2002 REPORT OF THE UNIFIED COMMITTEE

ON THEOLOGY AND SOCIAL CONCERNS

 

 

I. MEETINGS, OFFICERS AND EXPIRATION OF TERMS

A. MEETINGS AND OFFICERS

The Unified Committee met September 28-29, 2001 and February 22-23, 2002 in Nashville, Tennessee. Officers of the committee are: Pat Driskell, chairperson; Kathy Wood-Dobbins, vice-chairperson; and Renee Curtiss, secretary. Also present at the Fall meeting was Robert Rush, Stated Clerk of the General Assembly.

 

B. EXPIRATION OF TERMS

The Unified Committee notes that the term of Dr. Robert McClure expires in 2002. Your committee has few responsibilities less appealing than to say farewell to a member who has served his church faithfully and who has been a loyal friend to those of us who have been honored to serve with him. Dr. Robert McClure departs having served nine years. We offer heartfelt thanks to God that this servant of our Lord brought his faith, intellect, humor, and gentle ways to our midst. Dr. McClure has faithfully served the Unified Committee for nine years, and is ineligible for re-election. The General Assembly owes a debt of gratitude for the work of Dr. McClure and his commitment to theological thinking on the concerns of society today.

 

RECOMMENDATION 1: That the Stated Clerk be directed to write a letter of appreciation to Dr. McClure and to his family for his time and commitment to both the Unified Committee on Theology and Social Concerns and to his church.

 

C. GENERAL ASSEMBLY REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH AND THE CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA

The Unified Committee will be represented at the General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church held June 17-21, 2002 by Chris Joiner and Jay Earheart-Brown as alternate. The representatives to the General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America held June 10-14 will be Readus Linton and Mary Thompson as alternate. Commissioners are invited to dialogue with these representatives about any phase of the Unified Committee’s work and activities.

 

II. CLONING

 

The Unified Committee appreciates the General Assembly’s position against the cloning of human beings. This issue continues to be of great concern to our committee because of ongoing activity in this area. We also have concerns with the related fields of genetic engineering and stem cell research. We will continue study of these topics and plan to request that Dr. Barbara Holmes assist us in our ethical and theological reflection on these issues. With Dr. Holmes’ help, the future hope of this Unified Committee, is to sponsor a variety of joint activities involving Memphis Theological Seminary, University of Tennessee Medical School, and others. For further study we recommend the Science, Religion and Technology Project of the Church of Scotland at http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/srtscot/cloning.shtml.

 

 

III. STATEMENT CONCERNING COLOMBIA, SOUTH AMERICA

 

Recently, violence and unrest have greatly increased in Liberia. Violence and unrest has risen to the point where the lives of Liberians are at risk. Therefore, the Unified Committee on Theology and Social Concerns encourages all Christians to lift up the people of Liberia in prayer. Let us not soon forget the pain and suffering that the people of Liberia are experiencing. The Unified Committee would like to encourage individuals and congregations to discover ways to support and empower the people of Liberia to put down their arms of death and destruction. Let us also encourage the people of Liberia to seek peace and justice for all people. Peace and reconciliation can be the future of Liberia. This can be accomplished when we realize the struggles in Liberia affect our entire world.

 

 

IV. CHURCHES UNITING IN CHRIST

 

On January 19-22, 2002, representatives of nine Protestant denominations, meeting in Memphis, inaugurated an ecumenical partnership called Churches Uniting in Christ (CUIC). Jay Earheart-Brown participated in the weekend of worship, plenary sessions, and workshops as an official observer from the Cumberland Presbyterian Church at the request of the Unified Committee on Theology and Social Concerns. Other official observers represented an additional fifteen denominations. The member denominations of CUIC include: African Methodist Episcopal Church, African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, Episcopal Church, International Council of Community Churches, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, and United Methodist Church. In addition to these nine member churches, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is a Partner in Mission and Dialogue.

