The Elusive Nature of Evil

September 12, 2006 - 9:09pm

Part Three

In the spring of 2004, the serial killer known as BTK shocked experts around the world by reappearing after what were thought to be 20 years of dormancy. Because serial killers are almost always unable to stop killing once they start, it was assumed that BTK was either dead or in prison.

As it turns out, he had apparently gotten too old for the physical rigors of murder. He was married, and was gainfully employed, living in a suburb near Wichita, and the president of his church council...

Click here to read the rest of this essay at The Christian Century online.

Archive of Christian Century Articles by Gordon Atkinson


a Christian Magazine 
Christian Writing

rlp

Read Part One
Read Part Two
Visit the David Berkowitz website

Submitted by Erin on September 12, 2006 - 9:18pm.

I really enjoyed this series. :)

Submitted by Anonymous User on September 13, 2006 - 3:43am.

rlp,
I agree. I belonged to a sect of Christianity that was pro-death penalty and so much of their "service" was based on fear and anger rather than the "Spirit of Christ" that you talk about.

Great article.
Jeremy

Submitted by Anonymous User on September 13, 2006 - 6:10am.

Wow ... very courageous. Your point of view is one that I have always held. Good to have some affirmation. I suspect you will be subject to quite a lot of criticism though. Many in "the church" simply react out of their own fear to support the death penalty instead of considering what Jesus said about loving our neighbor. It is easy to love those around us. Is not the serial killer still our neighbor? Yes, the serial killer must be imprisoned for society's protection. But does isolating and putting him/her to death demonstrate the love that Jesus demands we give to all? ... and don't get me started about how many truly innocent "murderers" society has erroneously put to death over the decades/centuries ...

David Spitko

Submitted by Anonymous User on September 13, 2006 - 6:50am.

You wrote:
David Berkowitz, the Son of Sam killer, became a Christian in prison.

I'm curious (and surprised, actually) that you wrote this. Do you base this on what he said, or on what's in his heart? Do you think becoming a Christian requires a change of heart, or is it just the ability to talk using certain phrases? And if becoming a Christian requires a change of heart, how can we know what's in the heart of another?

BuddhaBoy

Submitted by rlp on September 13, 2006 - 9:30am.

You're right and I agree that we can't know what is in another person's heart. So no one can know if another is a Christian disciple, a true follower of Christ.

BUT, when someone tells me they have sought forgiveness and become a Christian, I believe them. I believe them every time. I believe them even if the last 50 people who said that turned out to be liars or manipulators. Everyone, even David Berkowitz, deserves to be taken seriously when it comes to matters of the soul.

Now if I knew David personally and his life did not demonstrate any of the changes that we associate with faith and devotion and spiritual practices, then I might come to doubt him.

But I don't know him. So yes, I believe him.

Submitted by Keith on September 13, 2006 - 10:40am.

I've never understood exactly what societies are trying to achieve with prisons. As far as I can tell, the main object is "out of sight, out of mind," but once that is accomplished, we're still left with the question of what kind of experience the prisoners should have. It seems some people want them to be punished, while others want them to be rehabilitated--and popular opinion swings between these two preferences from generation to generation.

I won't go so far as to believe anybody who tells me the state of their soul (I don't even believe people who tell me what their personalities are), but killing them when we don't really understand them does seem... well, something to err on the side of compassion about.

The only argument for the death penalty that I thought made any sense was: It's punishment. So punish.

Submitted by Anonymous User on September 13, 2006 - 11:09am.

The author of the article makes the mistake of confusing:

  • politically conservative Christians i.e., those defending the status quo of society and opposing social change, with
  • those who have the deepest respect for the literal and unchanging truth of scripture, denominational confessions, and church tradition.
In his perpetuation of the myth of literalist conservatives he does a great disservice.

Submitted by rlp on September 13, 2006 - 10:30pm.

I think I can see where you get this. The last paragraph. Those who called for his death had the language that reached his heart. I hate to split hairs, but I think I will because you did. I thought about this issue in writing. My first version said something like, "Those who might have called for his death had the language..." or something like that. I went with the simpler sentence for the following reason:

Fact: Conservative evangelical Christians who called for his death (those who support the death penalty and did in his case) do in fact have the message that reached him. A conservative, evangelical, "saved by the blood of Jesus message." That's their message and that is the message that reached him.

However, that doesn't mean that the EXACT people who called for his death were the EXACT people who brought him the message. Probably not. Possibly an evangelical Christian like myself who does not support the death penalty was the one that ministered to him. You see, I don't logically connect the two. My point is that this is the kind of message he could hear.

I mean, the point of the piece is that that many Christians who support the death penalty ironically have the kind of message that speaks to people like David Berkowitz.

In any case, I find it interesting (and yes, I'll be honest, a little annoying) when someone reads an entire essay and gets stuck on some technical point like this. I wonder what you thought about the basic idea of the piece?

Submitted by kdl on September 13, 2006 - 1:01pm.

Hi Gordon...

I was directly involved with the Rader case, handling all of the local and national media relations for the court. The most impressive and deepest memory I have of the experience is a man by the name of Michael Clark. He is Dennis Rader's pastor.

Rev. Clark was present, and ministered to Dennis Rader. He was nursing a wounded congregation, thrust into the limelight by a situtation totally beyond their control. It would have been easy for him to focus on that piece of his calling.

But he was there for that twisted, horrific, broken soul.

That was quite amazing to witness.

We are not qualified, nor are we called to judge a heart. God can and does redeem. Thank you for this essay.

kdl from Kansas

Submitted by Anonymous User on September 13, 2006 - 9:48pm.

Hi Gordon,
I was going to bring up Rev Clark as well but kdl beat me to it. I thought what you wrote was daring and powerful. I recently read a book by a life prisoner named Jens Soering (jenssoering.com) called THe Convict Christ, which was a powerful indictment of how we deal with prisoners in our country in particular. He took a similar stance to you with regard to the death penalty. It is a stance I also share and always have, even when I wasn't a Christian, even though it makes more sense now that I am...somehow.
I lead a spiritual direction group for ex-cons and do Sunday worship once a month in a maximum security prison and the power of the Gospel in some of their lives is a wonder to behold. The fact that they can maintain some semblance of faith in the mess of prison life is a profound witness. Their knowledge of the bible puts us preacher types to shame. But more than anything, I am keenly aware of how much they welcome visitors from the outside who are concerned about their welfare and spiritual well-being. Our lack of compassion for those who are in prison or who are just out of prison harms them deeply and convicts us in an even higher court.
Peace to you and your ministry!
SD Jones

Submitted by Anonymous User on September 14, 2006 - 6:57pm.

I think the two thieves who were crucified at the same time as Jesus demonstrate the model. One was saved, one was not. Both (all three) died.

Jesus granted one (Dismas?) salvation, but not his life.

There are crimes (murders) that do not warrant the death penalty, as crimes of passion, and I can understand that. Most murders are between knowing people, not strangers.

But the ultimate goal of Christ is to win souls and create disciples. Not to punish criminals and to advocate that diminishes the Gospel message.

There are other non-murder crimes that warrant the death penalty - such as multiple molesting, and others. Few molestees become Christians. And communities with molesting priests and ministers have far fewer souls won.

Putting these perpetrators in prison is isolation, which is good, but hardly punsihment - most jails are safer than the neighborhoods these perpetrators come from.

Prisoners are a savvy lot. They will say anything to get some benefit, including claiming to be Christians. I would take these jailhouse conversions with a grain, or block of salt.

In general, crimes of greed - like ZZZZBest - can produce sincere Christians. But these warped torture killers, molesters, etc., rarely become repentant.

For the benefit of society, and the kingdom, careful, accurate execution works.

Submitted by Anonymous User on September 15, 2006 - 7:57am.

While it says that the one will be in heaven with Christ, where is it written that the other was damned? RLP, or anyone who knows, do tell because I never heard this as the story of damnation but rather of the redemptive power of faith.

Celle

Submitted by rlp on September 15, 2006 - 10:45am.

The story of the two thieves occurs only in Luke - chapter 23. The little snippet of a story simply says that two criminals were crucified, one on each side of Jesus. One of the criminals asked to be remembered when Jesus came into his Kingdom. Jesus told him he would be with him in paradise.

No names are given, and nothing is said about the other man's eternal fate. I think to drag this passage out of its context and use it as a justification for capital punishment is a severe misuse of scripture.

This gives me a chance to point out something. Much of what people think the Bible says is actually a faulty memory of the text, or it might be a memory of what someone said about the text in a sermon or somewhere. There is a kind of scriptural mythology floating over and around the text of the Bible. Sometimes, ironically, I find that people who seem to be serious about the Bible in fact don't even know the difference between the actual text and the legends and additions we have added to it. The inkeeper in the birth story of Jesus is one good example. There is no inkeeper mentioned. Nor does the original even mention an inn - not in any way that resembles modern inns and motels and such.

Submitted by Anonymous User on September 15, 2006 - 8:50am.

careful, accurate execution works.

To do what?

I'm not arguing. I'm really asking.

Submitted by TheEdge on September 15, 2006 - 1:02pm.

I am unsure of how this three part essay turned into a debate about conservative Christians and the death penalty. You've never made your feelings toward the conservative camps of the Christian faith a secret but this was a slam from right field. There may be actual data that proves your point but I must wonder if all conservatives believe in the death penalty and all liberals stand against it? Whether intended or not, there is a high and mighty tone to this post. Liberals Christians have it right and conservatives have it all wrong.

I admit that I do not know what to think about this kind of punishment. It is certainly nothing new as is evident by the way Christ Himself died. At times I certainly see why we should not have such a harsh and final punishment but fully admit that I would call for someone's head if they harmed my children in such ways. I suppose that makes me a hypocrite but it’s my honest reaction to the issue.

Submitted by rlp on September 15, 2006 - 10:24pm.

C'mon Edge, read the essay again and then read your critique. It sounds like paranoid, "everyone is against the conservatives" rhetoric.

First, I went OUT OF MY WAY to carefully make sure I never said anything as asinine as "all conservatives believe in the death penalty and all liberals stand against it." I carefully crafted this sentence: "The most conservative Christians, the ones most convinced of a literal hell where eternal flames will lick at the damned for all eternity, are OFTEN the ones who demand the death penalty for violent killers."

That's true, isn't it? It's mostly the conservative evangelical Christians who support the death penalty. I'm sorry, but it is. And my wording carefully makes room for the exceptions, and they certainly exist.

I made a point, and it is a point that I have a right to make, and I believe an obligation to make. If Christians believe in redemption, what possible justification can we have for wanting to kill criminals? My opinion. My theology. My blog. At what point have I crossed some line here?

My essay makes a good point. It's a valid point. I await any answer to it that you want to give. But this essay has nothing to do with liberals having it all right and conservatives having it all wrong. I don't even know how to begin wrapping my mind around a statement like that. I certainly would never make it.

You know, according to many standards, I am a conservative. I'm an evangelical. That means I believe in giving your heart to Jesus and getting saved- amen, brother! Hell, I once knelt on the floor to pray with a family and they all got saved. I baptized them later in their own pool. The Bible is my authority for faith and practice. It's that very Bible and my conviction of God's love for all of us that leads me to this position.

Submitted by TheEdge on September 19, 2006 - 2:34pm.

I suppose I personalize your every post as though you speak directly to me. Maybe that is where I fail. Maybe that is how you so easily push my buttons and invoke response whether friendly or adversarial. So even carefully crafted sentences that leave room for the exceptions end up escaping my notice because there only exists you, the author and me, your only reader. Messed up, I know but that is how I participate here. And as much error that this causes for me, I really don't want to change strategies. So I take credit for screwing up the intended message. It is not your responsibility to hold my hand and explain your every word. My problem not yours.

What remains true about my initial shock is the direction that the series took. The Elusive Nature of Evil parts one and two would have never had me guessing that a conservative/death penalty issue was looming around the corner. But like you say...your blog, not mine.

Submitted by rlp on September 19, 2006 - 8:12pm.

Well, it might help to know that I had NO idea where the thing was going. It started out to be just a single essay. Then it was too long so I thought I'd go to two. And then it turned into three. I wrote and that's where it ended up. No planning.

However, I don't think it's that crazy a thing that a piece on serial killers ended up being a piece on capital punishment. I guess the two paradoxes that serial killers bring to mind for me is what led me to it. Those two paradoxes have puzzled me for years. The crazier they are they more we want them to suffer. And the theological issue which I NEVER hear my fellow evangelicals address. When was the last time (before me) you heard any evangelical consider the spiritual condition of the condemned person? I never have. I bring it up and people look at me like I have three heads. That's always seemed weird to me.

Anyway, that's where it led me.

Submitted by TheEdge on September 20, 2006 - 12:43pm.

An author is never truly expected to take us through their process and enlighten us on the journey. But I am glad I asked and glad you answered. You have some very compelling points and as a conservative evangelical myself, I admit to not having considered a firm stance one way or the other on capital punishment.