Many interesting points came up through the movie, but I’ll focus on a few points of the story which I thought were hyper-critical. The first point is that the father, Clyde, claims that the justice system is broken and his main purpose is to tear it down; I assume he thinks something better will come in its place.

This is a common theme, found also in the French Revolution: The only way to make things better is to create chaos. By tearing everything down, we are able to build something better. The French revolution was an attempt to overthrow the current legal system, and this desire came from a belief that not only was the current system corrupt (which it was, for various reasons), but also from the belief that a better system would inevitably emerge from the chaos.

Common to this view of chaos-to-order is the belief that mankind is basically good, at the core. “Current government systems are corrupt only because they have had the power too long.” By removing the current power, the innate goodness of mankind will create a government system that is better. Certainly it would not be likely that this created government system be perfect, but at least better.

This view was shown in the character Clyde, who could see the injustice present in the legal system, and thought that by tearing it down it could be rebuilt in a more fair way. However, can this really occur? Certainly, if one assumes the human nature to be basically good, it could be reasonably argued that such a thing is possible. Of course, Clyde might be going about it the wrong way, but his basic idea of chaos leading to good would have been right.

This view is held by the Roman church in general, and by many Baptists apparently. In fact, I would say that this view is one which has become pervasive through all political parties. But it is an entirely indefensible view: Scripture is quite clear in an overwhelming way, that the nature of man is to be predisposed toward sin. This predisposition has gone by many names, but the most common is what the reformers called “total depravity”—all of mankind is naturally inclined toward sin. This view is most clear in the following passage:

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Romans 3:10-12)

The second view presented in the film is the answer to the question “What is justice?”, which is presented throughout in direct question by Clyde, but also in the willingness of the lawyers and mayor to “bend” the law in order to fulfill “justice”.

Clyde’s family was killed by terrible people and, according to Exodus 21:12 (and many other verses), the murderer deserved the death penalty:

“Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.” (Genesis 9:6) “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10) “Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:12)

But in the case of this movie, the one who murdered did not get the death penalty, while the one who did not do the murdering did get the death penalty. The question of whether Clyde had authority to carry out the death penalty on the actual murderer will show us several other hidden problems with the current legal system.

Did Clyde have the authority? Consider this: Clyde directly witnessed the murder of his family, Clyde was (obviously) the direct and nearest relative to his family, thereby satisfying the requirements to be the “Avenger of Blood” mentioned in Deuteronomy 19:11-13 and others, and allowing for Clyde to legally kill the murderer. However, the Bible also requires for there to be “cities of refuge”, as mentioned in Numbers 35:25 and others, and in the United States we don’t really have those. Clyde says that the justice system is faulty, and he is right, but his reasons are wrong: The current legal system is at fault because it does not follow God’s Law, which gives Clyde the authority to kill the murderer if the murderer has not fled to a city of refuge.

However, even the avenger of blood had to follow legal proceedings so it could be said that, after the court decided that the actual murderer was not guilty of murder, Clyde could not legally kill him. But even in this we see a fault in our legal system, namely, if the murderer was truly found guilty of murder, the death penalty would still stand.

The final error in Clyde’s thinking was that a true justice system would be one which punishes all criminals. This argument is truly impossible: It is impossible to know in every case that a person is guilty or innocent, and it is true that in any system guilty people occasionally go free and innocent people are punished. This is even true in the legal system presented in the Bible, leading to the question I have heard from an atheist: “If God’s Law is not perfect, why do you support it so much?” But I would never say that “God’s Law is not perfect”, rather David says quite clearly that it is perfect!

Humans always have imperfect knowledge, and to expect that we will always be able to correctly carry out justice is to assume that we would somehow have perfect knowledge. We could, of course, simply execute anyone who is accused of a crime (much like the French Revolution period) but we would be in danger of killing people who were innocent. Likewise, we could let people do as they choose (pure anarchy) but we would have a society which would be entirely unsafe. Where is the balance? What is the right method of law?

Was Clyde right in desiring to kill the person who murdered his family. The Bible is quite clear that the answer is yes, Clyde’s desire was right.

Was Clyde right in what he did? The Bible is also quite clear that the answer is a resounding no. Even had the death penalty been able to be carried out, Clyde’s action was not to simply carry out the death penalty, but to exact maximum pain, both physical and emotional. This is not a Biblically allowed method.

In the last post, I discussed the fact that the Bible views homosexuality as a sin. The act of homosexuality is a sin, and, like heterosexual lust, it is even a sin to lust in a homosexual manner.

Of course, whether something is a moral sin and whether it is an act of criminality are two different points. The Bible says that if I lust in my heart after a woman it is the sin of adultery, yet it would be impossible to enforce a law regarding one’s thought life. The proposition that all moral laws are civil laws is an absurd one indeed!

