There is a very strong tendency in evangelical thought, because evangelicals are as inept at understanding the Bible as they are at understanding extra-Biblical rationalistic philosophy, to assume that Biblical punishments for certain sins are far more severe than they really are, to conflate pagan or contemporary abusive punishments with Biblical ones, and to dismiss them all because of some non-existent change in God's moral character that supposedly took place in the New Testament. This is the broad framework of the evangelical approach to criminal punishment as it relates to Christian theology, of which it is actually an incredibly significant part. Even when Biblically unjust atrocities like prison rape might be occasionally condemned by evangelicals, it is almost invariably for fallacious reasons.
The kind of Christian who thinks that something like prison rape is wrong within the context of Christian morality because it is not prescribed by American laws or because Jesus said to "turn the other cheek"--a command that has nothing to do with rape, which God demanded execution for (Deuteronomy 22:25-27), later saying he does not change (Malachi 3:6)--has a completely backwards understanding of Biblical morality. Governments and New Testament writings do not reveal the core moral obligations rooted in God's nature. God himself does, and the manner in which the Biblical God is said to reveal his moral nature is first and foremost through Mosaic Law. Whether or not Christianity is true, this is what the Bible teaches (Romans 7:7). Jesus does not contradict Yahweh's justice or even push back against it in the slightest way.
Something like prison itself, prison rape, crucifixion, execution for theft, or a host of other Biblically heinous things that people have inflicted on others is not sinful because some vague, abrupt change in God's nature changed his commands and gives way to some "Christian" form of cultural relativism, with an emotionalistic desire for mercy driven by self-interest or tolerance becoming obligatory and replacing actual justice. Idiots think justice is cruel, when the concept of cruelty itself is of that which abusive and therefore unjust; idiots think that moral obligations fluctuate with time and preference instead of either being objectively binding or objectively nonexistent. That some people call themselves Christians while endorsing anti-theonomist and relativistic ideas confirms their emotionalism and philosophical blindness.
Combining various errors is what gets most of the only evangelicals who object to something like prison to the point of appealing to absolutely irrelevant passages in condemning some injustice. For example, they might think that verses with Jesus saying to turn the other cheek or saying to love other people are all they need to demonstrate that particular acts like prison rape are evil. Of course, almost no "Christians" take this issue seriously even if they are genuinely against this behavior, so having one Biblically correct idea while arriving at it through irrelevant points or misunderstandings and then not actually being sincere in affirming it is hardly rational or righteous. It takes far more than the minimal effort most Christians are willing to put into any kind of philosophical thought.
It would still be easy for them to understand the real reasons why they can know the Bible condemns rape in a context like this if they only tried. Forgiveness and mercy are irrelevant, not to mention how they never could replace justice as obligatory anyway. When rape and even consensual homosexual actions are both given the death penalty in Deuteronomy 22 and Leviticus 18 and 20 respectively, homosexual rape of a man or woman could only be a capital offense by Biblical standards. This is why prison rape is inherently unjust on the Christian worldview: because the commands that categorize them as vile are tied to God's moral nature and are quite clear when analyzed without assumptions. Mercy and the New Testament have nothing to do with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment