Uganda may pass a law that could lead to the death penalty for homosexual behavior.
The proposed law is odious.
Due to the legacy of colonialism, Western people should be sensitive about interfering in sub-Saharan African politics and modest in making moral pronouncements regarding Africa, but this law deserves universal condemnation. Uganda experienced many evils under colonialism, including the loss of basic liberties.
Experiencing evil does not give a free pass to do evil and this bill is wicked.
It is not a close call.
No good can come of this bill and great harm will be done if it is passed.
Some fringe Evangelical support may be behind the bill and so American Evangelicals have some obligation to comment and urge rejection of this hateful, useless, and dangerous piece of legislation by all Christians.
Hopefully conservatives who follow the Prince of Peace would not need much persuading to convince them that this is a bad bill. However, since at least some extremists have supported it, an argument is necessary.
Traditional Christians should strongly oppose this bill on moral, political, and pragmatic grounds.
Morally, the bill is bad for numerous reasons.
First and most importantly, it places the life of the citizens of Uganda, fellow humans created God’s image, in peril for grossly insufficient reasons. A Christian can only support loss of liberty or the death penalty in order to protect society from peril to other citizens that cannot be handled in any gentler manner.
The application of any law is always harsh and removes the element of mercy.
This law denies the humanity of a class of Ugandan citizens, because it is so harsh, singling out one private vice for extreme public punishment, that it effectively dehumanizes a class of persons.
No sinner can vote for this bill without tacitly rejecting the Golden Rule and I have not heard that any legislature is dominated by saints.
Second, the punishments in the bill are radically disproportionate to any harm done through the putative crimes, even if one views them as crimes. Punishment must always fit the crime!
Finally, the bill forces citizens who dissent from the bill to act as government informers or face prosecution. Such a strong state intrusion into the private conscience of a man should only be done for the gravest reasons and there are no adequate reasons to deny soul liberty in this bill.
There are sound political reasons for a conservative to oppose this bill.
This expansion of government power anticipated in such a bill is enormous. The bill strips family and church of the power to deal with a pastoral and family issue and gives this power to the state. The intrusion of the state into family and church life would be immense.
Caesar should not be given this much power or the last word in every area of morality. Will pastors turn in parishioners? Will the hearts of children by turned from their parents? Will this lead to a society in which issues are discussed or an ugly culture of hypocrisy and hiding?
Pragmatically this is a very bad bill for traditional Christians. Of course, the main reason to oppose the bill is that it is morally bankrupt, but it is also useless and counterproductive and associates the good name of traditional Christians with barbarism.
Christians do not think everything immoral should be illegal and no Christian should be eager to extend the death penalty. Most of us who support the death penalty only do so in extreme cases where society can be protected in no other way.
Nothing is more likely to turn people off to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in other parts of the world than an immoral association of Christians with brutal statism.
Where we have little political power, Christians rightly demand freedom to practice their faith. Where we have greater political power as in Uganda, we have an obligation to extend the same courtesy to those who disagree with us as much as is compatible with public order. It is hypocritical to argue that we should be left alone in California and demand the death penalty for those whose behavior upsets us in Uganda.
But protecting the dignity of human life, the moral issue, is the vital one. Even if all the world approved, Christians should not support this bill.
December 2nd, 2009 | 8:19 am | #1
JMR, I am in complete agreement with you. However, doesn’t this put us at odds with Scripture that records YHWH instituting precisely such a law for Israel (Leviticus 20:13)? If the Ugandan law is odious, so is the law in the Torah. Either the Torah is a fallible document or its lawmaker is cruel.
How do you respond to this challenge? I have never been able to respond to it.
December 2nd, 2009 | 10:38 am | #2
Adam,
Let’s assume the Torah is not fallible (for the sake of argument).
Why might it urge a policy that later would be considered barbaric?
It was written for a particular people in a particular context. This people group lacked the means to imprison people (they were poor and nomadic). The functional privacy of an individual was much greater (government had much fewer means to spy on citizens and much weaker ‘reach’). Finally, laws were written for the knowledge that people had at the time. The people group did not have the benefit of the centuries of thought and increase in sophistication in dealing with moral failings . . . and so God did what God could do. He softened language and gave them the best commandments he could “given their hardness of heart.” (Divorce is a parallel here.)
One need not strain very hard to see that what would be appropriate for an ancient people with a government with few resources is grossly improper for a modern state (after the coming of the Christ) with all the resources it can command.
