends Jesus. Moreover, the absence of any birth narrative or genealogy of Jesus in Mark communicates to the audience that the origin and significance of the one coming is found completely in God. God gives Jesus the authority to act and speak as representative of God throughout the narrative.
This is brought into clearer view for the audience through the voice from heaven proclaiming Jesus as “my beloved Son”. This vision serves as the authentication of Jesus by God to act as representative of God throughout the narrative. For the audience of Mark, all the actions and teachings of Jesus follow from this experience. Thus, the baptismal scene serves the Markan audience as the basis on which they are able to view Jesus as the one sent by God, who is the Spirit empowered Son of God.
This is also evidenced in the statements where Jesus, the narrator, or another character refers to Jesus’ coming (See 1:14-15; 24; 38; 2:15-17; 10:45. Cf. 9:37 where Jesus speaks of one who sent him and 12:1-12 where, in parable, the owner of the vineyard sends “a beloved son”, a reference not lost on any reader of Mark’s narrative.). In presenting Jesus as the one who has come and the one sent from God, the narrator sets Jesus in relation to God as the one who represents God on earth. Thus the actions Jesus carries out on earth are to be viewed by the Markan audience as God’s actions, or actions done by and for God.
Indeed, my own summary of Mark’s Christology, though a longer summary than Bird’s, while being more cautious than Bird’s view of Jesus’ preexistence, does view the Gospel’s Christology as an aspect of the Gospel’s theology in the sense that from the beginning of Mark Jesus is associated with God and God is associated with Jesus.
First, as God is presented in the narrative as the authenticator of Jesus, so Jesus is presented as the authoritative actor and speaker for God. Jesus is clearly presented as the one sent from God. Moreover, his miracle working activity is understood in light of the coming of God’s rule. Certain themes and characteristics exist in the miracle stories that serve to highlight Jesus as acting on behalf of God.
Regarding Jesus as speaker for God, Jesus speaks with authority from God, and presents himself in relation and submission to God. His teaching is focused on the coming rule of God, and the actions required by all who wish to be part of that rule. Moreover, via some of his sayings and actions, Jesus is presented as standing in place of and on behalf of God. Those who desire to participate in the coming rule of God must meet the requirements voiced by Jesus, and indeed must recognize Jesus as the authoritative envoy of God. Thus through his actions and words, Jesus is presented as the one who is authenticated by God.
Second, as God is presented as the commissioner of Jesus, so Jesus is presented as the Son of Man/Son of God who carries out the divine commission. Jesus is clearly presented in Mark as understanding the task for which he has been sent. Although he does view his miracle activity, as well as his preaching and teaching as commissioned by God, it is ultimately his suffering and death which are understood in the narrative as the primary purpose for his coming.
Through the narrative presentation of Jesus’ suffering and death, as well as the Markan Jesus’ words concerning his death, the audience is presented with the clear portrayal of God as the one who acts to bring about this death for God’s purposes. From the Markan Jesus’ perspective, it is God’s will that he suffer, God who ultimately stands behind the “handing over” of Jesus, and God who abandons Jesus to death. Jesus, however, is not to be viewed here as a character without freedom of choice, for he freely and intentionally gives his life away, submitting to the will of the Father (14:36).
Finally, as God is presented as the vindicator and exalter of Jesus, so Jesus is presented as the risen and glorified Son of Man/Son of God. The resurrection of Jesus is no surprise in the Markan narrative, for Jesus clearly speaks of it (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 14:28). In each setting it follows on the prediction of his death, and is thus tied to the activity and will of God. The specific use of the passive verbs by Jesus in 14:28 and by the young man at the tomb are intended to focus the audience’s attention onto God as the one who can and does raise and vindicate Jesus.
Moreover, as the Son of Man, who is the Son of God, Jesus envisions his final vindication as that which God accomplishes. His future testimony before the Father and the angels (8:38) implies the authority given to him via his vindication by the Father. He is the one who is the Messiah, who as David’s Lord (kyrios used in reference to Jesus) sits at the right hand of the Lord (kyrios used in reference to God), as this Lord places the enemies of the Messiah (Jesus) under his feet (12:36).
His victory is pictured as a cosmic event which brings about the shake-up of the heavens, in which he takes his authoritative position over the angels, sending them forth to gather the elect of God (13:24-27). The enemies of the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One, will witness this event, as the Son of Man is exalted to the right hand of the Power, a circumlocution for God (14:62). Thus in God’s faithfulness to the Son, God conquers the enemies of humanity, death and evil, and thereby vindicates and exalts the Son.
