No.
18, June 1996
DOES BELIEF IN FUTURE PUNISHMENT AFFECT BEHAVIOR?
If we believe that in a future state
we will have to give an account for our deeds in this world, will that affect
our behavior? Does belief in future rewards and punishment influence our
morality?
This belief was deemed so relevant
to the founding fathers of our republic that some states included it in their
constitutions. Both Tennessee and Pennsylvania required that a lawmaker swear
allegiance both to belief in the existence of God and to a future state of
rewards and punishment.
I was recently reading about this in
a most appropriate setting, in a court of law in my own city of Denton, Texas.
It is my habit, when I may have to wait, to take a book along. This time I had
in tow a new book by American historian Edwin S. Gaustad on Sworn On The
Altar of God: A Religious Biography of Thomas Jefferson. I was at our 16th
District Court for a murder trial, and realizing that the wheels of justice
turn slowly I had this book to read to fill in the marginal time.
I was interested in this particular
trial because I sat on the grand jury that indicted the defendant, an
ophthalmologist who lives but a few miles from my home. The district attorney
had twice before sought an indictment against the physician for the murder of
his wife, but each time he was no-billed for lack of sufficient evidence.
The third time, some four years
after the alleged crime, the D.A. presented more evidence, or so it was
supposed, from the FBI lab, to the effect that the woman was murdered by
strangulation and that it was not an accident by electrocution (while she was
ironing!) as was claimed. So, we indicted him, but with some misgiving. It
looked like a weak case to several of us.
I asked the D.A. afterwards if he
thought he could get a conviction when it came to trial. It all depends on how
much money the doctor has left to spend on expensive lawyers, he said. It
interested me that no one at the court house doubted the doctor’s guilt. It was
only a question of whether they could prove it in a court of law.
I figured I was in for a show, but I
got more than I bargained for! In some ways it was a rerun of the O. J. trial,
even if much shorter, running less than two weeks. It was about an ugly
divorce, spousal abuse, a woman who had mortal fear of her exhusband, a
husband who wanted to control, and even a witness who saw things while walking
his dog!
Then there were pathologists with
conflicting testimony, one “medically certain” that it was murder by
strangulation, the other that the “cause of death undetermined,” that it could
have been either accidental or a homicide.
And there were female witnesses
weeping on the stand, the defendant’s own daughters, testifying against their
father. The jury, seven men and four women, all white, listened intently but
without emotion. The defendant, perhaps in his mid 50s, always looked
professional and exemplary, and showing no emotion, not even when his own
daughters were on the stand.
The defense lawyer from Dallas, who
had the charisma to play the role on TV, was what they call a good “book
lawyer” in that he laid the groundwork for an appeal in case they lost. Defense
lawyers are wiser than most of us in that they go at their work realizing they
might lose!
He made frequent objections and with
some flair, meticulously quoting from the law, which were almost always sustained
by the judge. Presenting few witnesses of his own, he had a way of using the
prosecution’s witnesses to his own advantage. When a psychologist who
counseled the defendant was brought in to testify that the doctor told him he
had access to his ex-wife’s home, the defense on cross-examination elicited
from the psychologist that his patient was “suicidal rather than homicidal.”
“And how many cases of spousal abuse
have you had in your 20 years of counseling?,” the defense asked. “Hundreds.”
And how many of these led to murder?” “None,” admitted the psychologist. The
prosecution wisely suggested, “There’s always a first time, isn’t there,
doctor?” But another seed for “reasonable doubt” was planted.
The defense also led one of the
daughters (who apparently believed her father guilty) to tell the jury what her
father told her when he learned she was going to testify against him. “He told
me to tell the truth,” she said.
There was, however, one big
difference from the O. J. trial, the lack of “crime scene” evidence. No finger
prints, no blood evidence, no DNA, no fiber, nothing, not even any evidence
that the defendant was in the victim’s home that tragic night. The defense, of
course, made the most of that. “The defendant is not on trial for being a poor
father or a bad husband, but for murder,” he told the jury in his closing
remarks. One of the prosecutors, a woman, called for a guilty verdict based on
common sense. “This man strangled his wife,” pointing to the unperturbed
doctor, “and her blood cries out from the grave for justice. You must not let
her down.”