John Mark
December 2nd, 2009 | 10:44 am | #3
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I am in complete agreement. I am also with Exodus International, a ministry helping those with unwanted homosexuality, and we have written a letter to the Ugandan President asking him to oppose this bill
http://blog.exodusinternational.org/2009/12/01/don-schmierer-added-to-letter-opposing-ugandan-anti-homosexuality-bill/
God did not force us to embrace Jesus’ atonement for our sins or place our faith in Him as Lord. We should protect youth and against assault but when it comes to consenting adults, freedom will not come if they are imprisoned and killed.
The whole of scripture shows that with regard to Leviticus 18 … God sent a grieving Savior to take my place for the penalty of sin. The power of His love and Grace resurrected Christ to the right hand of the Father and gives me freedom from many things. One of which is the freedom to live life not bound or defined by my sexual proclivities.
December 2nd, 2009 | 10:44 am | #4
The posting of this blog comes at an interesting time for me. I teach Biblical Literature and today I’m covering how to interpret OT laws. The most important concept is that Israel was unique (Exodus 19:5-8). Only Israel was to be a theocracy; that is, only Israel was a nation uniquely chosen by God for a special purpose and mission. With their status as a chosen nation there came benefits and responsibilities. They would be uniquely blessed by God and they would be punished in unique ways as well.
Crimes against property never called for the death penalty. Crimes against humanity did call for the death penalty. Discretion was to be used in every case.
Israel as a theocratic nation ended at the time of Christ. Romans 9 is clear that Israel’s great purpose was to bring forth the Messiah who is God. Mission accomplished.
Israel was never commanded to expand its borders and extend the theocratic rule to every part of the world. The Gospel, however, is supposed to go to every part of the world.
December 2nd, 2009 | 10:47 am | #5
“Second, the punishments in the bill are radically disproportionate to any harm done through the putative crimes, even if one views them as crimes. Punishment must always fit the crime!”
I want to echo Adam. Were the OT laws about sodomy, adultery, and such “radically disproportionate to any harm done”?
Does the OT support your first moral objection about the death penalty to protect society from peril?
Did the OT “dehumanize a class of persons”? Or does the fact that the OT requires such penalty for other forms of sexual sin (adultery, fornication, bestiality), as well as other sins, make a difference here?
December 2nd, 2009 | 11:06 am | #6
Joe,
Yes, they would be radically disproportionate in a modern society.
We are nothing like ancient Israel (and of course neither is Uganda) in either:
1. moral vocabulary (the OT helped create the world of ideas in which we can live!)
2. our mission (we are not called to be an icon of God’s people as was ancient Israel)
3. our “hardness of heart” can change. (We have Christ and so can become both more holy (no sex sin in our hearts!) and more merciful (the woman caught in adultery.)
December 2nd, 2009 | 11:14 am | #7
I should add that Joe makes a point that is very important. The OT does not single out a class of sexual sinners for the death penalty (homosexuals) and then ignore the rest.
The OT laws were iconic representations of holiness that should be in the hearts of God’s people. Were they ever practiced by a civil society? If so, it would not have been any modern society or any society not having the unique call of ancient Israel. Hence, it would not be the USA or Uganda.
December 2nd, 2009 | 11:18 am | #8
To John Mark Reynolds.
I have listened to your Cultural Apologetics conference is your comment #2 the best summation you have written on this idea or have you written an article elsewhere that deals with this more extensively. Though it is a little off topic, I have a friend who defends slavery on the grounds that the Bible does. No amount of quoting texts like Titus have helped. I have tried to show him the changing standards of morality that God holds us to while remaining faithful to the idea. I have hit a brick wall with him, but fell any time spent trying to talk someone out of ever saying in public that Christianity is okay with slavery is time well spent. Have you expounded on these ideas elsewhere in a fuller form that I might hopefully change his mind. Oh one other thing, what is the best introductory work on the Orthodox church, though I am Reformed, and not likely to change. I do feel there is a gap in my knowledge when I don’t know anything about a 1/3 of Christendom. Doug.
December 2nd, 2009 | 11:24 am | #9
Doug,
Personally, I write on this topic in a chapter in Sean McDowell’s book on the new Christian apologetic.
John Mark
December 2nd, 2009 | 11:28 am | #10
To John Mark Reynolds
Which topic, the Orthodox, or the slavery/God holding his people to a progressively higher standard topic? I am running late to work and won’t be able to respond, but I’ll hopefully get your answer later. Thanks for all you do, Doug.
December 2nd, 2009 | 11:44 am | #11
The slavery topic . . .
December 2nd, 2009 | 12:05 pm | #12
John Mark Reynolds: “Traditional Christians should strongly oppose this bill on moral, political, and pragmatic grounds.
