"I Crucified You," A Good Friday Reflection, Edited for 2010

Originally published, Open Salon, MARCH 29, 2010

"I Crucified You," A Good Friday Reflection, Edited for 2010

Click "Submit Abuse" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

Cancel

Note to Readers: This essay was first posted on April 8, 2009. I am posting this edited version now so there will be plenty of time for folks to read it before Good Friday, the 2nd of April. Let me make the usual disclaimer that this is written by a Christian for Christians, for those who are on a spiritual quest and are inquiring about the tenets of Christianity, and for all others who may find value in it if it helps them understand Christian belief a bit better.

Faith is a given in this Reflection. Therefore, there is no intention here to carry on dialogues about the validity of faith, the "reality" of events depicted, or a general discussion of the merits of faith, or the lack thereof. Such discussions abound on other blogs.

---

It is my belief that Christians belong at the foot of the Cross on Good Friday. But it isn't the place where most people want to spend much time, and so Good Friday is also a time when most modern Protestant Churches do not even have services.

This phenomena of mass avoidance of Good Friday and spending time at the Cross is not all that new. In fact, the Bible tells us that most of the disciples were nowhere near the Cross when Jesus died.

Only His mother and the beloved disciple appear to have been close enough to actually hear him from the Cross, and that is told to us in only one of the four Gospels. There were some women who were his followers watching from a distance, and in one of the Gospels some of the disciples were said to be with them.

As for the inner core of believers, the ones who would become known as the apostles, most had gone into hiding, fearing that they would be subject to the same fate if they ventured out.

Peter had already denied three times that he even knew Jesus, let alone that he was Jesus' disciple. Peter did that even before he knew that Jesus would be sentenced to death.

---

The foot of the Cross may not be a comfortable place for a believer. But a believer should be there, comfortable or not. And that is the rub. We do not like discomfort.

But, if we view it, as many Christians today do, as simply "history," as something that happened long ago, an evil deed perpetrated by others, then while we would not want to waste our time at the Cross, it would not bother us much if we did.

Most Christians are not so callous, and believe that this was a legal murder, this crucifixion, an evil deed perpetrated long, long ago by others. But along with that belief is the unstated idea the his crucifixion has little to nothing to do with us who were born 2000 years later.

They see us as benefiting from his sacrifice on the Cross. But they do not see us as having any role in his death.

After all, didn't Jesus say, quite clearly, from the Cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do?" Yes, he did. Even the most Biblically illiterate Christian knows that much. "Father, forgive them" is exactly what he said.

Hearing that, what should we think? Well, one of the things many Christians have been thinking about for 2000 years is trying to identify just who "them" is. The irony in that, of course, is that Christianity has spent 2000 years concentrating so hard on trying to decide who "them" is, that the true point of his forgiveness is lost on many of us.

---

Many of us cannot understand the implications of the prayer of forgiveness made by Jesus from the Cross because it never occurs to us that it might be directed at us. After all, Jesus says it is directed at "them," the ones who were killing Him. And that was 2000 years ago!

In our subconscious obsession with distancing ourselves from the Cross even faithful Christians have sought to define "them" as almost anyone other than "us." It takes a courageous Christian to hold a mirror to his face and admit, "Them is me!"

Through the centuries many Christians have never actually come to grips with the truth that it is our sin for which he died. Not just for the sin of those who lived back then, but for the sins of the entire world, past, present and future.

The Bible is crystal clear that Jesus came to save not just some people at some particular time and place but to save all people at all times and in all places. And Jesus' prayer from the Cross confirms that when we understand that we are included in those for whom Jesus asked forgiveness.

---

But, as a result of our failure to see our own sin, we have, over the centuries, looked for and found scapegoats: the Romans, Pilate, the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, the Saducees, the Chief Priests. But, mostly, Christianity has thrown a blanket indictment over one entire people, "The Jews!"

This tragic failure at introspection lead, in the middle of the last century, to the greatest holocaust that the world has ever known. And even today it leads to ungodly prejudice and anti-Semitism, spewing bile-filled hatred at the people God called "chosen."

The Jews were chosen by God not for themselves alone, but because they believed in the one God who blessed them so that they could be a blessing to all people. They were clearly chosen not for themselves alone but to bless the nations of the world in God's name. Most anti-Semites conveniently overlook that fact.

Our Jewish Messiah, the one we call the Christ, this Jesus of Nazareth, a simple Jewish rabbi, this Savior we Christians worship, did not blame the Jews. Nor did he condemn Pilate, or the Romans, or the Chief Priests, or any single individual or group.

He could have condemned them all. In his place I imagine that we would condemn lots of people. But he said, plainly and clearly, "Father, forgive them."

