In light of the Gosnell trial many of my friends have been posting on Facebook about mercy, saying that to hope he receives the death penalty is vengeful, and that the pro-life movement needs to take the higher ground.
This is good. Mercy is good, the higher ground is good, speaking against hatefulness is good.
But it has also been bothering me. Because mercy is not the opposite of vengeance; justice is the opposite of vengeance. And mercy cannot be defined in relationship to vengeance, but only in relationship to justice. To say someone should be shown mercy implies that they have done something wrong, and thus that they stand in debt to justice.
So. What is mercy not? Mercy is not simply an aversion to violence. It does not absolve a person of the responsibility to look their sin in the face and acknowledge what they've done, because that is the opposite of justice.
What is mercy? I am perhaps incapable of answering that question very thoroughly, but I have come to two conclusions. 1) Again, we can only understand mercy in relationship to justice, and 2) we must understand that mercy has a specific goal. If a "merciful" action denies what is just or goes against what should be it's ultimate goal, it is a false mercy and harmful to all parties involved.
If you ask that Gosnell be shown mercy by not receiving the death penalty, the implication is that it would be just for him to die for his crimes. Because again, the opposite of mercy is not vengeance. If Gosnell's death sentence was motivated purely by vengeance, arguing for his life would be an act of justice, not mercy. To be up front: I am not arguing for Gosnell's death, but I do believe that it would be just, considering that magnitude of evil he has committed. I also believe many people desire his death out of vengeance. That is wrong, although it isn't hard to understand; it's something we have to guard against in ourselves. But if Gosnell is sentenced to death, I don't think we can simply label that "vengeance" or "hatefulness." Would that it were so simple.
The reason that this is so important is because I think mercy is in danger of being misunderstood. This is very dangerous for many reasons, but primarily because mercy has a very definite purpose. It is meant to accomplish what is truly and actually best for the person who is being shown mercy. Acting as though someone hasn't committed horrible and hateful crimes is not good for that person; it is the worst thing you can do for them. In other words, Gosnell must be punished and his punishment must matter, for his own sake.
The reason that this is so important is because I think mercy is in danger of being misunderstood. This is very dangerous for many reasons, but primarily because mercy has a very definite purpose. It is meant to accomplish what is truly and actually best for the person who is being shown mercy. Acting as though someone hasn't committed horrible and hateful crimes is not good for that person; it is the worst thing you can do for them. In other words, Gosnell must be punished and his punishment must matter, for his own sake.
Even if you don't believe in heaven and hell, I think you can agree that if Gosnell cannot see the evil of his actions he is either extremely ill or simply a depraved man. Both of these things are harmful to his personhood. True mercy aims to heal the illness--and/or to correct the evil in his soul.
Personally, if I imagine myself in such a position, I can see myself being much more motivated to repent of my actions if I knew I was going to die and face eternity in a matter of weeks or months. And perhaps being sentenced to death is the only tangible way that some people will be brought face to face with the enormity of what they've done.
But, I can also imagine this:
An act of pardon that demonstrates, in a real and tangible way, that the door of forgiveness is always open. And perhaps, knowing that, something takes root in the heart of a criminal and can grow into repentance.
Looking at mercy from a theological standpoint, I think of how each of us deserves Hell for our sins. And yet when we are sorry for them, when we repent, we are forgiven.
Looking at mercy from a theological standpoint, I think of how each of us deserves Hell for our sins. And yet when we are sorry for them, when we repent, we are forgiven.
Mercy.
Even more so: Christ died for us before we even had the desire or ability to repent. It is His Mercy which even puts such a thought into our hearts, long before we are worthy of it. Mercy precedes repentance, but repentance is its goal. And repentance can only come from a recognition of what we have done, and what we deserve--of justice!
We are called to be witness for Life in a society that disrespects it. This may indeed mean arguing for Gosnell's life, but just as importantly it means fighting to be sure that his actions are recognized as evil. Perhaps others are more open to grace than I am, but I personally find these two strands very difficult to hold together and find it requires continual struggle.
In case it's unclear, I am NOT arguing that Gosnell should receive the death penalty. Thankfully that choice does not rest on my shoulders. But I believe it is more important to pray for his soul than anything, anything else, even his life. And that it is vitally important we understand what mercy really means.
In case it's unclear, I am NOT arguing that Gosnell should receive the death penalty. Thankfully that choice does not rest on my shoulders. But I believe it is more important to pray for his soul than anything, anything else, even his life. And that it is vitally important we understand what mercy really means.