But protecting the dignity of human life, the moral issue, is the vital one. Even if all the world approved, Christians should not support this bill.”
I don’t disagree. I would like to ask you, however, given the internal debate among Protestants regarding the Manhattan Declaration, would you oppose a Manhattan Declaration-lite version that was against the proposed Uganda law that brought Catholics, Protestants, and the Eastern Orthodox members together to unite against Uganda’s proposed law? “Lite” meaning that it spoke only to the Uganda law proposal while still maintaining the original MD language about “historic lines of ecclesial difference.” Do you think such a modified Manhattan Declaration as applied to the Uganda situation would blur and obscure the Gospel as some MD critics charge?
December 2nd, 2009 | 12:08 pm | #13
(striving for grammatical improvement and enhancing readability).
John Mark Reynolds: “Traditional Christians should strongly oppose this bill on moral, political, and pragmatic grounds.
But protecting the dignity of human life, the moral issue, is the vital one. Even if all the world approved, Christians should not support this bill.”
I don’t disagree. I would like to ask you, however, given the internal debate among Protestants regarding the Manhattan Declaration, would you oppose a Manhattan Declaration-lite version that was against the proposed Uganda law and which also brought Catholics, Protestants, and the Eastern Orthodox members together to unite against Uganda’s proposed law? “Lite” meaning that it spoke only to the Uganda law proposal while still maintaining the original MD language about “historic lines of ecclesial difference.” Do you think such a modified Manhattan Declaration as applied to the Uganda situation would blur and obscure the Gospel as some MD critics charge the MD with?
December 2nd, 2009 | 12:14 pm | #14
Sorry, I should have used the preview button.
December 2nd, 2009 | 12:19 pm | #15
TUAD,
You will notice (see a science thread early on) that I never, ever answer a question likely to spin a thread in a new direction. This is annoying I know, but I also like threads that stick to the topic.
I would support any good faith effort to block this odious bill.
John Mark
December 2nd, 2009 | 12:25 pm | #16
John Mark,
I understand. I do understand.
“I would support any good faith effort to block this odious bill.”
Me too. I like the “good faith effort” part. And I think there are other odious things that “good faith efforts” can be applied to as well.
Pax.
December 2nd, 2009 | 12:52 pm | #17
Dr. Reynolds,
Thanks for your response. Couple of follow-ups:
1. So death penalty for homosexuality is “odious” now. Was it odious then? In other words, is the death penalty for homosexuality odious in itself, or only odious because of changing contexts?
2. You note that the woman caught in adultery was shown mercy. Is your objection to the Ugandan law that it is insufficiently merciful, or insufficiently just? The former allows that such sins deserve the death penalty, but that mercy triumphs over judgment.
3. Could you flesh out the parallel with divorce and hardness of heart? Jesus seems to argue that God accommodates (i.e. lowers the standard) b/c of their hardness. So wouldn’t the analogy be that there should be a harsher punishment today?
4. How does the fact that Paul calls the Law “the embodiment of knowledge and truth” (Romans 2:20) factor in? It sounds as though you are arguing that our trajectory should be away from God’s law and toward some other standard (as opposed to toward it)?
I should hasten to add that I think the Ugandan law is a lousy one, but I think my reasons would be different than yours. Feel free to answer whatever questions you deem most helpful. I don’t expect you to engage with all of them.
Thanks!
December 2nd, 2009 | 1:20 pm | #18
It would seem to me that the difference between Torah and Ugandan law is obvious and plain.
God wrote the Torah, He is not writing Ugandan law.
Further, God wrote His words and then stopped. We have no grounds to act like He’s still talking and assume His approval of this law.
Good article John Mark, great article in fact.
December 2nd, 2009 | 2:07 pm | #19
Daryl, I am not sure I follow you. What difference does it make whether God wrote the law? Both condemn homosexual behavior and both prescribe the death penalty as punishment. They agree with one another in the same way Minnesota law forbids murder as does the Torah. What is the difference? How is God’s “stopping” of the writing of the Torah relevant to the discussion? Do you really mean to say that God doesn’t approve of his law because the times have changed? We can’t assume that he stands behind his Word? Why not discard eveyrthing he has said altogether? Such reason undermines the entire authority of the Bible.
December 2nd, 2009 | 2:17 pm | #20
Adam,
Yes God stands behind His word.
His word states that, in the theocracy that was pre-Christ Israel, homosexuals were to be executed.
That hasn’t changed. It remains.
What doesn’t remain, is pre-Christ Israel, or any other theocracy.
There are all kinds of laws that are not specific to that time period. And there are even more punishments that do not.
We still (or should still) recognize false prophets as non-prophets. We don’t execute them, but their falseness still stands.
Same goes for homosexuals. Their activity is condemned all over the Bible. The punishment was back then for a specific people.
Not everything in the Bible stands on its own as a “for all time this shall be” kind of statement.
Without that distinction we’d all have to head to Home Depot to buy an ark building kit.
December 2nd, 2009 | 2:24 pm | #21
Adam,
This seems like a bad argument.
Suppose I make two claims x and y. X refers only to you and y refers to all men everywhere. Suppose then that my kids said, “We have to obey x or we would not be obeying Dad.”
I would say to them, “No, kids, if you obey x you would NOT be obeying Dad. Dad was talking to Adam and not to you when he said x.”
If they then said, “Then I see that your ruling y does not apply to us either . . . ” I would wonder if my kids had been listening!
The idea in Scripture is that sex is reserved for marriage and that marriage is (fundamentally) between a man and a woman. How to deal with falling short of that mark? On that subject, Scripture changes over time as it deals with people in different places at different times.
John Mark
December 2nd, 2009 | 3:03 pm | #22
Here are some related concerns from “the other side of the aisle”:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2009/11/25/132255/09/Front_Page/_quot_The_Family_quot_Behind_Anti_Gay_Act_in_Uganda
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2009/10/28/1802/9982
December 2nd, 2009 | 3:07 pm | #23
Adam,
If your argument that we should follow EVERYTHING the Bible says is true, then we should still sacrifice animals.
Do you ever trim your beard?
Do you eat shellfish?
Do you observe the Sabbath as prescribed?
Do you wear clothing made of two different kinds of material?
Do you go over field more than once?
December 2nd, 2009 | 3:10 pm | #24
JMR,
That is a bad argument. I’m glad I didn’t make it! I was addressing Daryl’s previous comments about not having any “grounds to act like God is still talking (?) and assume His approval of this law.” That kind of thinking can apply to anything he says if we are not careful.
As to your statements about about it not being “very hard to see that what would be appropriate for an ancient people with a government with few resources is grossly improper for a modern state (after the coming of the Christ) with all the resources it can command” I am failing to see how such limited resources make necessary the death penalty for homosexual offenders. In this scheme the death penalty is purely a utilitarian tool that keeps a community from having to spend precious resources building penatentry systems. But in either case, ancient or modern, the punishment does NOT fit the crime (assuming our agreement about Uganda’s legislation above). It is unjust in both cases.
And while we might be able to say that God accomodates to hard-heartedness (a la divorce), I think it is a stretch to say that he accomodates to our injustice. Perhaps he tolerates it (for a time), regulates it, undermines it, and finally does away with it in slow going means, but I cannot see how he would command us to participate in it.
December 2nd, 2009 | 3:12 pm | #25
Orthodoxdj,
See above comment.
December 2nd, 2009 | 3:53 pm | #26
Adam Omygoodnesswhatagreatlastname (:D) raises some very good points.
I’d add that Jesus showed mercy to an adulteress who knew what she did was wrong, seemed repentant, despaired of life, and he did so with the understanding that she was not to continue in her sin. That moral context and understanding does not exist in modern Uganda as evidenced by the LGBT organization there, and it doesn’t seem likely that many sodomizers would demonstrate anything but self-righteous defiance and a refusal to acknowledge the reality of the evil.
One can agree with me here and simultaneously agree that the punishment is too severe. But then, I honestly wonder what those who believe the punishment is too barbaric would believe is appropriate for the state to pronounce… if any. Would it be jail time? Hmm.
December 2nd, 2009 | 4:04 pm | #27
Albert, #25,
Asks some good questions. From a biblical Christian perspective, same-sex behavior is clearly a sin. Does there need to be laws and enforcement of those laws from the state for that sin?
Not all sins are punished by the state. Should this one be? If so, what should the state exact as punishment so as to enforce state law?
Abortion is a sin. But it’s legal in the United States.
December 2nd, 2009 | 4:29 pm | #28
TUAD,
Abortion is different because pre-born babies are human beings. The willful taking f human life is murder. Murder is against the law. Therefore, abortion ought to be against the law.
December 2nd, 2009 | 4:41 pm | #29
Orthodoxdj: “Therefore, abortion ought to be against the law.”
I don’t disagree.
I wonder if abortion is against the law in Uganda. Let’s say for the sake of argument that it’s illegal. A Ugandan could then say to US pressure groups, “Don’t lecture us about our laws when your own laws allow mothers to kill their unborn babies.”
December 2nd, 2009 | 5:02 pm | #30
TUAD,
Agreed. I don’t know how we can lecture other countries about human rights violations when abortion is legal here.
