My mom sent me a link to this CNN article, about a man who became an ordained Episcopalian priest while serving a prison sentence for a second-degree murder he helped (a homeless man who was stabbed to death) commit at age 17 in 1986.
The priest, Rev. James Tramel, earned his M.Div in 1998, while in prison. He is now engaged to another Episcopal priest (I don't know how that came about, won't go there in this post...) and will now be serving as assistant pastor at a small Episcopal church. The congregation, the article reports, is excited to receive him there. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger granted his parole earlier this month.
The family of the murdered man is not so excited. Some family members wonder if the conversion is a trick to get released from prison. The twenty years he served was not enough, some say.
I think this raises interesting questions. Do we believe a person can be redeemed? I don't blame the family for their skepticism. I am sure I would feel the same way if it was my loved one who was murdered. But do we not believe that a person who commits a crime at 17 can be changed by the time they are 38 into a different person? A person who has repented and been forgiven, if not by the family, then by God?
If we believe in redemption, does redemption override the need for punishment? How much redemption do we need to outweigh the need for continuing punishment?
These questions are also the questions I have when we talk about death-penalty issues. I strongly oppose the death penalty for many reasons, including the way the death penalty is applied, how death sentences are carried out, who decides the sentence, etc., but also because I don't see in the death penalty room for redemption.
I understand the struggle. How does the victim and the family of the victim find solace in the redemption of the criminal? The victim has no such opportunity to change over twenty years of their life has been cut short. But must we always have "an eye for an eye"?
Perhaps we could argue that a person redeemed spiritually can still serve out a punishment for a crime - they can be redeemed and forgiven and still required to be punished - it is only fair. But still, I wonder - do we believe they've been redeemed or not? Or do we still see the criminal as that - a criminal - no matter how long it has been, how different they are, how much their life has changed?
The priest, Rev. James Tramel, earned his M.Div in 1998, while in prison. He is now engaged to another Episcopal priest (I don't know how that came about, won't go there in this post...) and will now be serving as assistant pastor at a small Episcopal church. The congregation, the article reports, is excited to receive him there. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger granted his parole earlier this month.
The family of the murdered man is not so excited. Some family members wonder if the conversion is a trick to get released from prison. The twenty years he served was not enough, some say.
I think this raises interesting questions. Do we believe a person can be redeemed? I don't blame the family for their skepticism. I am sure I would feel the same way if it was my loved one who was murdered. But do we not believe that a person who commits a crime at 17 can be changed by the time they are 38 into a different person? A person who has repented and been forgiven, if not by the family, then by God?
If we believe in redemption, does redemption override the need for punishment? How much redemption do we need to outweigh the need for continuing punishment?
These questions are also the questions I have when we talk about death-penalty issues. I strongly oppose the death penalty for many reasons, including the way the death penalty is applied, how death sentences are carried out, who decides the sentence, etc., but also because I don't see in the death penalty room for redemption.
I understand the struggle. How does the victim and the family of the victim find solace in the redemption of the criminal? The victim has no such opportunity to change over twenty years of their life has been cut short. But must we always have "an eye for an eye"?
Perhaps we could argue that a person redeemed spiritually can still serve out a punishment for a crime - they can be redeemed and forgiven and still required to be punished - it is only fair. But still, I wonder - do we believe they've been redeemed or not? Or do we still see the criminal as that - a criminal - no matter how long it has been, how different they are, how much their life has changed?
Comments
--- Mahatma Gandhi
I agree with you re death penalty. I believe that it is a denial of the Gospel if we forever freeze people into their worse moments.
I sympathise with hurting relatives but to me this story is a reminder of the joyful news that Christ saves us to the uttermost.
I believe in redemption. I believe that Christ can and will offer redemption to all who will believe on him. When Christ died, he took on the sins of all humanity, from Adam to the Antichrist. I sincerely believe that. All one has to do to be redeemed is to believe and Christ working with the Holy Ghost will redeem that person. I have had this arguement with several unbelievers who always like to use the Adolf Hitler question. It goes, "if Hitler had sincerely been moved by the Spirit, been convicted of his sin, accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, would he be in Heaven right now?" Well, I truly believe that he would be, if his conversion was sincere. Keep going with this. Say that in my hypothetical example, he is captured by the Allies and put on trial for crimes against humanity. Wouldn't the Allies have the obligation to hang him for the murder and war that killed millions, even though, he was a redeemed, born again Christian? Of course we would.
Forgot about Hitler. Suppose I were a murder, a rapist, or a thief. I become convicted by the Holy Spirit and I accept Christ as my savior. I am washed in the Blood. If I died tomorrow, I'd go to Heaven. What is the first thing that my new found Christian faith tells me I should do? I should turn myself in to the civil authorities and accept whatever punishment I am deemed worthy to recieve. If I was a murdurer, that doesn't change simply because the state may execute me. If I am to be put to death, then so be it.
Moses was a murdurer, but God redeemed him and used him to deliver the children of Israel. Paul was an accessory to murder, but God allowed him to write 2/3 of the New Testament and to be one of the Greatest Evangelists in the history of the church. David was a murdurer and an adulterer, but he was also a man after God's heart. Others are guilty of similar crimes, but they are incarcerated or condemned and there is no parole or commute of sentence.
The bottom line is that God chooses. If God has a need for a person to be used in prison, he may keep him or her in prison. If God has a need for that person back in society, He will certainly get them out. If God has used that person to the end, he will be executed. God never said life was fair. If that was the case, Christ would never have crucified.
- Andy B.
I can understand the family's scepticsm - but I hope for all - especailly the new pastor - that he is redeemed and reformed and can bring the truth to people and set them free.