The question proposed is this: Should homosexuality be illegal? If so, in what way? If not, should Christians be “doing something about it”?

Let me try to give context to the first verse I want to reference. The book of Leviticus is generally thought to be divided into a few sections, the first part being ceremonial laws concerning the sacrifices and purification rites. This section goes on until chapter 18, in which the laws concerning sacrifices end, and the general civil law begins. This next section of Leviticus deals with things requiring civil punishment, and speaks on issues ranging from general theft requiring restitution, through to where we are stopping. Here, couched between a list of other sexual sins including bestiality and incest, is the law concerning homosexuality:

“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Leviticus 20:13 (NIV)

In my previous post concerning whether homosexuality was a sin, I said that this verse should, at the least, remind us that homosexuality was not considered something small. Now, even further than a personal moral law, it seems clear that this law is clear when it states that homosexuality is a civil offense requiring the death penalty.

The objection made by Christians at this point is generally the argument that the law is no longer valid, that when Christ came we entered a new era, an era of “love”. However, if we are to take the Bible systematically, we cannot simply wish for some difficult part to be dissolved.

Unless you can show somewhere in the Bible where it says that the Old Testament law has completely passed away, that view (of a “new era”) is simply not Biblical. This would be much like a child arguing that, since father had not told him he could not play in the street today, means that yesterday’s command to not play in the street is nullified.

Now certainly, the death penalty for homosexuals seems a rather strict one, especially in an age where the sexually deviant are not only accepted but encouraged, but if we are to be honest Christians we must see what we can make out of this seemingly uncomfortable law.

First, how is such a law implemented? What restrictions are put on such a law? It would be a terrifying world, indeed, if one could get put to death by a person wildly accusing you of homosexuality! Can a person practicing homosexuality in the privacy of their home be convicted?

Thankfully, the book of Deuteronomy (the other book of law) does not leave us too much “in the lurch”, but goes on to put a major restriction on the death penalty:

“On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. The hands of the witness must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.” Deuteronomy 17:6-7 (NIV) See also Deuteronomy 19:15

Here we find our first major restriction on any death penalty: There must be multiple witnesses. This point seems an obvious one in a country where a trial by jury and a slew of witnesses are generally required, however, this right has not always been recognized, and ancient Israel was quite the opposite of the surrounding countries which could kill you without reason or witnesses.

If this is not enough, later in Deuteronomy it speaks of the problem of false witnesses, that they are given the punishment which would have been (or already was) given to the person standing trial. Enacting this law alone would reduce lawsuits greatly, and would not allow “evidence” such as DNA and fingerprints to stand as a witness at a trial.

“If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of crime, the two men involved in the dispute must stand before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother.” Deuteronomy 19:16-19 (NIV)

The next point brought up, generally by the secular person although at times by the Christian, is that we will have people snooping around, spying in the windows. The claim comes down to an argument that “what stays in the private of home should be of no concern”, at least as far as the law goes. As a blanket statement concerning all events, this argument is false: If a murder occurs in someone’s home, it is certainly of concern!

It seems that this principle could be drawn out a bit more: Considering that the Bible requires the death penalty for homosexuality, it seems that it is something which, even if done in the privacy of one’s home, is something at least “of concern”. However, even though we are concerned with murder occurring in the privacy of a home, we don’t set up security cameras or go peering in the windows of our neighbor’s home at night. It seems that the same practice of respecting privacy should be applied in this area as well.

While this idea of respecting privacy is all fine, this section of Deuteronomy indicates that, even if an act is done in private, once it is found out it must be investigated:

If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take that man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.” Deuteronomy 17: 2-5 (NIV)

While this command refers especially to worshiping other gods, it’s first phrase “doing evil in the eyes of the Lord” seems to refer to any evil act deserving the death penalty. However, recall the first two rules required and apply them here: If you were bringing false witness, you would get the death penalty, and you would also need at least another witness.

In the dozen or more people who responded to the survey I sent out, the main part of which were conservative Christians, the major thought of the comments was that homosexuality should be illegal, at least in some general sense. I did not ask specifically whether homosexuality should be punishable by death, so we can let the comments speak on that.

Finally, even though many conservatives and many Christians feel that homosexuality should be made illegal, the question still must always come down to: On what basis do you argue this?

If the Bible is not the ultimate foundation for our law, than the only thing remaining is human thought. That human thought is the same which created legal systems which sent numberless Jews to concentration camps, which sent innocent Christians to be torn apart by lions for entertainment, and the same law which chops off the hands of thieves and only punishes the woman–refusing to punish the man–for cases of adultery.

Sola Scriptura