December 2nd, 2009 | 5:17 pm | #31
Orthodoxdj: “I don’t know how we can lecture other countries about human rights violations when abortion is legal here.”
I don’t either. But people do.
And when some Christians are involved in the Public Square about the issue of abortion, other Christians from both the right and the left will criticize them. It’s pretty sad.
December 2nd, 2009 | 5:49 pm | #32
My biggest disappointment with this post is its lack of charity towards those who would take the scriptural injunction against homosexual behavior seriously.
We can have an argument and disagree about how to apply the scriptures, but it seems to me plainly over the top to act like there’s no interesting discussion to be had about such a law.
I know this is a blog post, and not a dissertation defense, but frankly the arguments given against this law are overly broad, conclusory, and unlikely to be persuasive to any “extremists” like myself who would happen to read them. There is at least some exegetical spadework to be done before jettisoning the OT moral framework as having relevance for our civil laws.
If you think the law is stupid and its opposition needs no argument, then leave it at that. If you think it merits an argument to lay bare its folly, then have at it. Seriously and thoughtfully.
But don’t split the middle with condescension and sloppiness.
As to the merits of the law, I know folks who are ministering in Uganda. That nation– along with much of Africa– is daily torn apart by rampant sexual licence. Such behavior is not only destroying souls through the spiritual ravages of sin, but also killing and maiming the bodies of those who commit such acts and their innocent children.
Frankly for most evangelicals in the US, the offense of homosexuality really comes down more to our embarrassment and disgust over it. But for Africans, it is a far more serious matter.
For that reason, I’d be loath to condemn Ugandans for judging that their public order is best served by severe punishment for homosexual acts.
Doubtless there is much “speck in your eye” motivation behind this law among heterosexual adulterers in that nation. But it’s hard to understand where that argument takes us with respect to this law. Now, I’d say that this observation should be a call to the Ugandan leaders to also deal with public sin they are more comfortable with (e.g. adultery, bribery).
But I could hardly see this as an argument against the law. Is the legislature only supposed to simultaneously enact laws on all subjects of moral significance, or otherwise refrain? That’s not how our society works, and I don’t see that anyone has taken the stance that all our laws– e.g. against murder, rape, robbery– should be withdrawn until we criminalize (e.g.) doctors performing abortions.
As to the criminal prosecution of those who fail to report such crimes, I’d happily agree that this is overreaching and an unwise extension of state power.
As to how the rest of the world would see this, I think this begs the moral question. If this law is in the right from a moral perspective, then it shouldn’t matter what the world thinks. Some will see and sneer. Others will see and believe. But if we refrain from doing good to impress a dying world, how exactly will that show forth the glory of God? And wouldn’t that be precisely a case of “doing evil that good may come?”
December 2nd, 2009 | 5:49 pm | #33
Although, guys, while neither your country nor mine (Canada) is in a position to say much, as Christians, we must.
December 2nd, 2009 | 6:05 pm | #34
(For some of my time) I’ll be working on our country’s log-in-the-eye from joyfully supporting the Manhattan Declaration.
December 2nd, 2009 | 7:10 pm | #35
Regarding the “justice” of the death penalty for homosexual, a few questions come to mind:
1) What percentage of the Ugandan population is homosexual? The answer will give us some measure of the homosexual contribution to Uganda’s moral problems (I suspect its close to the U.S. figures – about 3%)
2) Does the law take into consideration consensual homosexual relationships?
3) Are celibate/virginal homosexual subject to the death penalty?
4) Does Uganda apply the same standards to other “crimes” of sexual morality?
The last question is the most important, as this telling statistic reveals:
The United States (US) Department of State reports in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2007 that a 2006 survey indicated that 70% of women had been physically or sexually abused. This survey also found that 60% of men and 70% of women in Uganda condone “wife beating” (ibid.).
How can a law the sanctions the killing of homosexuals – in an attempt to correct rampant immorality – be considered just in light of a truly horrendous and widespread problem?
December 2nd, 2009 | 7:15 pm | #36
The other angle on this, which I didn’t want to mention, but…
As evil and wrong as I think this law is (not the out-lawing, but the executioning), I also believe it to be a part of God’s judgement on those living that lifestyle.
Much the same way as Babylon and Assyria were God’s judgement on Israel nad Judah. Neither was judged to be guiltless (in fact they were both destroyed for their part in the judgement), but God was still actively using them for His own ends.
December 2nd, 2009 | 7:42 pm | #37
Any discussion of the applicability of the Mosaic law should include consideration of the following passage from Deuteronomy:
“And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?”
While Israel is certainly unique in many ways, it also must be true that their law, at least in a general sense, had a sort of universal applicability in the ancient world. There was some sense in which Moses could point to his rules and regulations and argue their moral superiority to everyone else’s.
I imagine that if I had been, say, an Egyptian during ancient times and was shown that passage, I would interpret Moses’ words as implying that my country would be better off if we had a system like the Mosaic Law. And I believe I would be correct in that assumption.
Does this necessarily mean that we must become Theonomists? I don’t think so. But it shouldn’t be ignored.
December 2nd, 2009 | 8:43 pm | #38
Anthony,
I think that’s a good point.
I also think that part of ignoring the Mosaic law is ignoring it’s context and purpose and the oldness and fulfilling and laying aside of that covenant when Christ came.
I would suggest that pretty much any of the principles that are to be applied today, like pretty much any other biblical principal, can be found elsewhere in the Bible as well, making the issue, being biblical rather than simply being Mosaic.
But…I read your post as saying that as well.
December 2nd, 2009 | 8:43 pm | #39
OK, not laying aside, but fulfilling.
Those are different historically, but play out the same in my daily life.
December 2nd, 2009 | 8:58 pm | #40
For those who are want to apply the Old Testament commands of Israel to everyone, everywhere, please answer me this: How do you understand Deuteronomy 17 in relation to today?
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:
Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.
December 2nd, 2009 | 9:03 pm | #41
Nobody, however, should volunteer to be Babylon or Assyria.
I agree with Augustine that God’s hand is not easy to see in history. The rain falls on the just and the unjust . . . as does brimstone sometimes.
Let me act with mercy always . . . and let God judge.
December 2nd, 2009 | 9:05 pm | #42
Mr. Hampton:
I totally agree with you. To single out one group (even an immoral one) for super-harsh punishment when other larger groups of immoral persons are given no such treatment is to dehumanize one class of sinners, to make them scapegoats, and to act unjustly.
John Mark
December 2nd, 2009 | 9:08 pm | #43
“Nobody, however, should volunteer to be Babylon or Assyria.”
So true. We dare not forget that even when God was choosing them to exact punishment on Israel, He was planning their demise for exacting that punishment.
“Let me act with mercy always . . . and let God judge.”
That bears being posted somewhere prominent.
December 2nd, 2009 | 10:20 pm | #44
Daryl Little“Let me act with mercy always . . . and let God judge.”
That bears being posted somewhere prominent.”
How about on the foreheads of all the vehement anti-Manhattan Declaration Protestants?
;-)
December 3rd, 2009 | 9:21 am | #45
TUAD,
If you hade a case, maybe. But you don’t, all you have is a hobby horse.
A few months ago it was the roles of men and women, you worked it, unnecessarily into everything, now you’re doing the same with the MD.
It’s foolish and it only makes you look bad.
Cut it out.
December 3rd, 2009 | 10:44 am | #46
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by whaner, Craig L. Adams. Craig L. Adams said: An Odious Law: Uganda & Homosexuality http://bit.ly/7AtOWl [...]
December 3rd, 2009 | 12:07 pm | #47
Daryl,
Your accusations are groundless. Stop it. It makes you look spiteful.
December 3rd, 2009 | 4:01 pm | #48
Actually, TUaD, I agree with you about the MD, but I think it would be wise for you to listen to Daryl Little here. He’s right about the unnecessary repetition. Please take it well.
December 3rd, 2009 | 4:35 pm | #49
Here are two comments that I think are worth pondering:
(1) “Here’s a serious question I’m wondering if someone else has an answer for: If salvation comes by faith alone, can Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc receive salvation simply by their repentance and belief in Christ’s death on their behalf and resurrection? If they believe that additional good works are also necessary, does this negate their faith? If they misunderstand the nitty-gritty theological underpinnings of justification, does this negate their faith?
I guess what I’m getting at is, if salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, not by anything that we can do, does it not follow that there’s also nothing we can do that negates our saving faith? (Including being a part of a wayward theological tradition?)
For example, were the Judaizers in the early church truly saved? Or did they negate their salvation when they insisted that the OT ceremonial regulations were still necessary?”
(2) “I see both sides, and it is nearly impossible to force someone to go against their conscience on an issue of this much import. What I don’t understand however is that we cannot cooperate with leaders who have a different message but want to promote the type of society that is in more conformity with God’s laws… but … we *can* somehow (via Romans 13) cooperate with and submit to unbelievers and power grabbers and oppressors who are neither trying to promote Godly laws nor God’s gospel. This is what confuses me. It seems like a choking on gnats/swallowing camels thing.”