---

Yet, to the shame of the Church, we have too often indulged ourselves in our fear of facing the Cross. We have feared looking into the mirror and having to say, "Oh My Lord Jesus, I crucified you!"

Thankfully, a few Christians have thought it through, have figured out that Jesus died for the sins of all of us, have understood that we, in every generation, crucify Jesus by our sin.

Listen to the words of the great 17th century hymnist, Johann Heermann, in his anthem of confession, "Ah, Holy Jesus" written at a time of great tribulation, during the Thirty Years War.

Ah, holy Jesus, how hast Thou offended,
That man to judge Thee hath in hate pretended?
By foes derided, by Thine own rejected,
O most afflicted.

Who was the guilty- Who brought this upon Thee?
Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone Thee.
'Twas I, Lord, Jesus, I it was denied Thee!
I crucified Thee.

For me, kind Jesus, was Thine incarnation,
Thy mortal sorrow, and Thy life's oblation;
Thy death of anguish and Thy bitter passion,
For my salvation.

Lo, the Good Shepherd for the sheep is offered;
The slave hath sinned, and the Son hath suffered;
For our atonement, while he nothing heedeth,
God intercedeth.

Therefore, kind Jesus, since I cannot pay Thee,
I do adore Thee, and will ever pray Thee,
Think on Thy pity and Thy love unswerving,
Not my deserving.

---

We don't sing that song very much in most Churches any more. And in the churches that do, the words are often translated quite differently, intentionally softened, taking the sting of our guilt out of the song.

Why do you suppose that is? Does it hit too close to home? I can come up with no other answer than, "Yes. It hits too close to home. And there is no need to make us uncomfortable right before the hope and beauty of Easter Sunday."

But, unless we Christians can gather at the foot of the Cross of Jesus, and say with the hymnist, "I Crucified You," then we will never be able to feel the power of the Cross. We will not be able to feel the pain Jesus felt on that cross, nor, more importantly, the love he offered to us.

Guilt is not something modern folk like to talk about. Nor is pain. Nor is forgiveness that comes to us through pain. And so, increasingly, much of the Protestant Church today flies through Palm Sunday and skips to Easter Sunday with only a small bow in the direction of the Cross.

---

One thing I am pleased with in the Moravian Church that I served for the during the last five years of my ministry is the Moravians still hold with the old idea that Holy Week means something.

And so Holy Week Readings are held each evening, up to and including Good Friday, consisting of readings from the Gospels and singing hymns that pull us into an understanding of our participation in the events leading to and ending in the crucifixion. When we, as was that local congregation's practice, ended the Holy Week Readings on Maundy Thursday, I added a Good Friday evening Prayer Vigil. But that was sparcely attended.

The United Church of Christ, in which I was ordained, took a different tack in order to recognize the avoidance of the Cross by calling Palm Sunday "Palm/Passion Sunday." And I always included a Chancel Drama at the end of the Palm Sunday service that included the congregation having a part in the reenactment of the Passion according to St. Matthew.

I continued this at the Moravian church which I served. It helped, but it was not a true substitute for an actual service of prayer and introspection on Good Friday evening.

---

On that Cross of pain, Jesus, the one we call the Christ, the Messiah, offered us forgiveness of our sin. If we could begin, this Good Friday, to feel the guilt, to comprehend the pain, to sense the love of Christ for us, then we may be privileged to understand the real meaning of his offer of grace.

"Father, forgive them" is a singular act of grace offered to us, once, for all, by one who hung on a Cross and loved us enough to forgive us.

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" is a prayer. Never forget that. It was Jesus' prayer to the One who could grant forgiveness for the sake of His Son. And God heard Jesus' prayer.

Christians believe that, by the resurrection of Jesus, the one who loves us enough to forgive us, God, does, in fact, forgive us. By raising Jesus, God reconciles us to Himself.

---

I have always thought the name "Good" Friday is such an bittersweet name to attach to the day of crucifixion. Bitter in the pain and ultimate sacrifice of the Son of God. But sweet in the fruit of that sacrifice.

Through his Cross, Jesus offers a special grace to those who believe in him. That grace is that they shall not perish but shall have everlasting life.

My Good Friday prayer for myself and for all who call themselves Christians is "Father, forgive us, for we know now what we did."

May all of you, my dear friends, find peace and love, hope and joy, not only in this Christian Holy Week and at Easter, but always -- whatever your belief may be, or whether you do not believe at all.

Monte

_{Original posting: 2161 page views as of 2010 03 29
This posting for 2010:}

Commandment Seven: You Shall Not Commit Adultery

Now that the holidays are behind us we can return to the completion of our series on the Exodus and the Ten Commandments. The previous essays in this series can be accessed through the links in the left hand column of this page.

As with the other Commandments please remember that they are intended to apply to practicing Jews and Christians. Those who would apply them to others who have not chosen to follow them abuse the original intention of the Commandments.

---

The Seventh Commandment is another terse statement of prohibition:
(Exo 20:14 NRSV) You shall not commit adultery. It is concerned with the physical act of adultery.

The first things I would like you to understand about this Commandment is that it is more narrowly conceived than most moderns realize. And it is difficult for us to understand its original meaning because the rules of the society then were so utterly different than our rules.

Likewise, we need to resist the temptation to read back into the original Commandment our understanding of what it means. To do so is to indulge ourselves in anachronistic thinking that perverts the original meaning.

There are responsible modern interpretations of the Commandment which we will discuss, and they are far different than the ancient interpretations. We must rigorously, however, not confuse the two.

---

First, let us look at the original application of the Commandment in ancient Israel.

One thing we need to understand before we can intelligently discuss this Commandment is that it was designed primarily to protect the stability of the family, the community and the nation. Issues of marital disloyalty struck at the very fabric of Israelite society.

Maintaining the family as the core of social order was considered so vital to the nation that adultery was punishable by death in the Covenant Code which applied the Commandments to the ancient Israelite society.

Adultery, as described in the Bible, applies to both men and women. It applies only to married persons, and to those who are betrothed to be married.

There is, however, a distinct "double standard" expressed in how this commandment was interpreted, since married men could commit adultery only with married women, while a married woman was said to have committed adultery if she had sex with any man.

Consensual adult sexual activity between unmarried persons was not expressly prohibited in those times, although many specific sexual acts are prohibited in later elaborations and applications of Torah.

For instance, the entire 18th chapter of Leviticus deals with prohibitions against several specific forms of incest, and includes many other sexual prohibitions, such as having sex during a woman's menstruation period, having intercourse with a relative's wife, homosexual sex between men, and sex with animals.

Men, however, are nowhere forbidden to have sex with prostitutes, and, consensual sex between a man, married or not, and an unmarried woman who was not a prostitute was not prohibited, provided the man then married that woman. Remember, a man then could have many wives.

If there was sexual intercourse between a man and an unmarried woman, whether or not the man was married, he was expected to marry the woman, but he was not punished for having sex with her before marriage.

In fact, it is clear that even the rape of a woman by a man was not specifically condemned, although it was frowned upon. But it was not condemned, provided the man married the women he raped.

The Bible story of the rape of Tamar is a story of the frustration of a raped girl and the revenge she and her brother took for the rape, when the King David, the girl's own father, did nothing about it.

The story tells of David's oldest son, Amnon, who raped his half-sister, Tamar, who begged him to marry her to take away the stigma. [There was no law against the marriage of siblings at that time.] But Amnon drove Tamar away, and while David felt disgraced and was saddened upon learning of the rape, he did nothing. Tamar then went to her full brother, Absalom, who had Amnon killed.

Clearly the biblical redactors saw this act of revenge as a form of justice or the story would not have survived in the Bible.

In a similar way, the Seventh Commandment was not a prohibition against polygamy, that is, a man having multiple wives, which was common practice in Old Testament times. Interestingly, polyandry, a woman having multiple husbands, was prohibited. This is simply a further example of the rampant double standard in those times.

Such ideas regarding the status and treatment of women are, of course, totally foreign to us; and they should be repugnant to thinking men and women today.

This double standard stemmed from the patriarchal nature of the society then. And while our society still has a long way to go in recognizing and enforcing equal rights for women, it has come a long way from the patriarchal society of ancient Israel.

Women had almost no rights in those times. Wives were considered the property of their husbands. They were chattel. If a woman were raped, for example, it was considered a big deal only because the rapist "used" another man's property without proper payment! But, if the rapist married the woman and paid an appropriate sum to the father of the woman, then the offended "owner" was compensated for his loss. The violation of the woman's very being was not an issue. That should be appalling to our ears today.

---

Let us now look at modern interpretations of the Commandment.

From this point in this essay the discussion focuses on modern Christian interpretation of the Commandment.

[It would be helpful if a Jewish reader of this series would, in comments here or in a separate post, give a brief explanation of modern Jewish interpretation of the Commandment.]

Modern Christian interpretation is based upon statements made by the founder of the Christian faith, Jesus of Nazareth.

I invite us now to focus on the very sharp contrast between the Seventh Commandment as interpreted in ancient Israel and Jesus' interpretation of it. Jesus says, (Mat 5:27-28, NRSV) "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Jesus is not saying that the prohibition against adultery is not applicable. It is. Jesus is against physical adultery. But Jesus is also saying that our understanding of adultery as simply a physical act is too narrow.

In its most obvious form, adultery is a physical act. But Jesus raises the stakes for all Christians smug enough to look down on those who have succumbed to physical adultery, by telling us that lusting after a woman is also committing adultery.

The only difference between President Jimmy Carter's admission of looking at a woman other than his wife with lust in his heart and the vast majority of men in this world is that he admitted it. And he knew it was a sin. Carter knew he had sinned and wanted to use his sin as an example of what other men also do but never admit they do it.

It never occurs to most Christian men that they are, in fact, sinning by lusting after women who are not their wives. Rather most would deny it to be a sin at all, saying that "it is only natural" and that "all men do it." The fact that neither of those excuses address an issue that Jesus clearly says is a sin does not cross their minds.

But Jesus has raised the bar. Just as he included angry thoughts in the prohibition against murder, so too here he includes lust filled thoughts in the prohibition against adultery. He tells us that what goes on in our hearts and minds is every bit as important as what we actually do.

Jesus here, as in all of his teachings, is interested in our motives, our inner-most intentions, our thoughts, our desires - many of which we shamefully hide from the rest of the world. But we do not hide those things from him. An ancient prayer describes God as the one "from whom no secrets are hid." Well, the Christ, Jesus, is the one from whom no secrets are hid.

Knowing this, it seems to me that Christians need to take a step back from the false pride in which we so often indulge. Such pride only layers one sin upon another. It comes from thinking that we are righteous because we do not actually do things which are clearly against God's commands.

Worse, it can come from thinking that we have gotten away with cheating because nobody has caught us in the act. Pride like that is a terrible sin. When we think that we are better than those who have been caught, or those who have recognized and confessed their sin, we fool only ourselves. We do not fool God.

Our faith teaches us that those who have sinned, be it adultery or some other sin, and have recognized that sin and sincerely confessed it, intending not to commit such a sin again, are far better in God's eyes than are those who sin, either in their hearts or by their actions, and have no intention of ever admitting that sin. God considers those who have confessed their sin to God, and have asked for forgiveness, to be righteous.

Yes, Jesus condemns physical adultery; but he has chosen to use the prohibition against adultery to call us to a higher standard which includes examining our own lusts and desires.

And he has introduced compassion for sinners along with self examination into the equation when addressing the sin of adultery.

When the people wanted to stone the woman who was found in adultery,to kill her, he did not condone her sin. Nor did he condemn her. His focus was not on her sin; rather, it was on those who would kill her: "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone," was his response to what they proposed to do.

He knew their hearts, and He knew that none was without sin. He also knew that there is no hierarchy of sins. Sin is sin. And yet we so often consider our own sin small and another's sin large. But Jesus did not say "those who are without the sin of adultery." He said "those who are without sin," for he knew that all sin makes us unrighteous in the eyes of God.

---

In summary, while it is not valid to take anachronistically the interpretation of ancient Israel of the Seventh Commandment and apply that to our own lives, there are some things that we do know about applying it to modern practicing Christians.

Adultery is still a sin and when we commit it we violate God's law. But Christians also believe that through the love of God in Christ, we can take our sins to him and that he has covered those sins with his love. We can be forgiven.

By the same token, however, Christians are not given license to go right on sinning and confessing, sinning and confessing, over and over again. Confession is not a game. Jesus knows our hearts and our true intentions, and when we abuse the grace of forgiveness he knows it. He knows when we are walking in darkness, away from the light of God.

And we have learned that Jesus has raised the bar, changing the meaning of adultery from simply a physical act to a sin of the heart as well.

Whatever loopholes we might think there were before, since Jesus there are no loopholes for Christians. And because Jesus looks at the habits of the heart, he knows that none of us is without sin, be it adultery or pride or a host of other sinful intentions.

We are human and the truth is that, try as we may, we simply cannot not sin. But the good news is clear as well. God, through Jesus, has provided an answer to our sin. We can never be wholly righteous, but Christ is. And through his righteousness, when we confess our sins, seek forgiveness and mend our ways, we are made right with God.

If you are a Christian, your task is to constantly monitor not only your personal behavior but also your thoughts and intentions, doing your best to conform them to the instructions of God. And, when you do not, your task is to turn in confession and repentance to the one who can and will cover your sin with his love.

God bless.

Options for a CIA/Justice/White House Torture Probe

First published on APRIL 23, 2009

Click "Submit Abuse" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

Cancel

There are many options available to both President Obama and the Congress regarding investigating and prosecuting people who were in the CIA, the Justice Department, and the White House for the use of torture during the Bush Administration.

What I would like to do here is encourage a discussion in the comments to this post about the pros and cons of the various ways a probe of the activities during the Bush years might be undertaken.

Of course, there are many who think that there should not only be no probe but that the memos from the Justice Department approving requests from the CIA to use "enhanced interrogation techniques" should never have been released in the first place.