The jury deliberated for 20 hours
over parts of three days. It reported to the judge intermittently that it was
deadlocked, but he would not dismiss them. They were to keep trying to reach a
verdict. At the close of the third day he relented and declared a mistrial. The
jury had deadlocked 10-2 for acquittal. While the doctor could be tried again,
he may not. The case could be dismissed eventually for lack of evidence.
The parents of the victim told the
press afterwards that there was no doubt in their minds that their former
son-in-law had murdered their daughter. The victim’s daughters, along with
other friends and kin, milled about the halls while the jury deliberated, day
after day, waiting anxiously for a guilty verdict and closure on a bitter
experience, which didn’t come.
Many were keenly disappointed,
convinced that it was another case of a murderer not brought to justice. The
foreman of the jury told the press that the evidence simply wasn’t there, but
still they had two holdouts for a guilty verdict.
Amidst all this drama I was reading
about Jefferson’s religion. At one break while the lawyers were at sidebar with
the judge, one of the daughters was on the stand softly weeping. The jury was
pensive; the defendant as poker-faced as usual. In that quiet setting my eyes
fell on these words from the Jefferson-Adams correspondence.
“A future state will set it all
right,” Adams asserted; “without the supposition of a future state I can make
nothing of this Universe but a Chaos.” And in a letter to Jefferson in 1818, he
went even further: “If I did not believe in a future state, I should not
believe in God.” The universe, in such a case, “with all its swelling pomp,”
would be nothing but “a boyish fire work.”
John Adams, our second president,
was agreeing with what Jefferson, our third president, had written to him.
Jefferson believed that our “moral instinct,” which assures us that the good
will prosper and the wicked will suffer, if not in this world then in the world
to come, is a great incentive to right living. God has placed “cosmic justice”
both in us and in the universe, Jefferson believed. If there is not a future
world in which right and wrong are “correctly balanced,” Jefferson wrote, then
the moral demands placed upon us in this world are “a cruel joke.”
So, during that dramatic trial I was
exposed to a different kind of testimony: the moral claims of reason and
nature, “and Nature’s God,” to quote Jefferson. Down deep within us all is the
moral conviction that we have our Maker to face in a world beyond this one. As
President Adams put it, this world makes no sense unless there is another one
that sets this one right. Or as Holy Scripture puts it: “Be not deceived. God
is not mocked. Whatever a person sows (in this world) he or she will reap (in
the next world)” (Gal. 6:7).
Yes, as good as our legal system is
(which was designed to protect the innocent), the guilty sometimes go free. But
in the light of eternity it does not matter all that much. One might for a time
escape human judgment, but there is more to come.
We all have to give an account in a
Higher Court beyond this world for the way we have treated each other in this
world. And before a Judge who cannot be mocked or deceived. Even when we
believe that God’s justice may be tempered by mercy, it is awesome to
contemplate.
If the rank and file really believed
in a future state where good deeds will be rewarded and evil deeds will be
punished, would it affect their behavior? I agree with Jefferson that there is
no question but what the promise of reward motivates kindly deeds and the dread
of punishment deters evil deeds. There are of course other motives, some more
lofty, but this may be the most effective of all.
If we really believed it! The
problem is that we live in a society where many have no regard for the law of
either man or God, and they have no fear of a judgment to come. Such ones grow
increasingly “heartless,” to quote the apostle Paul, ignoring even the moral
imperatives within their own souls.
However abundant God’s mercy may be,
we still have to face the judgment pointed to in Scripture: “We must all appear
before the judgment seat of Christ, that each may receive the things done in
the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10). In
the next verse the apostle refers to the “terror of the Lord” as reason enough
to persuade people to repent. The church today says too little about the wrath
of God and the judgment to come.
Even Christians, especially
Christians, are slow to realize that the way we treat people on planet earth is
serious business. – Leroy
Thomas Jefferson’s Religion
“And may that Infinite Power, which rules the destinies of the
universe, lead our councils to what is best.” (1801)
“For I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man.” (1800)
“Whereas Almighty God hath created
the mind free … ” (1786)
.