—-
Jugulum,
You’re a reasonably intelligent person and I’ll leave it to you and what I hope are your capable skills to figure out the fairly obvious answers.
If you still need help, then answer the following questions *FIRST*, and then I’ll help you.
You wrote on Phil Johnson’s series on gambling the following:
“I take the view that gambling in small amounts for entertainment doesn’t violate any Biblical principles.”
Q: Jugulum, now that you’ve read all of Phil’s posts, and his various comments throughout the threads, do you retract your initial view or do you still maintain it? Why?
December 3rd, 2009 | 9:23 pm | #50
Dr. Reynolds,
I agree with the things you stated in this article. The punishment should be fitting to the crime.
We all are deserving of death, because we have disobeyed the law of the Old Testament, the law given to Moses by God. However, we cannot forget that we have a new and better covenant with God. Here is what Paul says about the Law:
Romans 7:4-6 “Likewise, my brothers, you have also died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to Him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.”
Yes, Jesus fulfilled the law. That is really the point. He is the founder and finisher of our faith. The law displayed the moral code to Israel, rules to live by, and conditions to follow so that the Israelites could stay clean in God’s sight(sacrifices, priests, etc.). Jesus fulfilled all of those requirements. Now we have a new and better covenant.
Hebrews 8:6-7 “But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant He mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.”
And the new covenant is one in which the law will be written on our hearts, and we shall be His people, and we shall know the Lord. “For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more” (Hebrews 8:12).
“In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Hebrews 8:13)
We see that the old covenant was not sufficient for us, and not without fault. For Paul mentions that the law is what showed us our sin and made us guilty in the first place. We can never completely atone for our own sin, even with the blood of animals, but by dying. If this was the end of the story, then all would be lost and hopeless. Without God being merciful and making a way for us, we would never be able to be with God, and we would perish under His judgement.
So, Jesus came and acted as our “high priest.” By His sacrifice, once and for all for the sins of mankind, He tore down the curtain separating us from the Holy of Holies, where God’s presence dwelled. Now, those who believe in Jesus can come to the Father clean and unashamed, having been atoned for by Christ’s blood.
As for those who do not abide in Christ, they are going to face the judgement of God, because they have rejected the mercy and grace of the Lord that He freely offers through His son. They could have recieved it, but they chose not to. Those people will ultimately be judged by God after they die, or when He comes.
But how are we to deal with disobedience to the law today, in the broader spectrum of government and capital punishment? If someone murders, are we not too punish them? If someone steals, are we to let them go free? That would seem unjust. Are we, as Christians, to ignore justice? By no means! God is just, and we are be like Him.
Micah 6:8 “He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?”
What does it mean to “do justly”? Where does mercy come into justice? It was mentioned right along with it.
We cannot have perfect justice in our governments or court systems, but we can rest in the fact that God is just, and will repay people according to their deeds on earth. But in my opinion, Dr. Reynolds made a good point when he said the punishment should fit the crime. Should we kill those who steal? Should we merely slap the hand of those who murder? Sin has, and should have, repercussions and consequences while we are here on earth. However, true and absolute judgement belongs to God, and God alone.
We also need to realize that we are all truly deserving of death, and not be hypocritical, condemning others to death when we struggle with sexual sins ourselves. For even looking upon a woman with lust is the same as committing adultery, according to Jesus. If we are to kill those who sin, then all of us should be dead. Where is the redemption in that? Where is the point in life if that is the case? We are going to sin no matter what, we canot control ourselves. Each of us is capable of such a thing as homosexuality. But let us rejoice that we are blameless in God’s sight because of Jesus.
We are all guilty as charged, and deserve to be killed. But the Lord is merciful with us, and has been from the very beginning. Let us not forget that He is so, and let us adopt His character. For mercy must be a prominent part of our character, as it is the Lord’s.
Now this particular law in Uganda targets only one group of sinners. In this, it is wrong; also because death is not a congruent punishment. However, if Uganda sets a death penalty for homosexuality, then it might as well set a death penalty for adultery, and a plethora of other sins. This is not a just law; it is unjust and unbalanced.
Now I know I am not to the level of intelligence that you all are, and I have not experienced as much as you. However I didn’t think from what I saw that much scripture was used in your arguments, and I thought I might be able to lovingly remind you of Jesus’ words. Let us always keep them at the forefront of our minds, meditating on them day and night, and not harden our hearts to God’s voice.
Thank you Dr. Reynolds for distracting me from my Torrey paper and giving me such a stimulating topic to think about.