 

As a part of the CUIC agreement, the member churches officially recognized one another as true churches in which the gospel is truly proclaimed and the sacraments rightly administered. The churches also formally pledged to work in partnership with one another in local communities, regularly sharing in worship, sacraments, and mission. Each member denomination will maintain its own denominational structure and identity.

The Unified Committee is studying whether or not the Cumberland Presbyterian Churches should consider formal membership or partnership in CUIC. We will report to a later Assembly on our recommendations.

 

 

V. FOLLOW-UP ON A DIRECTIVE FROM THE 171ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY

OF THE CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

 

This Unified Committee was directed by the 171st Assembly to “develop and/or list congregational resources that will empower the Christian community, by the grace of God, to pursue healing and reconciliation in all human relationships. We specifically request guidance, guidelines, and resources concerning premarital counseling that will enable the church to help couples build strong Christian marriages.”

 

The Unified Committee has much more study to do in this requested area. It is evident to the Committee that there is an ever growing need for couples to be adequately counseled and prepared for the sacredness of the marriage covenant. For now, your Committee offers the following resources in assisting pastors and church leaders engaged in premarital counseling with individuals:

 

1. The Confession of Faith for the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America

2. Pre-marriage Awareness Inventory Review Kit by Peter C. Valands available from Logos Productions: 1-800-328-0200 or www.joinhands.com

3. When a Couple Marries by Jim Taylor and Marion Barnett

4. Marriage and Sacrament by Michael Lawler

 

 

VI. STATEMENT ON THE TRAGEDY OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

 

Your Unified Committee met September 28-29, 2001 in the immediate aftermath of the event we have come to know as 9-11. Like the rest of our society, we were overwhelmed by the tragedy but we were also intensely aware of the need to bring our faith into play through theological reflection. We felt an obligation to call Cumberland Presbyterian Christians to do likewise. To this end, the following statement was published in The Cumberland Presbyterian. Though inadequate, we think this statement provides a starting place for our healing and for a renewal of hope.

 

“As your Unified Committee on Theology and Social Concerns met on September 28-29, 2001 we felt compelled to communicate with the Church in light of the devastating attacks on this nation that took place September 11th. Being compelled to speak is quite different from knowing what to say. We wanted, above all, to avoid the cheap theology and easy answers that so often plague the church and the nation at times like these. After quite some time of reflection and prayerful discussion three words seemed to focus the committee’s dialogue - maturity, inclusion, and healing.

 

We believe that the faith that we hold dear has an opportunity to mature in these trying times. The paradigm for living our lives has changed forever. The principalities and powers that we trusted for our security were revealed as inadequate and even ephemeral as the towers collapsed, the Pentagon burned, the planes collided, and the casualty list grew. The isolated ways we live our lives were called into question as neighbor turned to neighbor for support and strength. The casual relationship so many of us have with our God became a deep and tangible cry for help from the One Source of hope. Faith is maturing in these trying times. Let us encourage that sort of growth.

 

We also fear for those who suffer from continued acts of irrational violence and hate in this ever-widening cycle of terror. Innocent citizens who share the same democratic values that our nation espouses are being targeted for abuse, both physical and psychological, because of their faith. We call on Cumberland Presbyterian Christians to embrace our neighbors of various ethnic, religious, and national backgrounds and, in so doing, bear witness to the Christ who “breaks down the dividing walls.” We also call on our government for justice - but for justice against the guilty. We must resist the temptation to consider the innocents who might well suffer as “collateral” or “incidental” to the violence the world faces. May the nation that upholds justice for all extend the hand of compassion to those most affected by these disasters, wherever they may be.