Roger Cohen, writing in today's New York Times, typifies the argument that there should be no probe at all, no investigation, no prosecution. "I don’t think this recovery would be served by prosecutions, either of C.I.A. operatives or those who gave them legal advice. Such legal action, if initiated, would split the intelligence services and the military in paralyzing ways at a time when two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, are still being fought. The country would be lacerated."

Of course, Mr. Cohen, who titles his Op Ed piece "No Time for Retribution" offers no actual analysis for why he feels that any prosecutions would split the intelligence and military and paralyze them, let alone why it would lacerate the country. His biggest mistake is what most who argue for looking the other way make. He sees any actions toward getting to the bottom of this mess as "retribution." I see such actions as necessary if we are to do justice.

There may well be some who are seeking retribution; but justice demands, regardless how people feel on either side of this issue, that some form of investigation and likely prosecution is required. To do less is to deny that the United States is any longer the moral leader of the world, but rather it is a large, imperialistic, jaded and immoral force.

I do not doubt that we can be such a force, because between 2002 and 2008 our nation's leaders turned us into such a nation in the eyes of the world. Regardless, our history was not besmirched by such leadership for almost all of the over 200 years of our existence. It is time, if we do nothing more, to clear our name, to call out to the world that we take seriously the need for justice within our own government, and to be the transparent nation that our President says we will be under his administration.

Ways to probe the injustices perpetrated under the Bush Administration.

With Executive Branch initiative.

1. Let the Justice Department initiate an investigation of both its own activities and those of the CIA. This turns the problem over to the Attorney General and somewhat puts a barrier between Justice and the current Administration.

2. Either the White House or the Justice Department appoints a Special Prosecutor to look into the matter. This runs the risk of removing the discussion from the public eye for several years, since a Grand Jury will immediately be created and all testimony will be secret, much as the situation was involving Scooter Libby.

3. The President creates a bipartisan Commission, similar to the 9/11 Commission to investigate and report. Assuming this commission were given subpoena power and the power to recommend prosecution to the Justice Department, and assuming that this Commission was required to report periodically on the status of its work this might provide better visibility to the public.

4. The President creates a Commission that includes the other nations who also participated as allies in the Iraq War. This idea is highly unlikely to happen but has been floated by enough people that I have added it here.

5. The President create a Truth Commission similar to the way that South Africa did at the end of apartheid. That Commission was designed to shed light on the actions of the past and allow those who participated in those actions to denounce their own part in those actions. But it was not set up to prosecute, just to bring to light the atrocities, to shame those who were culpable and to give them an opportunity to apologize to the nation.

With Congressional initiative

1. Various Committees in Congress could hold additional oversight hearings and investigate under current rules.

2.They could also create investigative Commissions similar to what the White House can create, only the Commission would report to Congress.

3. They could create a joint committee specifically established to look into these abuses.

All of the Congressional options would require complete cooperation of the White House to be effective. And while the President might go along with some investigations, he has made it clear that he wants no prosecutions whatsoever of the CIA.

He might bend on that and allow it, but without his approval of the investigations by Congress there would be little that the Congress could effectively do. And this presents the specter of pitting a Congress against the President that the President needs to be behind him on other urgent matters; and of causing attention to be drawn to the fight between the two branches of government rather than to the subject of the investigations.

Conclusion and appeal for discussion

Whatever method is chosen it seems to me that it is imperative that we insist on transparency as to the progress of the investigations. By definition investigations and transparency are at odds. So I am not saying that the results of sensitive investigations be released before they are analyzed, but that real, clear and open progress reports be made public so that the whole issue does not get buried by "investigating the problem" for several years.

How about you? What would be the way you would go about this, and why? Let's have a civil and educational discussion of this, similar to the ones we have had on my last two posts on this subject.

The Ethics of The President's Decision on Torture

First published on APRIL 19, 2009 1:54AM

I have been discussing the issue of the President's decision on how to handle torture which has taken place under the prior Administration with a good OS friend of mine. He has come to the conclusion that the President made the correct decision regarding his handling of the Justice Department and the CIA on the question of torture at secret out of country CIA prisons. He also thinks that the President's decision was morally defensible. I do not agree. And so we remain friends who agree to disagree. It would take a lot more than this to hurt our friendship.

We were discussing this on both political and religious levels. In the process of our discussion and my subsequent careful review of the excellent comments on my last post on this issue, I have clarified my own thinking.

I want to be clear that in spite of my passion about the conclusion I have come to, it is not obvious that it is the only "right" answer that men and women of good will can come to. In issues like this that involve situational ethics we have to recognize that some issues have more than one acceptable answer.

The argument against the Bush Administration is that they "said" what they were doing was not torture, but it was. Thus the people in Justice who approved the requests of the CIA to use certain extreme interrogation techniques which the CIA claimed were not torture, and any people above them in the White House who told the Justice Department the decision they wanted, would potentially face criminal prosecution should it be decided that what the CIA did was, in fact, torture. And those in CIA who proposed the use of torture and those who implemented it would likewise face criminal prosecution.

If it were torture, then members of both the Justice Department and the CIA, because they approved actions which were, in fact, torture, and were forbidden under international law to which the US is a party, and under domestic statutes which forbid torture, would be guilty of violating both US and international law. To the extent that the White House was involved in either advising the Justice Department, or ordering the Justice Department, on how they wished the Justice Department to rule, then those in the White House would also be in violation of the law.

However, without an investigation we will never know who, if anyone, in the White House was involved. There are a handful of people in the CIA and in Justice that we know were involved, but it is likely that there were people at higher levels in the CIA and possibly in the Bush Administration who were also involved. Only through investigation will we have any chance to know who was.

Clearly, those people in the CIA who outlined precisely what torture they wanted approval to use, but who claimed that these actions were not torture, would be in violation of the law. And, once they actually authorized the use of torture they would be equally in violation of the law, unless a claim of "just following orders" could be sustained. That seems unlikely to me since they were the ones who developed the extreme procedures in detail that they eventually used.

How far down into the CIA that illegal activity would extend would have to be investigated. At some point in the CIA hierarchy we might possibly come to a level in which the person literally could not say "no" without being fired and losing his career. Whether to prosecute those at the lowest level who actually used these techniques would present a difficult decision. They were literally "following orders."

There is no clear demarcation that would say, for example, where to draw the line as to whether members of the CIA who did the actual torturing should be held accountable or not. Perhaps another analogy can help clarify. In the case of the military there are times when you do hold even lower level soldiers accountable. To me it is clear that a soldier who lines up civilians and shoots them in cold blood and orders his men to do likewise, like Lt. Calley did in Viet Nam, needs to be prosecuted.

However, all of this is mute, or at least made much less effective, by the President's decision to say that members of the CIA would not be subject to prosecution. So none of this can even come up unless the President were to investigate, or to appoint a Commission or Special Prosecutor to investigate.

The decision the President has already made which says, "...those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice ... will not be subject to prosecution" takes much of the power of such an investigation out of the hands of the investigators. It makes investigation of the CIA by the Executive Branch far more problematic because the investigators could not recommend prosecution.

The Congress, through its investigative oversight functions, could try to investigate but without the cooperation of the Executive Branch it would not get far. I believe that the President knew he was sending that message to Congress, loud and clear.

My friend and I, who are both Christians, also discussed this issue from a religious point of view as to the ethics of the President essentially "forgiving" the people in the CIA. If the President's action is seen as an act of forgiveness, then does that mean that a Christian would be required as a matter of ethics to offer that forgiveness?

My answer is that a Christian may offer forgiveness even as s/he seeks justice. Were this an issue within the Church, for example, the church has to be in the position of speaking truth to power when it is abused even if the Church absolves the person of specific sins upon the contrition of the person.

And if the CIA sought approval of the use of torture, and then used torture, the issue becomes not just an issue of forgiveness, but also an issue of justice. From my perspective, one has to decide whether the crimes are so heinous that they demand justice. In this case I believe that they do demand justice.

God requires justice as well as extending forgiveness. He expects us to do both with a proper regard to the nature of the abuse and its effects on the abused. Torture violates basic human rights and qualifies as heinous abuse.

A more stark example might be a serial child rapist and murderer that is finally caught. Would it be ethical for us to say, "We forgive him" and then just let him go on to do the next and the next? No. We could say that we forgive him if he admits his guilt and says he will change, but we should also say that he has to pay for the consequences of his actions. That is justice.

As long as there is evil in the world God will be a God of justice as well as a God of forgiveness. For God to not be a God of justice would mean that God turns his/her eyes away from the poor, the disenfranchised, those abused in prisons, those downtrodden and oppressed by evil governments, and has nothing to say against all the evil deeds that power allows leaders to do.

I would prefer that moral and ethical judgments would only come from God. But God has chosen to delegate to us the duty to make many such decisions. Political leaders must make ethical judgments every day and they have to be accountable for their actions stemming from those judgments.

We found out what happens when leaders do not make correct ethical judgments. The trials of the Nazis at Nuremberg are the starkest modern example of investigating, prosecuting and sentencing the failure to exercise even a modicum of morally correct ethical judgment by political leaders.

The President made a decision that I think is right in saying that the US will no longer torture. Yes, he has stopped that evil practice. But he said specifically only that "his" Administration would act in accordance to our laws. He deliberately limited the effect of his decision to his Administration only. By not investigating and prosecuting, however, he encourages the possibility that any Administration coming after his can decide to reverse his decisions.

He did not speak to or even hint at doing anything that might help preclude future administrations from reversing his decisions on this issue and reverting to the use of torture. And I believe that this failure sends a message to those who may want to do such acts in the future in the name of national security or other specious arguments that they can do it and likely will not be punished for their actions.

It is possible to make an argument for what the President has done. It is not cut and dried. But from my point of view, government leaders have to decide whether to take the high road and do the right thing and take the political heat for it, or do the politically expedient thing and "forgive." To me what the President did is less about forgiveness than it is making a pragmatic political judgment. But there are times when principle must trump pragmatism.

I feel that unless we expose the evils of the Bush Administration, not just on this subject, but also on domestic spying, lying about Iraq and starting an unjust war, and a dozen other abuses of power, then we leave the door wide open to a new interpretation of the Imperial Presidency.

No one need agree with my conclusions. There is more than one acceptable solution to the ethical and moral decisions a President has to make. Most of the time when they have to make moral and ethical decisions they are working with difficult decisions that pose issues of "situational" ethics, the facts of which are often unique. Presidents seldom have to deal with issues that present an easy answer of ethical certainty. If it were easy issues like this would not come up. They are never easy.

As a theologian I know that while Christians seldom talk about a God of justice, our God is in fact a God of justice. Were God anything else God would be in no position to urge Christians to confront evil in the world. That he delegates some of his power to those who lead is also clear. It is how leaders use that delegated power that is at issue here.

Good Friday Reflection: "I Crucified You"

First published on APRIL 8, 2009 1:50PM

Click "Submit Abuse" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

Cancel

---

I am posting this reflection now so there will be plenty of time for folks to read it before the end of Good Friday, the 10th of April. Let me make the usual disclaimer that this Reflection is written by a Christian for Christians, for those who are on a spiritual quest and are inquiring about the tenets of Christianity, and for all others who may find value in it if it helps them understand Christian belief a bit better.

Faith is a given in this Reflection. Therefore, there is no intention here to carry on dialogues about the validity of faith, the reality of events, or a general discussion of the merits of faith, or the lack thereof. Such discussions can be originated on other blogs.

---

It is my belief that Christians belong at the foot of the Cross on Good Friday. But it isn't the place where most people want to spend much time, and so Good Friday is also a time when many modern Protestant Churches do not even have services.

This phenomena of mass avoidance of Good Friday and spending time at the Cross is not all that new. In fact, the Bible tells us that most of the disciples were nowhere near the Cross when Jesus died.

Only His mother and the beloved disciple appear to have been close enough to actually hear him from the Cross, and that is told to us in only one of the four Gospels. There were some women who were his followers watching from a distance.

As for the inner core of believers, the ones who would become known as the apostles, most had gone into hiding, fearing that they would be subject to the same fate if they ventured out.

Peter had already denied three times that he even knew Jesus, let alone that he was Jesus' disciple. Peter did that even before he knew that Jesus would be sentenced to death.

The foot of the Cross may not be a comfortable place for a believer. But a believer should be there, comfortable or not. And that is the rub. We do not much like discomfort.

But, if we view it, as too many Christians today do, as simply as history, something that happened long ago, an evil deed perpetrated by others, then while we would not want to waste our time at the Cross, it would not bother us much if we did.

Most Christians are not so callous, and believe that this was a legal murder, this crucifixion, an evil deed perpetrated long, long ago by others. But along with that belief is the unstated idea the his crucifixion has nothing to do with us who were born 2000 years later.

They see us as benefiting from his sacrifice on the Cross. They do not see us as having any role in his death.

After all, didn't Jesus say, quite clearly, from the Cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Yes, he did. Even the most Biblically illiterate Christian knows that much. "Father, forgive them" is exactly what he said.

Hearing that, what should we think? Well, one of the things many Christians have been thinking about for 2000 years is trying to identify just who "them" is. The irony in that, of course, is that Christianity has spent 2000 years concentrating so hard on trying to decide who "them" is, that the true point of his forgiveness is lost on us.

Many of us cannot understand implications of the prayer of forgiveness made by Jesus from the Cross because it never occurs to us that it might be directed at us. After all, Jesus says it is directed at "them," the ones who were killing Him. And that was 2000 years ago!

In our subconscious obsession with distancing ourselves from the Cross even faithful Christians have sought to define "them" as almost anyone other than "us." It takes a courageous Christian to hold a mirror to his face and admit, "them is me!"

Through the centuries many Christians have never actually come to grips with the truth that it is our sin for which he died. Not just for the sin of those who lived back then, but for the sins of the entire world, past, present and future.

The Bible is crystal clear that Jesus came to save not just some people at some particular time and place but to save all people at all times and in all places. And Jesus' prayer from the Cross is proof of that when we understand that we are included in those for whom Jesus asked forgiveness.