Through the genre of narrative Mark presents a portrait of Jesus which is an aspect of its portrait of God. God plays the main role in the narrative being the sender, authenticator, commissioner, and vindicator of Jesus. Jesus is presented in terms reflecting this presentation of God. He is presented as the one sent from God, the one who has authority to act and speak for God, the one who gives his life in obedience to the commission from God, and the one who is vindicated by God.
Thus, the significance and identity of Jesus in Mark is an aspect of the narrative presentation of God. As God is the one who authoritatively identifies Jesus as the beloved Son (1:11; 9:7), so Jesus is the one who authoritatively identifies God as Abba-Father (esp. 14:36). Christology and theology are interrelated in Mark.
Mark’s theology is a christological theology; a theology centred on the presentation of Jesus as the one who speaks and acts for God. Mark’s Christology is at the same time a theological Christology; Jesus is presented as finding significance and identity in his relationship to God. Thus, although theology and Christology are often considered separate concerns in Mark, as indeed God and Jesus are separate characters in the narrative, there is also the clear presentation of their inseparability within the second Gospel.
Does this mean that Mark’s Christology frames Jesus as divine in the sense that John frames Jesus as divine? Does Mark’s clear association of Jesus with God carry a pre-existent emphasis? I think not. That, again, reads into the narrative what is not clearly there. Mark clearly presents Jesus in close association with God, but that close association does not decidedly equate Jesus as God, particularly in terms of a pre-existent divine figure.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This post is part of our series on controversial questions. A NO post will normally follow a YES post. Join in by posting your comments.]

by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.

One of the longest running battles between science and religion is over the theory of evolution, a battle which started as soon as the theory was published. There is a lot to criticism on both sides and I will not be going into this long, complex and sordid history. Here I will simply address the question of whether or not the biological theory of evolution can explain our world. But even here there are many problems. Just what do we mean by “explain our world?” For simplicity sake I will take this to mean, as the title of Darwin’s founding work put it, the Origin of Species.  Biological evolution says nothing about how life got here in the first place, and scientifically that still remains a conundrum that has only gotten vastly more difficult the better our understanding has become.
But if we set aside this question for the moment and restrict ourselves to what happened after life got started, does evolution at least explain the diversity of species we see all around us? To answer that question, we first must deal with the fundamental problem of just what actually is this theory? This is a fundamental problem because there is no easy answer to this question.
At times there seem to be as many answers as there are people pushing one side or the other. A common and somewhat neutral definition is that evolution is, in a very general sense, that life started in simple forms and then over time evolved into more complex forms finally resulting in human beings. Ok, but this is more descriptive than an actual scientific theory.
This would probably be a good time to point out that I have no theological problems with evolution, unless it is defined, as some atheist I have heard define it, as a process that excludes God from creation. In simple terms, my view is that God created the universe, and that Genesis’ description is vague enough that it can be made to fit or conflict, depending on the desire of the interpreter, any number of theories. Frankly, I think this debate often overshadows the main message of Genesis, which is that God created the universe, and to put into perspective where we fit in the scheme of things.
The key problem with the theory of evolution given earlier is that it is not an explanation. It at best states what happened but not why it happened. Darwin’s theory suggested two additional factors to allow evolution to be an explanation. The first is that the small changes that normally occur in each generation would be selected by natural circumstances, i.e., those best adapted to survival would do so and produce offspring and thus over time those traits would become dominant. Second, these changes would accumulate until the changes were significant enough (from whatever arbitrary starting point you picked) to produce a new species.
Even the most committed creationist would accept the first of these, though there is often some dispute about where the boundaries are. But since I am limited in space, I will just take this as a given. Where I, and many others, start to have problems is with the second factor, i.e., that these changes are cumulative to the point of creating something significantly different than what was started with. The evidence, in fact is quite to the contrary, and herein is the rub.
Virtually all the “evidence for evolution” is from the first category that even literal creationists accept. The problem comes in when evidence for the first factor is just assumed to apply to the second. Those critical of evolution often distinguish between these two factors as micro-evolution in the first case, and macro-evolution in the second, accepting the first and rejecting the later, whereas supporters assume they are all the same, and that evidence of micro automatically applies to macro.