 

We believe that this is a time for healing. Our minds and hearts could scarce believe the message of pain that our eyes couldn’t avoid. The scars of broken buildings and shattered lives bear overwhelming witness to the sin of this world. The incredible irony is that “by his scars we are healed.” No adjective could describe the pain we feel, the despair that we face, and the fear that confronts us. But Christ is our example. The Great Physician does not sleep nor has our God developed laryngitis. The comfort of the Holy Spirit and soothing ways of faith are already turning the tide in this epidemic. The God who spoke us into existence now speaks of new ways of existing. We call on Cumberland Presbyterian Christians to stand tall and stand firm as people who have been healed and who are called to bring healing. The greatest labor of our lives is before us. Let us begin that work encouraged by our own experiences of New Life in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

 

 

VII. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

 

A. THEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE UNITED STATES

 

Theological reflections on the death penalty in the United States should begin by establishing the social context of the death penalty as it is currently practiced in this country. Following this, an exegesis of two pertinent biblical texts traditionally used to oppose or defend the death penalty will be undertaken. These biblical texts will be brought into conversation with the Reformed Tradition as it is articulated in the Confession of Faith of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church/Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America. These social, biblical, and theological reflections will provide the foundation for a position recommended for adoption by the General Assembly of both the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America pertaining to the death penalty.

 

 

B. THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF THE DEATH PENALTY

 

1. Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries

Over half of the countries in the world have now abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Amnesty International’s latest information shows that:

• 75 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty for all crimes

• 14 countries have abolished the death penalty for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes

• 20 countries can be considered abolitionist in practice: they retain the death penalty in law but have not carried out any executions for the past 10 years or more making a total of 109 countries that have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. 86 other countries retain and use the death penalty, but the number of countries that actually execute prisoners in any given year is much smaller.

 

2. Progress Toward Worldwide Abolition

More than three countries a year on average have abolished the death penalty for all crimes in the past decade. Over 30 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty for all crimes since 1990. They include countries in Africa (examples include Angola, Cote d”Ivoire, Mauritius, Mozambique, South Africa), the Americas (Canada, Paraguay), Asia (Hong Kong, Nepal), Europe (Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Lithuania, Poland, Turkmenistan, Ukraine).

 

3. Moves to Reintroduce the Death Penalty

Once abolished, the death penalty is seldom reintroduced. Since 1985, over 40 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or, having previously abolished it for ordinary crimes, have gone on to abolish it for all crimes. During the same period only four abolitionist countries reintroduced the death penalty. One of them, Nepal, which reintroduced the death penalty for murder, has since abolished it for all crimes; one, the Philippines, has resumed executions, but there have been no executions in the other two (Gambia, Papua New Guinea).

4. Death Sentences and Executions

During 2000, at least 1,457 prisoners were executed in 27 countries and 3,058 people were sentenced to death in 65 countries. These figures include only cases known to monitoring agencies; the true figures are certainly higher. In 2000, 88 percent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA. In China, the limited and incomplete records available to monitoring agencies at the end of the year indicated that at least 1,000 people were executed, but the true figure was believed to have been much higher. In Saudi Arabia, 123 executions were reported, but the total may have been much higher. 85 people were executed in the USA. At least 75 executions were carried out in Iran. In addition, hundreds of executions were reported in Iraq but many of them may have been extrajudicial.

 

5. Use of Death Penalty Against Child Offenders

International human rights treaties prohibit anyone under 18 years of age at the time of the crime being sentenced to death. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child all have provisions to this effect. More than 110 countries whose laws still provide for the death penalty for at least some offenses have laws specifically excluding the execution of child offenders or may be presumed to exclude such executions by being parties to one or another of the above treaties. A small number of countries, however, continue to execute child offenders. Seven countries since 1990 are known to have executed prisoners who were under 18 years old at the time of the crime – Congo (Democratic Republic), Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, USA, and Yemen. The country that carried out the greatest number of known executions of child offenders was the USA (14 since 1990).

 

6. The Deterrence Argument

Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 1996, concluded: “Research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment and such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypotheses...”

