The Two Kingdoms: a case study
I don't recall hearing about this in the media. Did you?
Last July 19 Iran publicly hanged two young men.
They were not murderers. They were not child molesters. They were not Israeli or American spies.
They were not rapists, nor terrorists, or even thieves. They weren't even gossips.
They were gay.
Well, maybe they were gay. They admitted- probably under torture- having had gay sex. It isn't clear whether this was a long-standing habit or an isolated incident. They were, in any case, apparently about sixteen at the time. There is no accusation that they did anything to "recruit" anyone to a "lifestyle." In fact, the evidence seems to suggest that they didn't even fully comprehend what they were doing- or that it was seen by their own religion as a sin.
Anti-regime sources say that over 4,000 gays and lesbians have been executed in Iran since the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power and established the Islamic Republic in 1979. Or at least people convicted of having committed one or more homosexual acts.
One does not have to be a moral relativist to regard those responsible for this as barbarians. In fact- and this is a point the social Left tends to miss- it rather helps not to be. No, all one needs is a healthy understanding of the Two Kingdoms- and of God's desire, not for the death of the wicked, but that they should turn from their ways, and live.
And before anybody even says it, the civil law of the Old Testament doesn't apply today. Nor do these executions contribute to the public order, or to the safety of the innocent. My categorization of the Ayatollahs as barbarians would also apply to anyone so self-righteous as to defend this crime, which can, indeed, be defended only on the ground that the person doing the defending is morally superior to these two young men.
Which is, of course, a claim no good Christian should presume to make- though all too many do.
Old Testament purity laws aside, should conversion or execution be seen by Christian believers as the God-pleasing remedy here? Remember, we are not speaking murder or rape. There is no victim other than the perpetrators themselves. This isn't even the equivalent of hanging gossips, from the standpoint of government's divine mandate to protect public order and the protection of the innocent.
HT: ¡No Pasarán!
ADDENDUM: Pr. Tom Chryst makes the very valid comment that all sins- including homosexual acts- have indirect consequences for others, so that strictly speaking these are not "victimless" sins.
I agree. I also agree that homosexuality should be tolerated no more than gossip or heterosexual lust. Which leaves, of course the question- and I think Pr. Chryst would agree with me about this- of whether it's the State's role to make public examples of those who commit those sins, either.
For selfish reasons, I hope not.
Comments
Perhaps not DIRECT victims. But every sin we commit has ramifications for other people. Homosexuality, when "accepted" (or even tolerated), like any sin, can lead others to think "it's not so bad... look, they do it!"
But of course- not that you're saying otherwise- to not hang homosexuals is not necessarily to accept their behavior.
Is it to tolerate it? I don't necessarily think so- though that word needs to be unpacked. I agree that homosexuality should be tolerated no more than gossip, lust, or any other sin. But then, we don't generally call upon the civil government to make examples of people who are guilty of those sins- and a good thing, too.
Just recently I had a conversation via email with a fellow blogger who defended Luther's argument that birth control is sinful- on the ground of a medieval understanding of the relationship between sperm and egg, viz, that the sperm contained all the genetic information, and that the egg was merely the medium in which it grew. Essentially, Luther's argument depended on the notion that birth control is the moral equivalent of abortion!
Remove the scientifically bogus premise, and the argument (including the exegetical argument- a dubious one at best) collapses. Unfortunately, some are so intent on repristinating Luther's thought that they don't see that, in the absence of its discredited rationale, his very argument transgresses not only his principle of Christian liberty, but even the sola Scriptura.
Same here. There just is no basis in Scripture (other than in the civil law, which Luther conceded didn't apply to us)for executing adulterers. Or gossips, either.
The left hand kingdom has many options for regulating behavior. From slap-on-the-wrist to execution. All under the "power of the sword".
Furthermore, all "left-hand-sins", if I may coin a phrase, are not equal. So it's up to the rulers to determine what "punishment" fits what "crime".
Personally, while I don't think execution is called for, I DO think homosexuality is to be distinguished, in the left hand kingdom especially, from "lesser" sins. What that means in terms of punishment, I don't know.
It is an interesting question which I think has lots of other spin-offs. Remember the American kid who got caught doing graffitti in Singapore? They wanted to give him a caning (the penalty under their very strict law). I don't recall what happened, but it was an interesting study int he left-hand kingdom.
But no, public humiliation is not something I am big on. However, there is a part of me that laments the passing of laws against sodomy and such. Even if not strictly enforced, they still offer a kind of social commentary on morality.
What is considered good, neutral or bad in a given left-hand soceity is another interesting quesiton. I certainly don't support the shifting of homosexuality into the "good" category, as seems to be the agenda.
I do not dismiss "slippery-slide" arguments out of hand. But I'm afraid I don't see the slide between not hanging gay people and performing gay marriages.
Or for that matter not fining them. That something is not punished by the civil law does not equate to approval even by civil law.
In an abstract sense, it's certainly true, as I conceded earlier, that there is no sin we commit which does not affect others. However, it does not follow that every sin therefore is appropriately punished by the State. If homosexuality, again- why not gossip?
Yes, it's up to the rulers to decide what punishment fits the crime. But it doesn't therefore follow that whatever punishment rulers decide upon is justified. Rejecting Christ is a sin. Was Hitler therefore justified in building the death camps for the Jews? I think not. Well, then- how about the homosexuals put to death at Auchwicz and Buchenwald? I know you're not suggesting
that, Tom, but it seems to me that you're on a "slippery slide" of your own.
I'd suggest that a society which accepts homosexuality as just another sexual alternative is a morally sick one. I'd say the same about a society executes double parkers, even though that crime, too, would fall under the power of the sword. So would a society which canes kids who put graffiti on walls- or hangs
teenagers for sexually experimenting, perhaps only once, with members of their own gender.
He who wields the sword is obligated, after all, to be just.
My, but I wish it were possible to edit comments! :)
What I am seeking to clarify, perhaps via a blog comment version of thinking out loud, is this: What makes one government's punishment for a certain sin just, and another unjust?
If Great Britain gives 2 years for, say, statutory rape, and the U.S. gives 4 years... or if Singapore canes for graffitti and the U.S. gives a small fine, or if Iran hangs gays, but the U.S. fines for public lewdness or something... I agree with the major "yuck" factor here for hanging homosexuals. Of course it is silly to execute for gossip. But these seem more emotional answers than springing from a principle (note spelling!) ;-).
So what is the principle here? I tend to agree, Bob, that just because a government issues a certain punishment does not make it just. On the other hand, what does?
I think we also have a difficult question to answer here regarding the OT crimes worthy of capital punishment. Sure, we don't live in the nation-state of ancient Israel. But is there an over-arching principle which determines what is an allowable punishment for ALL times and ALL governments? If so, then that leaves us with some interesting problems regarding what you could get kil't for in the OT.
Principles?
I'll suggest one: the severity of the offense (and ensuing punishment) should have some proportion to the damage done to victims. Of course I just got done arguing that all sins victimize others, but here I am going to turn around and argue a matter of degree. Some sins committed in public have much more effect on others than those committed in private too... this could get complicated, I fear... though I am enjoying the discussion. Church-state Left-hand/Right-hand theology is one of my interest areas.
Thoughts?
Luther was "wrong" for lamenting that the State was not punishing adulterers? On what basis do you make that judgment? I'm not following.
Also, Luther didn't argue "onanism" was morally evil simply due to bad medieval science. He said it contradicted God's command, "Be fruitful and multiply."
I started to reply in detail, and found my
reply reaching such a length and broaching so many new issues that I decided that a new entry might be the way to say what I had to say, and to continue this discussion. Thanks for engaging me in it, BTW. This is what the blogosphere does so very well, and I'm glad to see such an important, stimulating, and well-argued thread developing here!
Luther interpreted the command "Be fruitful and multiply," given to Adam and Eve in the Garden, as applying- without distinction or exception- to the entire human race. This view can be defended neither on the basis of logic nor of any other passage in Scripture-
except the story of Onan (amplified, it should be admitted, by a series of other passages dubiously cited as teaching the sanctity of sperm- but only when interpreted with it in the light of the inaccurate biological model Luther used).
Only Onan renders Luther's position exegetically comprehensible. To suggest otherwise would be to implicitly suggest- contra Luther, BTW- that every command in Scripture is given to everyone, regardless of time or place, remainds binding on us.
Certainly a divine directive given to the only two people on Earth to populate the planet does not logically translate into a universal prohibition of birth control. Luther was too bright to have taken that position without the biological argument (which we now know to be bogus) to back him up.