“Our savior did not come into the
world to save metaphysicians only.” (1818)
ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL ARE NOT THE SAME
Even with God acceptance and
approval are not the same. In His love and mercy He accepts us, just as we are,
without approving of all that we are and do. “God demonstrates His own love
toward us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Rom. 5 :8).
So it should be in the church. It is
to be a community where each receives the other as all have been received by
God. This is the force of Rom. 15:7, “Receive (accept) one another even as
Christ has received you, to the glory of God. “ We honor God in accepting each
other because in accepting each other we are accepting God.
It is a serious sin to reject one
that God accepts. Since God has received me without approving of me, I am to
receive those that I do not approve of.
Rejection is a devastating
experience, one of the hardest blows we can inflict upon another. This is
evident in the extremes to which we go to avoid it, from childhood on. We yield
to peer pressure rather than experience rejection. The fear of rejection is
behind most all conformity. Many start smoking and drinking, even when they
dislike such habits, in order to be accepted by their group. It accounts for a
lot of crime. The demand to conform even dictates political opinions. Rejection
so shatters self-esteem that we’ll do nearly anything to avoid it.
This brutal truth affects our life
in the church more than we may realize. We so badly need each other that we’ll
do nearly anything to avoid being put down. This is why we must create an
atmosphere of loving acceptance that allows us all to be ourselves with no
strings attached. Others must be able to hear us saying:
It is OK for you to
be different.
It is only when people see that they
are unconditionally loved and accepted that they can be their unique selves in
Christ. This is the meaning of unity in diversity. We cannot be truly one -
whether in a family or in church - without differences.
This is because it is no more
possible for us to see everything alike than for us to look alike. A society
that applies pressure and demands conformity, however subtly, cannot be a true
Church of Jesus Christ. A true church enjoys reconciled diversity. “There are
diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:4).
This means that fellowship
(koinonia) is one thing and approval (endorsement) is something else. We might
approve of people (of high moral character for instance) with whom we are not
in fellowship, and we might disapprove of people (such as their lifestyle) with
whom we are in fellowship.
A couple may be going through an
ugly divorce in a case where both are at fault. We do not approve, but still we
love and accept them as a precious sister and brother. Our kids often go off in
crazy directions, and we do not approve, but we go right on accepting them
nonetheless. We are not to shoot our wounded!
If this does not apply to doctrinal
differences, then there is no way for the church to be united, and this must
include social issues such as euthanasia, abortion, pacifism, capital punishment,
homosexuality. We may disagree on such things, even strongly, but still accept
each other – even as Christ has accepted us. I can believe a sister is wrong,
even seriously wrong, and still enjoy her fellowship. Because Christ accepted
me when I was seriously wrong.
Adherence to this principle would
have spared us the pain of division and sub-division. We could have churches
that support agencies such as Herald of Truth and Sunday schools and those that
do not; churches that have instrumental churches and those that sing only
acapella; churches that use one cup for the Supper and those that use multiple
cups. On and on the differences go. We are all to be one church, loving and
accepting each other in diversity. And with no one having to violate
his or her conscience. It is a simple guideline: Accept others on the same
basis Christ has accepted you.
This does not mean that doctrine is
unimportant or that differences do not matter. Doctrine is important and
differences do matter. It only means that we work with differences (when we
feel we must) within the fellowship and within an atmosphere of loving
acceptance. With Christ as our example we cannot make agreement or conformity a
condition of acceptance.
Nor does it mean that we accept
within the fellowship “anybody and everybody.” We are talking about sisters and
brothers in Christ. How dare we reject anyone whom Christ accepts!
Nor does it mean that we may not
have to discipline some within the church for factiousness or moral turpitude.
But even here our love is to be boundless and unconditional. We should apply
surgery to the Body of Christ no sooner than we would to our own body.
Is this not what being the church is
about, a community of believers who care one for another, even as Christ cares
for us? “He who does not love his brother or sister whom he has seen, how can
he love God whom he has not seen? (1 Jn. 4:20). – Leroy
OUR CHANGING WORLD
It is not too late for you to join
Ouida and me and thousands of others from several continents at the World
Convention of Churches of Christ in Calgary, Alberta (Canada), July 30-Aug. 4.
It is billed as a “Global Family Roundup” for Churches of Christ, Christian
Churches, Disciples of Christ. You may enroll by calling the WCCC office in
Nashville at 615-321-3735 (Fax 327-1445).After the Convention Ouida and I will
join two busloads of Australians for a 17 -day tour of western Canada and
Alaska. Since our visit Down Under in 1994 the Aussies have adopted us as their
own, or we’ve adopted them. In any event, we’re tagging along as they go by
bus, rail, and boat to such historic places as Fort Nelson, Watson Lake,
Whitehorse, Beaver Creek, Fairbanks, Denali National Park, Anchorage, Tok,
Dawson City, Skagway, Inside Passage, Prince Rupert, Prince George, Vancouver.
We’ll have to tell you more about it in our next.
We had a great time at the
Pepperdine Lectures where we met hundreds of new and old friends. Scores of
classes and lectures, including music and drama, offered a wide variety for the
thousands who were there. Lots of good stuff! My assignment, shared with Tom
Olbricht of Pepperdine and Doug Foster of ACU, was well-attended with good
interest. The atmosphere of the Pepperdine Lectures open, free, poised,
relaxed – points to new directions for Churches of Christ. They make great
hosts on what is probably the most beautiful university campus in the world. As
I said in my history book, Pepperdine always goes first class. Believe it,
even a Churches of Christ lectureship can be first class!
Afterward we visited both the Reagan
and Nixon presidential libraries. Both are resourceful depositories of
Americana and elegantly appointed. Since California law forbids internment at
such places, there is a tiny Quaker cemetery within the Nixon library grounds,
deeded to the local Friends church so as to circumvent the law, where only the
Nixons are buried. We took scenic highway 1 to San Diego, visiting such coastal
towns as San Clemente and Oceanview. We watched the sunset at Mission Beach in
San Diego, visited quaint boutiques, saw the city at night from the Coronado
bridge, and spent a few hours in Tijuana across the Mexican border. The San
Diego zoo lives up to its reputation. On our way back to Long Beach to fly
home, we visited with longtime friend Cleona McCreight near Escondido, who has
not been well, and her husband Don, whom we were eager to meet. As glorious as
it all was, the best part was getting to be with Ouida in some special places,
and in her own country, which she prefers.
BOOK NOTES
I have come upon a few copies of The
Bleating Sheep by Robert W. Blackshear, with the subtitle “A New Look At
Acts 6:1-7.” It includes several essays by Carl Ketcherside on the duties and
qualifications of elders. It argues persuasively for Body life or mutual
sharing rather than a professional system where all but one are mere auditors.
It is well worth the $5, postpaid.
Edward Fudge says he was reared in a
church that taught that God does not operate separate and apart from the Word,
and that God’s guidance meant following “true doctrine.” He eventually came to
see that the living God is full of surprises and very much at work in our lives.
So he wrote Beyond the Sacred Page: A Testimony to the Guidance of God in
the Life of One Man. You will be edified. $8.95 postpaid.
Some thoughtful church leaders are
insisting that we must think and talk about God more. Gene Shelburne does this
in The God Who Puts Us Back Together. He notes that we are sometime
broken and don’t know it, and at other times we know it all too well. But still
there is the great truth that God puts us back together. A heart-warming book
that makes a thoughtful gift for those with broken dreams, broken families,
broken lives. $9.95 postpaid.
We offer Richard Hughes’ Reviving
the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America for $30. I
disagree with some of its conclusions but recommend it as resourceful and
informative.
A fistful of back issues of
Restoration Review are useful in passing along to others or informing yourself
as to what we said for 40 years. We’ll send a sampling of 25 issues, scattered
over the years, for only $5, postpaid. Our five remaining bound volumes,
1983-92, are a bargain at $65, postpaid, or $15 per volume.
As we go to press a call comes from
Lorraine Jacobs, associate secretary of the World Convention of Churches of
Christ, informing us of a shortfall of cash in their efforts to involve more
people from acappella churches. She is particularly eager to bring a singing
group from Churches of Christ in California to the Calgary convention in July,
the New Creation singers. Would you join Ouida and me in sending a donation for
this cause? The WCCC is encouraging more fellowship among the churches of the
Restoration Movement. Any cash overflow will go the “Churches of Christ Fund,”
which has recently been created. Address: 1101 19th Ave. S. Nashville, TN.
37212.