To illustrate these two factors, consider the breeding of dogs. People have been able to breed all sorts of dogs (micro-evolution) but the more they try to refine traits, the more secondary problems are introduced. It is as if you can selectively breed only so far at which point the animal becomes unstable. In short, micro-evolution does not automatically lead to macro-evolution.
Another problem with natural selection is that Darwin postulated that these small changes would take a long time to accumulate and thus be seen in the fossil record. The problem is that the fossil record does not show any such slow progression. On this Darwin was clearly wrong. Rather, the fossil records show that there are very long periods of stability marked by geologically brief periods of change. This has led to a competing theory called punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium has a much better correspondence with the fossil record but again this is just descriptive. It lacks a mechanism that would explain why there were such long periods of stability and short periods of change.
There is a further problem in the theory of evolution presented by a characteristic of the fossil record called Cambrian Explosion. Again, evolution postulates that lifeforms developed in a progression over a very long period of time, and yet the fossil records show that there was very simple life and then in a geologically very short period of time the Cambrian period began, which basically had all the various forms of life without any progression.
So we are left with neither theory really providing a good explanation. Darwin’s theory is great at explaining why we have, for example, so many types of dogs, or perhaps even canines, but not why we have dogs and cats. Punctuated equilibrium describes the fossil record but does not explain why it is this way.
This is not to say that there are not a lot of possibilities. But this is yet another problem I have. The history of science is full of nice sounding ideas that once tested turned out to be completely wrong. Evolutionary theory is full of ideas that have not, and in some cases, cannot be tested. Whatever these may be, they are not science, and certainly not a fact, as defenders of evolution have written into law. In some cases defenses of evolution have become virtual tautologies: arguments that are always true, but tell you nothing about the real world.
So in short, I do not believe any of the various theories of evolution provide any real explanation. Thus when it comes to how, in a very real sense, I am agnostic on the question, except in the belief that God is ultimately responsible. How he did it, in my mind, remains to be determined.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This post is part of our series on controversial questions. A NO post will normally follow a YES post. Join in by posting your comments.]

by Rev. Dr. Robert R. LaRochelle

I wish to begin by stating my fundamental conviction, one that undergirds the convictions expressed in this brief reflection: When exploring questions of ethics, one who calls herself/himself a Christian needs to explore the insights that Jesus brings to the ethical question at hand!
While Jesus does not address capital punishment as such, one does not have to look very far to conclude that, in the life His followers seek to emulate, Jesus advocated nonviolence, redemption, forgiveness, second chances, and God’s abiding mercy, poured out even to those who committed some rather egregious moral actions. Without taking a proof texting approach, one could quite legitimately look to Jesus’ admonitions to love even our enemies, and His insights about the dangers of ‘taking up the sword’, along with His approach to facing His own execution as indicators, that Jesus favored a nonviolent approach to living. It is really difficult to quarrel with these facts.
I find it ironic that so many who espouse literal interpretations of Scripture shy away from citing Jesus’ language and teaching as they defend the use of capital punishment. It is curious that so many states with such large numbers of ‘evangelical Christians’ also have such high rates of executions performed by agents of those states.
The topic of capital punishment can be approached from many different starting points. While I would argue against it on many grounds (lack of effectiveness, danger of executing innocent people, waste of money, etc.), it seems to me that, in this space, we need to limit ourselves to commenting on it in the context of the ethical approach of Jesus. This is not a simplistic  ‘What would Jesus do?’ (WWJD) approach, as we understand that God allows us free will to make free, informed ethical decisions.
However, it IS an approach that takes into consideration that in our moral decision making, if we call ourselves Christians, we need to turn to Jesus and examine his SPIRIT and the ethical orientation of His life. In other words, I think that if you want to argue in favor of capital punishment, it is pretty hard to cite the example and the teachings of Jesus as sources through which you will defend your position.
If you are going to endorse the death penalty, I think, even though I would disagree with you, that you would make a better case talking about it in terms of deterrence or in some broad, general moral terms not connected, than you would if you were, at one and the same time, claiming that you seek to follow Jesus’ ethics and that you also support capital punishment.
It strikes me as problematic that so many Christian conservatives, so deeply troubled with same sex marriage and other ‘signs of the secularization of America’, are so comfortable running away from that victim of capital punishment himself, Jesus, the One we as Christians espouse as our Lord and even our Savior as well….
I invite your comments and our dialogue….