This critique of the Capital Punishment Report printed in the 1979 Agenda of the CRC Synod, and submitted to the Churches, was made available to THE OUTLOOK by the consistory of the First CRC of Lethbridge, Alberta. The Editorial Committee believes it merits further distribution. Printing it may also awaken other consistories to send in their responses to the Synodical Committee.

Introductory Remarks

We wish to point out first of all that reports such as these do not appear to be written with the average church members in mind, but rather for scholars. Several reports over the years have erred here, but this is surely one of the worst. What is the value of using words like “deontologist” and “teleologist” etc.? We agree here with De Koster: If it cannot be said plainly and clearly in 10 pages, then forget about saying it. The common man in the pew (and in the consistory bench) cannot possibly under· stand and evaluate reports of this nature. We are in great danger here of “the tyranny of scholars” (“experts”).

We had a competent committee of six members (three from consistory and three from the congregation) study this Report, but it took a great deal of re-reading and sustained effort.

What is more, if the Scriptures are going to be treated the way they are in this Report, then for all practical intents and purposes the Bible remains a closed book to God’s people. We are then in actual fact denying the perspecuity (clarity) of the Scriptures.

General Observations

1. The original overture from Classis Orange City asked Synod to address our governments urging them to reinstate capital punishment. This original request has now turned into something quite opposite. In no way can this Report be taken as a fulfillment of that original request (mandate). 2. In more than one instance, the committee has put up “straw men” and then s hot them down. Often positions were quoted which had obvious weaknesses. But not enough attention was paid to Reports of our own church in the past, and to scholars in the Reformed tradition who argued cogently for Capital Punishment. This is a weakness in the Report. 3. In the first part of the Report, the committee goes to great lengths and efforts to try to show that the Bible does not demand Capital punishment. But lo and behold, in the second part it does admit that the Bible allows it. Did the first section prove too much perhaps? It’s like saying that because the Bible does not insist on marital permanence in every single situation, it therefore does not demand such permanence. But that is spurious reasoning which doesn’t follow at all. Could it be that the committee’s initial questions, in terms of which the whole report was written, were the wrong (and prejudicial) ones? 4. The committee first unduly absolutizes Genesis 9:6 (every one who kills shall be killed), and, on the basis that this cannot be the meaning of the text, negates the meaning and purpose of the text completely. (cf. p. 479). The committee’s comments regarding this are arbitrary and lack integrity. Scripture must be compared with Scripture, and then it becomes very clear that not all killing is murder, and that there are degrees of crime and punishment which must be taken into consideration. e.g. the “cities of refuge” etc. Again the example re divorce may be cited here. The Bible states, “What God has joined together no man shall put asunder.” Period. But at the same time Jesus cites the so-called “exceptive clause.” The sixth commandment says: “You shall not kill.” Period. But Reformed Christians have always understood that this excludes killing in a just war or in self-defence. Hence the committee’s unjustified and arbitrary “absolutizing” of Genesis 9:6 holds no water whatsoever.

Positively, why did the committee not simply say that God here gives a very basic principle of justice which calls for capital punishment, but that it must not be applied without taking due circumstances into consideration, in the light of t he entire Biblical teaching? Cf. Kuyvenhoven in Partnership, p. 7: “God protects the dignity and humanity of man (Genesis 9:1–5), and He will uphold justice in the society of man (9:5, 6).”

One could indeed make a good point for more strict and swift application of this principle today, in view of the increase in murder and violent crimes today. Surely Eccles. 8:11 and II Tim. 3:1–4 are relevant in this connection.

   

More Specific Observations

a) Report 29 fails in the most critical area, namely, the grounds for its conclusions are not biblical but are very subtly saturated in American pragmatism, and the Report sets forth what is essentially a humanistic view of the Bible. It fails to zero in on the sanctity of human life as expressed in the Bible, “Man is created in God’s Image.”

It emphatically states that the ultimate function of the state and society is to secure the “well being of man” rather than faithful obedient service to God. It fails to show that man owes obedience first and foremost to God’s law and secondly, as a natural outflow of obedience to God, the law structure which governs man’s societal life.

It states, “Capital punishment is permissible only when the state or its citizens are threatened” thereby failing to emphasize that murder is first of all a crime against God’s law.

b) Concept, purpose, and function of the state. Throughout the report runs the dominant concept that the state, or rather Man, becomes the arbiter of justice. The state must decide when it is practical expedient, and wise to resort to capital punishment. (read pp. 506–507 —Considerations. p. 469 — The State #2, 3) Particularly unsound is the report‘s use of State in place of magistrates as expressed in Romans 13:1–4. The American political system is conveniently substituted in place of the Biblical magistrate. (read p. 468) The ultimate function of the state is to secure “self–fulfillment” for its citizens and to promote the “true quality of human life.”

c) Mosaic laws. The manner in which Report 29 deals with the Mosaic Laws borders on irreverence for the Scriptures. “Moses apparently understood that not everything that is ‘right’ in God’s sight is politically or jurisprudentially expedient, wise and good.” Here obviously the report subjects God’s laws to that which is good, wise and expedient in the eyes of man. It denies God being the absolute authority and law giver. (read pp. 504–505 — The Issue #1, 2, 3)

d) Interpretation of Genesis 9:6 and verse 7. The consistory wishes to expr ess its strongest concern and objections to the manner in which the report interprets Genesis 9:6, 7. Genesis 9:7, the Report states, is not a mandate but a blessing and an obviously time conditioned one at that, therefore verse 6 is also time conditioned. (Read p. 478, par. a, b, c) The report openly promotes or almost mandates birth control and the limiting of the number of children born. The Report seems to assume here that man has the authority to limit God’s blessing and comes very close to endorsing abortions.

The report equivocally rejects Genesis 9:6 as a commandment of God by setting out to reduce it to “Hebrew wisdom literature,” not legislation, but something like a proverb. Though these proverbs contain profound truths they are not juridical in nature, and are not to be taken as legal prescriptions. Again a serious questioning of Biblical and Divine authority; man shall determine what is mandatory. There is no internal literary or exegetical evidence whatsoever for calling this a “proverb.” The consistory feels that at this point the Report not only calls into question the infallibility of the Bible but also subjects it to humanistic, relativistic interpretation. In other words, societal conditions and political expedience determine what is relative and binding in the Word of God.

e) Conclusion and grounds. The consistory concludes that in the light of the above concerns Report 29 is not acceptable and we wish to speak out against the report in the strongest possible terms.

Grounds:

1. Report 29 does not express the concept, purpose and function of the State in accordance with the Word of God. 2. Report 29 emphatically subjects God’s law to man’s authority, political expediency, and social conditions. 3. Rather than listening to the Scriptures in a childlike way, Report 29 tends to deal in a derogatory fashion with the Word of God, and in consequence calls into question the infallibility of the Bible.

Conclusion

In view of the above considerations, the consistory cannot concur with the recommendations of Report 29 (cf. p. 507) and urges major revision.