Roger Olson is fast becoming one of my favorite theologians and bloggers. This morning, he posted on the death penalty, on Palm Sunday of all days? Capital Punishment is sin- By Roger Olson
Why?
Well, is there a connection between the Romans torturing the Son of God and the electric chair/lethal injection that we use today? That the bodily resurrection of Christ affirms Jesus’s body as the Holy of Holies, and therefore our own bodies the same?
I believe so; that the ruling institutions of this world refuse to recognize the sanctity of human life is the reason why we the Church continue to have Holy Week.
Olson reminds us,
“Third, it usurps God’s place and assume’s a God-like right and power to take the life of a person created in God’s image and likeness.”
The ELCA has a Social Statement on the death penalty, but unfortunately it is a non-statement. There is much disagreement within the ELCA over this issue (although it’s non-divisive).
Yah,
It’s a hot issue here in Texas. On denominational levels, issues get real gray because of politics, i.e., money.
I’m underwhelmed by Olson’s responses to those who disagreed with him. One responder, for example, posted an essay-length point-by-point response. Olson’s reply: “You’re wrong. You didn’t read my entire post carefully.”
That’s it?
I had hoped for better. I was hoping for something that actually challenged me to rethink my support for the death penalty. Between the appeals to emotion, the red herrings, the straw men, and the flippant dismissals of disagreements, I remain unconvinced.
You remain unconvinced cuz you havent read my case v. the death penalty.
And I take offense to anti-death penalty advocates being the ones to appeal to emotion. If anything, it is actually the reverse.
“I take offense to anti-death penalty advocates being the ones to appeal to emotion. If anything, it is actually the reverse.”
I’m assuming that you mean that you take offense at my characterization of Olson’s argument. I do not intend to paint the entire anti-death-penalty movement as relying only on appeal to emotion, merely that certain elements of Olson’s specific argument in this case were appeals to emotion. I also do not deny that some pro-death-penalty advocate also engage in appeal to emotion at times.
What I want is an argument guided by reason, based on sound theological principles, and lacking in irrelevancies (for example, arguing that the death penalty should be abolished because it’s been abolished in other countries) and polemics (for example, arguing that pro-death-penalty advocates are all motivated by nothing but vengeful bloodlust). If you have one of those, I’m happy to give it my full attention.
I have all of the above. Maybe Ill get around too it again.