 

7. Effect of Abolition on Crime Rates

Reviewing the evidence on the relation between changes in the use of the death penalty and crime rates, a study conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 1996 stated that “the fact that all the evidence continues to point in the same direction is a priori evidence that countries need not fear sudden and serious changes in the curve of crime if they reduce their reliance upon the death penalty.” Recent crime figures from abolitionist countries fail to show that abolition has harmful effects. In Canada, the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980, and since then it has declined further. In 1999, 23 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 1.76 per 100,000 population, 43 percent lower than in 1975. The total number of homicides reported in the country fell in 1999 for the third straight year.

 

8. International Agreements to Abolish the Death Penalty

One of the most important developments in recent years has been the adoption of international treaties whereby states commit themselves to not having the death penalty. Three such treaties now exist:

 

• The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has now been ratified by 43 states. Six other states have signed the Protocol, indicating their intention to become parties to it at a later date.

• Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“European Convention on Human Rights”), which has now been ratified by 39 European states and signed by three others.

• The Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty, which has been ratified by eight states in the Americas.

 

Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights is an agreement to abolish the death penalty in peacetime. The other two protocols provide for the total abolition of the death penalty but allow states wishing to do so to retain the death penalty in wartime as an exception.

 

9. Execution of the Innocent

As long as the death penalty is maintained, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated. Since 1973 more than 90 US prisoners have been released from death row after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. Some had come close to execution after spending many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defense representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt. The Governor of the US state of Illinois, George Ryan, declared a moratorium on executions in January, 2000. His decision followed the exoneration of the 13th death row prisoner found to have been wrongly convicted in the state since the USA reinstated the death penalty in 1977. During the same period, 12 other Illinois prisoners had been executed. Announcing the moratorium, Governor Ryan said, “I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state’s taking of innocent life...until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate.”

 

10. The Death Penalty in the USA

85 prisoners were executed in the USA in 2000, bringing to 683 the total number executed since the use of the death penalty was resumed in 1977. Over 3,700 prisoners were under sentence of death as of January 1, 2001. 38 of the 50 US states provide for the death penalty in law. The death penalty is also provided under US federal military and civilian law. 20,000 murders are committed in the USA each year. About 250 of these murderers are sentenced to death. An average of 17 persons a year have been executed by the states in the past six years. Someone who kills a white person is 11 times more likely to receive the death sentence than someone who kills a black person; a black person who kills a white person is 22 times more likely to receive the death sentence. 90 percent of the defendants who are sentenced to death cannot afford their own legal counsel. States that kill Death Row prisoners show no decrease in the murder rate.

 

 

C. BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE DEATH PENALTY

 

“It is tempting to pretend that minorities on Death Row share a fate in no way connected to our own, that our treatment of them sounds no echoes beyond the chambers in which they die. Such an illusion is ultimately corrosive, for the reverberations of injustice are not so easily confined...And the way in which we choose who will die reveals the depth of moral commitment among the living.” U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan

McClesky v. Kemp

 

1. The Bible and the Death Penalty

As Cumberland Presbyterians, we believe that the Bible is “the infallible rule of faith and practice.” As such, it provides the lens through which we interpret our reality and the base of our engagement with our culture and government. It is appropriate and necessary that we examine the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as we discuss capital punishment in the United States. The limits of this paper will not allow a treatment of all biblical texts used in relation to capital punishment. What follows is a brief exegesis of two texts often cited in support of or opposition to the death penalty. First, it will be important to say a word about proper and improper interpretation of scripture.

The Confession of Faith of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America establishes clear guidelines for the interpretation (exegesis) of biblical texts.

1.06 God’s word spoken in and through the scriptures should be understood in the light of the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The authority of the scriptures is founded on the truth contained in them and the voice of God speaking through them.

1.07 In order to understand God’s word spoken in and through the scriptures, persons must have the illumination of God’s own Spirit. Moreover, they should study the writings of the Bible in their historical settings, compare scripture with scripture, listen to the witness of the church throughout the centuries, and share insights with others in the covenant community.