December 3rd, 2009 | 9:42 pm | #51
“Now I know I am not to the level of intelligence that you all are, and I have not experienced as much as you.”
Ummm…Tirzah? You’re kidding right?
I read your post, no lack of intelligence and insight there.
Well done.
December 4th, 2009 | 12:21 am | #52
Tirzah,
You are welcome. Excellent post.
John Mark
December 5th, 2009 | 7:15 am | #53
[...] [From An Odious Law: Uganda and Homosexuality » Evangel | A First Things Blog] [...]
December 7th, 2009 | 10:36 am | #54
[...] Please read his entire essay. [...]
December 8th, 2009 | 2:07 am | #55
While I am thankful that most Christians, Evangelical and non Evangelical alike oppose this hideous law, it disturbs me that some, in a modern society, still hold to the belief that homosexuality is a sin! There are many things that the “God” of the OT thought worthy of condemnation and death! We hear much about the “evils” of homosexuality, yet blithely ignore the commandment to avoid eating shellfish. We hear much ranting about how gay marriage will undermine the fabric of society and traditional marriage, (an unfounded fear, since we have had legalized same sex marriage in Canada for several years), yet think nothing of donning our finest mixed blend fabrics for some good ‘ol Sunday Preachin’! Can no one see the inconsistency here?
Maybe the problem lies in the fact that people actually believe a document written and conceived of by fallible men thousands of years ago was inspired by some Supreme Deity? Religious belief creates more problems than it solves. And that is sad.
December 8th, 2009 | 4:28 am | #56
I believe that the law should be centered around justice. Now, as I try to explain often: justice is deliverance for the oppressed; punishment is not the same as justice in the Bible.
In short, I agree with the concerns of this post.
December 14th, 2009 | 9:40 am | #57
“A Christian can only support loss of liberty or the death penalty in order to protect society from peril to other citizens that cannot be handled in any gentler manner.”
Where do you get this from? Who determines what is or isn’t? You or God?
Homosexuals aren’t executed under this law. Homosexuals who rape little boys and intentionally pass HIV on to others are. HOW IS THAT NOT “peril to other citizens?”
I don’t know all the details of Ugandan law or the mixed motivation behind this bill. What I do know is that dismissing the OT law just because we don’t like it is a scary thing…in fact, we should be very careful about teaching others to stop observing the law (Matthew 5:19).
That doesn’t mean, and it’s a silly argument to suggest, that we keep every OT law…Jesus is the New Covenant sacrifice, therefore, we no longer have a sacrificial system. Some laws, like the one to build a fence on your roof, take some thinking through for application in our culture.
Others are pretty straightforward. Telling the Godly civil government that the maximum penalty for homosexuals is execution is one of them.
Maybe we should throw this one out…but I think I’ll need a little more than your opinion to base that on and teach others to do the same.
It seems like an odious law…but maybe that’s because we have our 21st century America sense of smell.
December 20th, 2009 | 8:42 pm | #58
John Reynolds is orthodox. The Byzantines and the Justinian Law Code did punished homosexual behavor. Justinian had some of the upper classes, and green circus fraction, and religious leaders castrated for homosexual behavior, and according to John Malas a historian during Justinian’s reign, some were killed as a result of these castarations. Constantine punished adultery by a man and woman by death. Only a handful of US Evangelicals support this, on the other hand, the Byzantine Empire did things similar to this in an earlier period. I doubt that most modern Orthodox support this bbut the Orhodox tend to blame protestants and roman Catholics for harsh behavior in earlier centuries and the Africians think in terms of dealing with sexual sins as in the Age of Justinian. Not to put Mr Reynolds down but earlier Christian societies use to have harsh penalities for sexual sins.
December 20th, 2009 | 10:02 pm | #59
Cynthia,
Thank you for your thoughtful post.
I think that judging very ancient societies by the standards of today is a bit like marveling at the poverty of our grandparents and being (just a bit!) smug about our relative prosperity. Our grandparents got us where we are today.
In the same way, laws and Christian understanding of how to implement the Christian ethic of love took time to develop. Christians built on the Roman model and kept improving it. Of course, sometimes things went backwards, but the progress was great. Byzantium had many good features by the standard of the time . . . but we would not want to live there now . . . anymore than I would want to live in 1930′s America!
We learn as we go.
Of course if Orthodox “blame” Protestant or Catholics for all the evils of the Church they are being silly . . . and wicked . . . a terrible combination.
To act, however, as if modern Uganda is an ancient society is more than a tad . . . insensitive . . . modern Uganda has modern science, medicine, and exposure to world class education. They can do better than this law . . . and I pray they will.
John Mark
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact