Col. Ghadaffi’s death and justice

Was justice served in the defeat and death of Libyan leader Col. Ghadaffi? Two very different reactions have gone out – those who feel his death was no more than a brutal assassination, meant to cover up some conspiracy or other; This group usual protests that a court trial was in order then a formal sentence to be passed in judgment. Whether this would have meant capital punishment or life imprisonment, we do not know, but the emphasis is on respect for law. Otherwise our actions are no better than his were. Then another group who feel he deserved that kind of death, and they did us a favour by that hasty execution. Was justice truly served?

Three principles must remain clear in our minds. The first is the mandate “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. In the Old Testament, this meant, the punishment must fit the crime – not more or less. An eye for a tooth would be unfair. By the time of Jesus, people had come to use this saying for personal revenge, rather than equity in the law courts. (In any cases a lot of the judicial functions were out of the hands of the Jews during the Roman occupation). Jesus prescribed turning the other cheek, allowing insult to go without retribution, though this did not preclude self defence (turn a cheek to a slap not a punch!), nor the equity of the courtroom.

The second principle is that, “he who lives by the sword will die by the sword”. Peter drew his sword to prevent Jesus arrest, but he was off mark on the will of God there. ‘Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26: 52). Much like the Proverbs wisdom, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Proverbs 14: 12). There is the inherent danger of the lifestyle of battle and killing. He lived by the sword, he died by it.

The third is the principle of ultimate justice. No one ever truly gets away with injustice. We must all eventually meet our Maker; “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Hebrews 9: 27). Retribution will be fine and adequate. No crimes will go unpunished in God’s world. It is never if, but when, for Ghadaffi, and all people.

So how do these three principles apply? First, we know that the state of war means life is not handled with the same care as times of peace. This isn’t to say that it is no less precious, but the perils of war are very real. Men who perhaps saw their friends die on the field were probably incensed at the one who caused this war to prolong. A sense of retribution filled many minds, I suspect! Beyond that, a court could have delivered a verdict, one which we all know would have been guilty. Would have been a court case for show, since we all know how it was going to turn out? Not necessarily. Due process is about the mandated executors of justice in society. If we all started shooting people who have wronged us, something would break down in society! Even if it was an official military firing squad, it would have come closer to a legitimate act of justice.

The principle of “he who lives by the sword” is not a vindication of a random shot by someone in the crowd. Rather it means, the one who lives by combat is likely to die in it – Fight often enough and you will meet your match one day! His way of life was not wise! It’s like playing with matches and getting burned. In that sense, such an end is not surprising.

Finally, ultimate retribution is not executed on earth. After all, if Gahadaffi allegedly killed hundreds of people over the years, does his one death balance with all those other deaths? Our most severe penalty is capital punishment, whether someone killed one or one thousand people. The scales of justice are still lacking, although it still has value as a deterrent and warning to others. But, ultimate justice is for God to execute, the one who sees all and hates all evil. To God, our thoughts words and actions, day and night, are an open book. What is not punished and pardoned because of the Cross of Christ, will be punished in the individual. God is more offended by evil than we will ever know. Ghadaffi has met his maker. He has answered to the highest court. Our task is equitable justice. But remember, our retribution is a shadow of his, so we must not look for the final answer here, otherwise we will be frustrated by all the things we shall never prove and never know.

How Shall We Then Drink?

Few weeks ago started a series on Christians and their attitude towards alcohol. Today I would like to talk a bit about how Christians might exercise their freedom to drink alcohol in the Zambian context.  

Just before I get to my seven points I feel I need to say a bit more about why I bothered to start the series at all. When I started the series I knew there was great potential for misunderstanding and controversy. Despite this I felt compelled to go ahead since I believe that  in our country the issues surrounding the Christian attitude towards alcohol relate to the sufficiency of the gospel and that is serious(read Galatians). I considered ignoring the issue since it is not the most important issue in the Zambia, that honour goes to missions. But I thought of the Apostle Paul and how he handled legalism. He saw it as a counterfeit gospel and confronted it.  I may not be the Apostle Paul but I felt all things considered this was an issue that deserved discussion amongst evangelical Christians in our country.

Secondly, I was compelled to write when I saw a group of Christians abuse their freedom to drink. It seemed to me their understanding of the freedom to drink was that they were free to drink in the way that everyone else does and that is wrong. The more I thought about it the more I became persuaded that this group of Christians were behaving this way due to a lack of counsel.  If evangelical Christians in Zambia did not have an unofficial law against alcohol drinking these Christians could have got the guidance and counsel they required.

So how can Christians exercise this freedom in the Zambian context? Well here are some suggestions:

1.       Drinking should be practiced in a counter cultural way. The Zambian drinking culture is sinful. Let be clear about that. In fact let me go further to say the evangelical Christians  critique of drinking in Zambia is mostly spot on. Zambians celebrate drinking to excess, glorify the drunken state and their exploits while in the drunken state and prize social events were beer flows freely and wildness happens (just look at any issue of the Friday Post). If you choose to drink as a Christian in Zambia you must ensure that the way you drink in no way endorses the SINFUL drinking culture in our country. This will involve doing things like refraining from  engaging in or approving of any talk that approves such drinking, refraining from drinking at places where the sinful culture is practices. Positively, I believe that it will involve drinking mainly in family settings or family friendly settings. By family friendly settings I mean the type of places where children can be taken without fear of their being damaged by the experience.

2.       Drinking should not be practiced with the unwise or worldly. The scripture is full of advice on how bad company corrupts. In Zambia where evangelical Christians generally do not drink there is a risk that Christians who choose to drink will become drinking buddy’s with non Christians. It risk is further extended since in Zambia those who drink usually endorse other sinful behavior such as sexual promiscuity and so on. As such a Christian who drinks must be aware that unwise decisions on who they will drink with can lead to a slide into sin.

3.       The why the freedom to drink alcohol is practiced should clearly display the difference between drinking alcohol and getting drunk.  While is acceptable Christians to have  their heart  “gladden” by alcohol, drunkenness is sin. If a Christian chooses to drink it should be clear to all who know them Christians and non Christians that they do not get drunk.  

4.       A Christian who drinks should be sensitive to Christians who cannot drink with a clear conscience or believe that it is wrong to drink. They should not indulge in their freedom with an “in your face attitude” or go on crusades to recruit “drinkers for Christ”. After all the Apostle Paul in Romans 14 instructs that the unity of the Church that God is building is more valuable than your right to drink. This however, does not mean that the Christian will be silent on legalistic attitudes towards drinking. When faced with such attitudes any Christian must gently and clearly point out how this is legalism.

5.       If you drink, in light of the fact that most Christians do not expect you to drink and society does not expect you to drink you should be prepared to clearly explain your position. The non Christian should never get the impression you are embracing everything that goes along with drinking in the Zambian. The Christian should be clear in their mind that you stand apart from the world and love the Church.

6.       Be well aware of the temptations that go along with your choice (that is if you choose to drink), gossip, slander, verbal abuse, fighting and sexual promiscuity and be sure that you have strategies to fight against these temptations. Further If you find that you are regularly fall  into these practices my recommendation is  follow the counsel from Jesus’ sermon on the mount and pluck out your eye (drinking) and live without an eye rather than have your whole body cast into sheol.

7.       If you drink, drink wisely. Remember wisdom listens and does not take advice lightly. If people come to you with valid concerns about your drinking listen to them and where appropriate put their advice into practice. 

Well more can be said but I thought that I would share these things with you grace and peace.