 

We have observed these guidelines in our work with the texts that follow. It is not possible to simply lift out of context certain biblical texts and use them to prove a point, no matter which point one is trying prove. This is an improper use of scripture that serves to distort the total biblical witness. The exegesis that follows will take the guidelines of the Confession of Faith seriously. Any serious Christian interpretation of scripture must begin with “the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.” The ministry of Jesus as it was interpreted through Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John provide several opportunities for reflection on the death penalty.

 

2. Biblical Reflections

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.”

 

This text comes within the larger context of the Sermon on the Mount, a collection of teachings of Jesus that Matthew places toward the beginning of his gospel. These teaching form the foundation of a particular ethic that becomes central to Matthew’s gospel, and plays a central role in the other gospels as well: the ethic of the cross. Simply put, Jesus’ birth, life, death, and resurrection takes on the tenor of suffering love. The rubric of suffering love is one that forms a people into the shape of the cross. A particular people, formed by the cross, no longer conducts itself according to the laws of retribution, but according to the law of grace. This text from Matthew must be seen in this larger context or else we run the risk of proof-texting. Jesus is teaching a new way of life in this text, a life that is cruciform in its shape. Most of Jesus’ teachings and ministry actions can be seen within this theologia crucis, theology of the cross (Martin Luther).

 

Those who argue against the death penalty see this as a foundational text. In this teaching it is clear that Jesus is speaking against a form of justice that seeks retribution for injustice. Instead of retribution, Jesus teaches that injustice be met with a suffering love that is willing to sacrifice rights for the sake of grace. By directly quoting a law from the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) that is often used by death penalty proponents to support their view, Jesus in essence reinterprets it in light of suffering love.

 

Those who argue for the death penalty see this text as a specific example of interpersonal relationships, but not intended to be applied to governmental policy. Indeed, they argue, to take this text as a Christian and try to apply it to secular governmental policies, is to breach the line that separates church and state. Christians would certainly practice grace and forgiveness when they have been personally wronged, always seeking reconciliation between parties in a conflict. But the government has certain communal responsibilities pertaining to its role to protect society and maintain order that compel it to exercise justice according to the severity of the crime committed. The death penalty is one means of exercising this governmental responsibility. Death penalty advocates argue that Christians are naive at best to think that Jesus’ ethic of suffering love can be legislated. Are we to simply release all prisoners, since incarceration is a form of justice and punishment for offenders of society’s laws? It seems a slippery slope toward chaos when we open the door for an ethic such as this to hold sway in our society.

 

These arguments from death penalty proponents emerge from a particular understanding of the role of government that takes its cue from Romans 13, to which we now turn.

 

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:1-4 NRSV).

 

It is clear in this passage that we are being called as Christians to support the government as a servant of God for order. The authority of government bears the sword in order to punish the bad, not the good. Therefore, death penalty proponents see capital punishment as a legitimate use of this sword for the purposes of justice and order. Others read this text as affirming government, as long as government exercises its laws within the larger context of God’s purposes. However, this cannot be seen as a blanket endorsement of all that a government seeks to do. Paul Achtemeier writes, “Is the Christian under obligation to support whatever policies the governing authorities may deem appropriate, whether these policies are for the good of the people or simply for the purpose of keeping those governing authorities in power? Is that what these verses mean? That is the interpretation given to them in the late thirties and early forties of the twentieth century by a group within the Protestant church in Germany, who for nationalistic reasons called themselves ‘German Christians.’” Does Paul here make Christians obligated to obey all the laws of whatever government happens to hold power over them? Does this passage mean that we are to unequivocally give Christian approval and sanction to whatever our government does, simply because it happens to be our government? The answer, they argue, is no. Whenever Christians see a clear conflict between a governmental policy and the teachings of Jesus Christ, they should oppose that policy and do all in their power to influence its removal.