But, as a result of our failure to see our own sin, we have, over the centuries, looked for and found scapegoats: , the Romans, Pilate, the Sanhedrein, the Pharisees, the Saducees, the Chief Priests. But, mostly, Christianity has thrown a blanket indictment over one people, "THE JEWS!"

This tragic failure at introspection lead, in the middle of the last century, to the greatest holocaust that the world has ever known. And even today it leads to ungodly prejudice and anti-semitism, spewing bile-filled hatred at the people God called his "chosen."

The Jews were chosen not for themselves alone, but because they believed in the one God who blessed them so that they could be a blessing to all people. Most antisemites conveniently overlook that fact.

Our Jewish Messiah, the one we call the Christ, this Jesus of Nazareth, a simple Jewish rabbi, this Savior we worship and adore, did not blame the Jews. Nor did he condemn Pilate, or the Romans, or the Chief Priests, or any single individual or group.

He could have condemned them. In his place I imagine that we would condemn lots of people. But he said, plainly and clearly, "Father, forgive them."

Yet, to the shame of the Church, we have too often indulged ourselves in our fear of facing the Cross. We have feared looking into the mirror and having to say, "Oh My Lord Jesus, I crucified you!"

Thankfully, a few Christians have thought it through, have figured out that Jesus died for the sins of all of us, have understood that we, in every generation, crucify Jesus by our sin.

Listen to the words of the great 17th century hymnist, Johann Heermann, in his anthem of confession, "Ah, Holy Jesus" written at a time of great tribulation, during the Thirty Years War.

Ah, holy Jesus, how hast Thou offended,
That man to judge Thee hath in hate pretended?
By foes derided, by Thine own rejected,
O most afflicted.

Who was the guilty- Who brought this upon Thee?
Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone Thee.
'Twas I, Lord, Jesus, I it was denied Thee!
I crucified Thee.

For me, kind Jesus, was Thine incarnation,
Thy mortal sorrow, and Thy life's oblation;
Thy death of anguish and Thy bitter passion,
For my salvation.

Lo, the Good Shepherd for the sheep is offered;
The slave hath sinned, and the Son hath suffered;
For our atonement, while he nothing heedeth,
God intercedeth.

Therefore, kind Jesus, since I cannot pay Thee,
I do adore Thee, and will ever pray Thee,
Think on Thy pity and Thy love unswerving,
Not my deserving.

We don't sing that song very much in most Churches any more. And in the churches that do, the words are often quite different, taking the sting of our guilt out of the song.

Why do you suppose that is? Does it hit too close to home? I can come up with no other answer than, "Yes. It hits too close to home. And there is no need to discomfort us right before the beauty of Easter."

But, unless we Christians can gather at the foot of the Cross of Jesus, and say with the hymnist, "I Crucified You," then we will never be able to feel the guilt that we need to confess. Neither will we be able to feel the pain Jesus felt on that cross, nor the love he offered to us.

Guilt is not something modern folk like to talk about. Nor is pain. Nor is forgiveness that comes to us through pain. And so, increasingly, much of the Protestant Church today flies through Palm Sunday and skips to Easter Sunday with only a small bow in the direction of the Cross.

One thing I am very pleased with in the Moravian Church that I served for the last five years of my ministry in is the Moravians still hold with the old idea that Holy Week means something.

And so Holy Week Readings are held each evening, up to and including Good Friday, consisting of readings from the Gospels and singing hymns that pull us into an understanding of our participation in the events leading to and ending in the crucifixion.

On that Cross of pain, Jesus, the one we call the Christ, the Messiah, offered us forgiveness of our sin, our personal sin. If we can begin, this Good Friday, to feel the guilt, to comprehend the pain, to sense the love of Christ for us, then we may be privileged to understand the real meaning of his offer of grace.

"Father, forgive them" is a singular act of grace bought for us, once, for all, by one who hung on a Cross and loved us enough to forgive us.

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" is also a prayer. Never forget that. It was Jesus' prayer to the One who could grant forgiveness for the sake of His Son. And God heard Jesus' prayer.

By the glorious resurrection of Jesus, the one who loves us enough to forgive us, God, in fact, did forgive us. By raising Jesus, God did reconcile us to Himself through the shed blood of his Son.

I have always thought the the name Good Friday is such an bittersweet name to attach to the day of crucifixion. Bitter in the pain and ultimate sacrifice of the Son of God. But sweet in the fruit of that sacrifice, which is the promise of salvation to those who believe on him.

Through his sacrafice on the Cross, Jesus offers a special grace to those who believe in him. That grace is that they shall not perish but shall have everlasting life.

My Good Friday prayer for myself and for all who call themselves Christians is "Father, forgive us, for we know now what we did."

May all of you, my dear friends on OS, find peace and love, hope and joy, whatever your belief may be.

Monte