Justice, Insanity, and Moral Outrage

The moral universe that can declare Andrea Yates “not guilty by reason of insanity” no longer deserves to be called moral at all. Justice holds that there is right that should be rewarded and encouraged and wrong that should be restrained and punished. This has nothing to do with vengeance, but it has everything to do with justice. Punish her lightly if the insanity is deemed a mitigating circumstance, but do not say that she is not guilty. As it stands she could be released if she is no longer deemed a threat.

What is wrong is wrong, whether the perpetrator understands the concept of wrong or not. Placing the phrase “not guilty” next to the name Andrea Yates is an outrage. She committed heinous crimes: she drowned her five children one by one. They struggled against her. She covered their dead bodies with a sheet. No one doubts that she did this.

The whole nation should be outraged that she has been declared not guilty. The fact that there has not been a public outcry shows that we no longer understand the concepts of good and evil, true and false, right and wrong, just and unjust. And if we understand them, we do not value them enough to act on them, to stand for them, or to object when they are violated.

The justice system has surrendered personal responsibility along with the concepts of virtue and character. These have been replaced by a denial of what it means to be human in the assertion that people are not responsible for what they do.

In the immoral world that we live in, it feels to me as though what I am saying in this post is harsh. But I am not being harsh. I am simply calling for justice.

If we are going to be a just society, we must promote good behavior and restrain evil behavior. If we are going to be a just society, we must punish those who do evil. If we are going to do justice, it does not matter whether or not a criminal is insane. What matters is whether or not a crime was committed. If the crime was committed, we should pursue justice.

When a crime is committed, it is unjust to declare the criminal—who clearly committed the crime beyond any reasonable doubt—not guilty. Calling Andrea Yates “not guilty” does not make her not guilty, it only makes our justice system unjust.

Whether the justice system in the USA acts like it or not, right is right and wrong is wrong—even if those who commit crimes don’t realize it. Justice demands that crimes be punished. When crimes are not punished, injustice is done. But as David Wells says in God and the Wasteland, there is a final line of resistance to all that is evil in the world, and one day he will execute justice. Let us flee to his mercy, which is only to be found in Christ, and let us pray for the souls of those involved in this tragic denial of justice.

What Love Is This?

I have said before that I think Eric Schumacher is one of the best poets of our day, and he has penned another lovely hymn called What Love Is This?

We sing Eric’s hymns from time to time at Redeemer, and I suspect we will praise God together with this one sometime soon.

Congratulations to the Schumacher’s on the birth of their son Elijah!

Genesis 3:15: The Protoevangelion

I’ll never forget hearing Tommy Nelson argue that the first promise of the Gospel comes in Genesis 3:15. Nelson pointed out that when the text speaks of the serpent’s head being crushed, it says “He will crush your head,” and I remember him saying something like, “that’s a singular, masculine pronoun, ultimately pointing to Jesus.”

Many scholars in the recent past have discarded the idea that Genesis 3:15 is a protoevangelion, and this was driven by several considerations. First, it was observed that the term “seed” (in the phrase, “I will put enmity between your seed and her seed, and he will crush your head . . .”) is often used to refer to a group of people rather than to an individual. Second, if Genesis 3:15 is so important, they asked, why isn’t it quoted in the rest of the Old Testament, and why aren’t there quotations of it in the New Testament? And then one of my professors actually mocked the idea that the snake was Satan. He said that we had to start getting rid of the myths somewhere–that’s what he said, and I studied at evangelical schools.

In an essay that just appeared in this summer’s issue of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, I try to address these issues. First, as Jack Collins and T. Desmond Alexander have persuasively argued, the term “seed” is a collective singular, which means that it can refer to an individual or a group (others hold this too, such as E. Earle Ellis and H. Wheeler Robinson). Second, Tom Schreiner drew my attention to the way that the Old Testament resonates with imagery that grows out of Genesis 3:15 (again, others argue this way, and they’re cited in the essay). And as for the snake being Satan, well, in Revelation, John refers to “that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan” (Rev 12:9), and the opinion of a modern scholar doesn’t carry the weight of an inspired biblical author.

So in an essay called “The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15” I try to identify all the places in the Old and New Testaments where imagery, language, and concepts from Genesis 3:15 get interpreted. The footnotes point to many passages in extra-biblical literature that may interpret Genesis 3:15. I am of the opinion that we should read the Bible the way the biblical authors read earlier passages of Scripture, and I think that from the moment Genesis 3:15 was spoken those who were saved by faith were saved by faith in the coming deliverer whom God promised would crush the head of the serpent.

Can Women Be Elders?

I really hope that people aren’t looking to weblogs for answers to questions like these, but since many probably are, I think it’s worthwhile to respond to a series of questions that came up in the comments section of a previous post. I think that someone wrestling with these issues should ask themselves this question: which position (women can be elders—egalitarian, or women should not be elders—complementarian) would be the easiest position to take given our culture and the spirit of our age.

I think the clear answer to that question is that it fits better with our culture to say that women can be elders (even though some people may be uncomfortable at the thought of actually having a woman as their senior pastor). In theory, at least, it’s easier to take the egalitarian position.

The next question, it seems to me, should be this one: why is it that some people don’t take the egalitarian position? Setting aside the possibility that they are un-enlightened (which is to say, stupid), and the possibility that they are just plain mean, let’s grant that they must have good reasons for taking this position that makes them seem mean and stupid and fundamentalistic. Why would anyone be a complementarian?