 

Christians should not frivolously disregard civil authority. As long as government is acting as a servant of God, by upholding justice and maintaining order, it is to be obeyed and supported. If government, however, acts in ways contrary to God’s will and way in the world, it is to be opposed. Death penalty opponents believe the United States has a healthy protest tradition that is built into our democratic society, enabling us to peacefully petition the government, using all the tools of moral and political power at our disposal, to challenge injustice. If a church discerns that a particular law is either in fact unjust, or unjustly administered, it is not precluded by this text from challenging that law.

 

While we all look to the Bible as our infallible rule of faith and practice, we can and do interpret it with some diversity. Any statement by a church body will not end this diversity. Therefore, we encourage the continual engagement with scripture on the part of all our members as we continue to struggle with this important issue.

 

 

D. THE CONFESSION OF FAITH

 

What does the Confession of Faith of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America say to us about the ways we can approach this issue faithfully as Cumberland Presbyterians? The law of God is taken up in Sections 1.19-1.22 of the Confession.

 

1.19 God gives the moral law to govern human actions and relations. It is the principle of justice woven into the fabric of the universe and is binding upon all persons.

 

1.20 The moral law is a gift of God’s grace. While it consists of the basic principles of justice revealed in the scriptures and upheld by God, it does not wholly describe the pattern of his actions toward persons. The judgment of God, in which the moral law is upheld, is, at the same time, an expression of redemptive love.

 

1.21 The moral law is fulfilled in the gospel. Therefore, the behavior of Christians in human relations should reflect the pattern of God’s behavior toward them, in which love and justice are intertwined.

 

1.22 The purpose of the moral law is to create wholeness or health in human life – spiritually, mentally, physically, socially. Therefore, it is the intention of the moral law that the forces of human personality which create integrity of life in all its aspects be used to achieve that wholeness.

 

Here we see clearly articulated a view of God’s justice that recognizes that God’s sovereign justice is always in the direction of redemption, and that love and justice are expressions of the same grace of God. It is hard to reconcile a punishment that is as unforgiving and as final as death with the restorative and redemptive justice-love of God. We echo our Lutheran sisters and brothers by calling for a society ruled by the law and influenced and nourished by the Gospel of Christ. Renewed by the Gospel, Christians, as salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13) and light of the world (Matthew 5:14), are called to respond to violent crime in the restorative way taught by Jesus (Matthew 5:38-39) and shown by his actions (John 8:3-11). Following Jesus leads to a commitment to restorative justice. This commitment means addressing the hurt of each person whose life has been touched by violent crime. Restorative justice makes the community safer for all. It is a reflection of our ministry to and with people affected by violent crime that we oppose the death penalty. “Executions focus on the convicted murderer, providing very little for the victim’s family or anyone else whose life has been touched by the crime. Capital punishment focuses on retribution, sometimes reflecting a spirit of vengeance. Executions do not restore broken society and can actually work counter to restoration.” (A Social Statement on the Death Penalty: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America).

 

We believe that opposition to the death penalty is a more adequate reflection of the Confession of Faith’s articulation of the moral law of God as an expression of redemptive love, and that restorative justice most closely approximates the justice/love that God wills for all humankind. The Confession of Faith, under the heading “Christian Freedom,” describes the proper relationship

between Christians and governing authorities:

 

6.04 Believers who, under the pretext of Christian freedom, defy the proper exercise of just and lawful authority, either civil or ecclesiastical, are subject to the discipline of the church.

 

6.05 Christians owe ultimate allegiance to Jesus Christ as Lord, and must never yield that ultimate allegiance to any government or nation, and should in Christian conscience oppose any form of injustice.

 

Again we see the tension between obeying and supporting the laws of the state and opposing those laws that we determine to be in conflict with the teachings of Christ, to whom we owe our ultimate allegiance. If, as we argue, the death penalty is unjust on many grounds, then it is the responsibility of Cumberland Presbyterians to oppose it.

 

Finally, the Confession of Faith deals more explicitly with the nature of civil government:

 

6.27 The purpose of civil government is to enable God’s creation to live under the principles of justice and order. As it faithfully upholds the welfare of God’s creation, civil government lies within the purpose of God and functions as a useful instrument to enable people to live in harmony and peace.

6.30 The covenant community, governed by the Lord Christ, opposes, resists, and seeks to change all circumstances of oppression – political, economic, cultural, racial – by which persons are denied the essential dignity God intends for them in the work of creation.

 

6.31 The covenant community affirms the lordship of Christ, who sought out the poor, the oppressed, the sick, and the helpless. In her corporate life and through her individual members, the church is an advocate for all victims of violence and all those whom the law or society treats as less than persons for whom Christ died. Such advocacy involves not only opposition to all unjust laws and forms of injustice but even more support for those attitudes and actions which embody the way of Christ, which is to overcome evil with good.

 

Here we find the Confession of Faith boldly advocating for Christians to stand and oppose, resist, and seek to change all circumstances of oppression. We believe that the death penalty in the United States is an oppressive and unjust reality that all Christians should seek to change. We see this change as part of our ministry to and with persons who are the victims of violent crime.

 

As the previous excerpts from the Confession of Faith make clear, Cumberland Presbyterians hold that, through the divine activity of the law, God preserves creation, orders society, and promotes justice in a broken world. God works through the state and other structures of society necessary for life in the present age. The state is responsible under God for the protection of its citizens and the maintenance of justice and public order. However, this does not mean that governments have the right to take life. Nor does it mean that governments must punish crime by death. We increasingly question whether the death penalty has been and can be administered justly.

 

E. A CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN RESPONSE TO THE DEATH

PENALTY

 

Violent crime is as ancient as humankind. Since Cain slew Abel, the blood of countless victims has cried out to the Lord (Genesis 4:10). Our hearts, too, cry out to the Lord who gives life whenever we see persons, families, and nations victimized by violence. We grieve with the families and friends of the victimized in our society. Furthermore, we agree with our friends in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America that “violent crime has a powerful, corrosive effect on society. Bonds of trust, the very assumptions that allow us to live our lives in security and peace, break down when violence strikes. Instead of living, we fear our neighbor. We especially fear the stranger.” We are angered and saddened by violence and the injustice involved in it. We, too, want to hold accountable those who commit violent crimes. Our valuing of human life and our understanding that all of life is sacred demands a response when violence threatens and destroys the life that we so cherish.

 

However, as followers of Jesus Christ, we also recognize that our feelings of sadness and anger make us vulnerable to feelings of revenge and cause us to long for simple solutions, often, overly-simplistic solutions. One such solution is currently embraced by the majority within the United States and is codified as law in 38 states: capital punishment. We are convinced by the overwhelming evidence cited elsewhere in this document that the death penalty is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Moreover, we are convinced that the death penalty, as it is currently practiced in the United States, is unjust. It disproportionately punishes the poor and persons of color. It condemns to death and executes persons who were minors when they committed their crimes and persons who are mentally handicapped. In addition to this, the death penalty has not proven to be any more of a deterrent to violent crime than the possibility of lifetime incarceration. All these factors, combined with recent efforts by governments of various states to address this issue, compels us to make the following statement as Cumberland Presbyterians:

 

We believe the death penalty is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

We believe the death penalty violates the confession of Faith’s understanding of God’s justice being tempered with love.

We believe that the government’s use of death as an instrument of justice places the state in the role of God, who alone is sovereign.

We believe the use of the death penalty in a representative democracy places citizens in the role of executioner. Christians cannot isolate themselves from corporate responsibility, including responsibility for every execution, as well as for every victim.

We believe there are currently no adequate safeguards to insure that innocent persons are not executed by the state.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 2: That the General Assemblies of the CPC and CPCA churches reaffirm the decision of the 1977 General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, that “Cumberland Presbyterians support measures to abolish the use of the death penalty,” and that the General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America declare our opposition to the death penalty.