Anyone who wants to understand why some people hold so firmly to the complementarian position should check out what complementarians say for themselves. So I suggest you browse the website of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, pick up a copy of Wayne Grudem’s book, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, see the excellent book by Schreiner and Köstenberger, Women in the Church, or even read my essay, “What Women Can Do in Ministry: Full Participation within Biblical Boundaries.” If you want to understand complementarians, these are the kinds of things you should examine.

As I mentioned, several questions were posted in the comments section of this blog on a recent post, so here are my brief responses to those questions:

Deon asked if the complementarian position means that women cannot be called of God and are in direct rebellion against the Lord.

Women can be called of God to teach. Paul instructs older women to teach the younger women (Titus 2), and obviously women should teach children (young males who are not considered “men,” as in “adult men”, see Proverbs). But everyone who has a calling must pursue what they have been called to do within the instructions given by God. Nadab and Abihu were called to serve the Lord as priests. They didn’t bother with God’s instructions and got struck dead (Lev 10). If the Bible says that women are not to teach or exercise authority over men, then the women who feel called to teach and lead cannot teach and lead men. If they do so, they are not obeying the Bible.

Micah asks whether the cultural attitude toward women influences what Paul says.

Again, note that when Paul explains why women should not teach and exercise authority over men in 1 Tim 2:13–15 the reasons he gives come from Genesis 1–2. Paul appeals to the pre-fall created order, which indicates that his instructions are based on the nature of God’s creation rather than on societal norms. Paul’s teaching here is trans-cultural.

Micah also comments on the fact that women are to “learn quietly with all submissiveness.”

Note that the same Greek word for “quietly” in 1 Tim 2:11 is used in 1 Tim 2:2 when Paul refers to a “peaceful and quiet life.” I do not think that Paul is saying that women should never utter a syllable in church, because living a peaceful and quiet life doesn’t mean never speaking! Also, I think the instructions for women to remain silent in 1 Corinthians 14:34 refer to the time when the prophecies are being evaluated spoken of in 1 Corinthians 14:29. Paul has already said in 1 Corinthians 11 that women can pray and prophesy in church, and I don’t think he forgot what he said in chapter 11 when he wrote chapter 14. So I think he means for women to be silent when the prophecies are evaluated, lest a woman exercise authority over a man by evaluating his prophecy.

Micah asks about the case of Deborah.

The book of Judges is not exactly a how-to-manual for Christian worship. It’s a book that describes a period in Israel’s history when the nation was wicked and “there was no king in Israel, and everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg 17:6; 21:25). Deborah tells Barak, a man, that he’s the one who should be leading the people, and that since he won’t do what he should, “the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman” (Judg 4:9). Deborah herself chastises this man because he lets a woman lead. So the example of Deborah doesn’t override the explicit command to the Christian church in 1 Timothy 2:12. In fact, I think the story of Deborah actually argues more for the complementarian position than the egalitarian, given Deborah’s perspective on the matter (see Judg 4:9).

Micah asks about Galatians 3:28.

This verse is not saying that all role distinctions are abolished. It is simply saying that everyone who believes in Jesus is united to him by faith in the same way. Paul had not forgotten that he had written Galatians 3:28 when he wrote 1 Timothy 2:12. Everyone is on equal footing before the cross. Everyone is united to Christ by faith. But this doesn’t obliterate gender roles and racial distinctions. Paul is talking about being justified by faith in Jesus in Galatians 3:28. He is not addressing whether women can teach men or exercise authority over them. He addressed that in 1 Timothy 2:12.

As for slaves, it seems that Paul addresses them where they are. He instructs them to glorify God through faithful service, and he instructs masters to fear God and treat slaves well. He does indicate, through a book like Philemon, that Christians should move beyond slavery. By contrast, he never indicates that Christians should move beyond gender. Rather, he explains that gender roles are for the glory of God.

Prayer of the Month for August

August got going yesterday, but I couldn’t get to this until today. Apologies for being a day late. This month I’ll be praying this prayer:

^ESV Philippians 1:9–11 And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, ¹⁰ so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, ¹¹ filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.

I have found it helpful to begin the day with solemn intercession for myself, my family, the folks at our church, and others I’m praying for using this prayer. I name the people for whom I’m petitioning, and then I ask the Lord to do these things in Philippians 1:9–11 for them. Then I let the Lord bring people to mind and pray this prayer for them.

The idea is not to quickly read through this prayer and tick the box that it’s done. Rather, we want to have our brains rewired so that when we think about prayer we think the way Paul thought. And then we want to be mindful of what we are asking the Lord to do throughout the day. We don’t pray through this thing and move on. We pray through it and then ask the Lord to bring it to mind as we face temptation, come up against challenges, move from task to task, and have spare moments throughout the day.

“Watch and pray that you enter not into temptation” –Jesus

Schreiner on Preaching and Biblical Theology

The latest issue of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology is out from Southern Seminary, and Tom Schreiner has a great essay on Preaching and Biblical Theology. He gives crisp explanations of what Biblical Theology is and how it should inform our preaching. He also diagnoses the challenges we are facing with precision and love, showing us how a renewal of Biblical Theology from the pulpit can bring health to the church. Go read it here.

What Is Baptism and Is It Worth Dying For?

In one of the best sermons I’ve read in a while, Eric Schumacher explains what Baptism is and why it’s worth dying for. This is a must read.

Luther on Baptism

According to this quote, Martin Luther sounds like a good Baptist!