 

RECOMMENDATION 3: That the General Assembly of the CPC and CPCA churches call upon governing bodies and members of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America to work for the abolition of the death penalty in those states which currently have death penalty statutes, and against efforts to reinstate such statutes in those which do not.

 

RECOMMENDATION 4: That the General Assembly of the CPC and CPCA churches urge continuing study of issues related to capital punishment within presbyteries and local congregations of the two denominations.

 

RECOMMENDATION 5: That the Stated Clerks of the CPC and CPCA notify the President and Congress of the United States, and all the state governors and legislatures of the action taken.

 

 

F. CALL FOR A MORATORIUM

 

Our brothers and sisters in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and nineteen other religious groups have recently issued the following call for a moratorium on the death penalty in the United States:

 

“There is strong evidence that the death penalty is applied in a racist manner. In 1990, the United States General Accounting Office reported a pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in charging, sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty: ‘Nationwide, 82% of those put to death have been convicted of murdering a white person even though people of color are the victims in more than half of all homicides. In 82% of their studies, race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving a death sentence, i.e., than those who murdered blacks. This finding was remarkably consistent across data sets, states, data collection methods, and analytic techniques. The finding held for high, medium, and low quality studies.’ (U. S. General Accounting Office, Report GGD-90-57, Death Penalty Sentencing: Research Indicates Pattern of Racial Disparities, February 26, 1990, at 5). ‘Of the recorded 17,000 legal executions in the history of the United States, only 35 have been for white killing black, and a mere five of those have occurred since capital punishment recommenced in 1975.’ (Michael L. Radelet, Executions of Whites for Crimes Against Blacks: Exceptions to the Rule?, 30 Soc. Q 529, 1989). The United States Congress has failed repeatedly to pass the Racial Justice Act, which would allow prisoners to challenge their death sentences using standards  recognized as normal in civil racial discrimination cases. Prisoner appeals have been severely curtailed, increasing the risk of imprisonment and execution of innocent people: ‘Gross deficiencies exist in the area of representation of indigent defendants. In a series of rulings since 1991, the Supreme Court has drastically restricted the rights of death row prisoners to appeal their convictions and death sentences in federal courts, even in cases where prisoners present compelling evidence of innocence. Counsel for impoverished capital defendants are most often under trained and underpaid. Judges routinely deny lawyers’ requests to hire experts or to pay for investigative fees.’ (Marcia Coyle, Carter Center Symposium on the Death Penalty. Georgia State University Law Review, pp 379-380, 1997). About 90% of those persons facing capital charges cannot afford their own attorney. No state has met standards approved by the American Bar Association for appointment, performance, and compensation of counsel for indigent prisoners.

 

On January 31, 2000, Governor George H. Ryan of Illinois declared a moratorium on executions of any more death row inmates in his state. In 1996, new legislation drastically limited federal court review of death penalty appeals and gutted public funding of legal aid services for death row prisoners. Many of the states with established death rows are considering moratorium resolutions similar to the one declared by Governor Ryan. The American Bar Association had concluded that administration of the death penalty is a haphazard maze of unfair practices with no internal consistency. In February 1997, the ABA House of Delegates adopted an extensive Death Penalty Moratorium Resolution. In June 1997, nineteen diverse religious organizations united to call for a nationwide moratorium on executions. To date, more than seven hundred religious and secular organizations are sounding a clear and visible public call for a moratorium on executions now. “And what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8).

 

RECOMMENDATION 6: That the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America join the Call for a Moratorium by:

 

1. Calling for an immediate moratorium on all executions in all jurisdictions that impose capital punishment.

2. Directing the Stated Clerks of the CPC and CPCA General Assemblies to communicate the call for an immediate moratorium to the President of the United States, our representatives in Congress, as well as the governors and legislators of the 23 states with persons incarcerated while awaiting execution.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

The Unified Committee on Theology and Social Concerns

 

Home