"Local" law enforcement when no gov't oversees the law

[Mushroom]

The aim of missions is to convert the ungodly to the one true faith. A part of that faith is submission to the magistrate's authority whenever his dictates do not cause us to sin. If these folks are calling themselves converts, then shouldn't they be encouraged to utilize the civil gov't in place to resolve matters of justice with those outside the faith? If they are unregenerates, all you have is the testimony of at least one of them to verify the facts, because I'm sure no christian would take part. Since that is the case, I wouldn't put too much stock in the story, and allow the authorities to do or not do whatever they deem fit. If a christian were to tell me he'd taken part, I'd tell him he needed to turn himself in to the authorities and confess his sin. If it were an unbeliever who told me, I'd tell him he was a criminal and to expect both civil and spiritual justice for his actions.

It sounds like these guys were acting on a decision taken from a general discussion of the bad guy, who should have been prosecuted at the time of the previous murders if the accusations were true. If they'd been acting out of some established tribal code of law it may be different, but I haven't heard that to be the case.

A case Im familiar with occured where a man had raped a woman, but they were both members of the criminal underbelly. Her friends assumed that the law would not believe her nor prosecute, so they took it upon themselves to tie the man to a chair and castrate him. Would that be lawfully appropriate in a third world country, but not so in a developed one?

If the facts appeared to coincide with what I had been told, I'd probably inform the authorities. God is sovereign over them, and who and how they prosecute is determined by Him.

 

[Pergamum]

Who are the authorities?


And yes, this occurrence is in accordance with traditional ways of dealings with troublesome people.


In the Wild West there was no gov't, but instead of shipping criminals back east where "civilization" lay, on-the-spot deputizing and lynchings tried to institute justice. Is this permissible if the authorities are a long, long way away?

 

[Pergamum]

The aim of missions is to convert the ungodly to the one true faith. A part of that faith is submission to the magistrate's authority whenever his dictates do not cause us to sin. If these folks are calling themselves converts, then shouldn't they be encouraged to utilize the civil gov't in place to resolve matters of justice with those outside the faith? If they are unregenerates, all you have is the testimony of at least one of them to verify the facts, because I'm sure no christian would take part. Since that is the case, I wouldn't put too much stock in the story, and allow the authorities to do or not do whatever they deem fit. If a christian were to tell me he'd taken part, I'd tell him he needed to turn himself in to the authorities and confess his sin. If it were an unbeliever who told me, I'd tell him he was a criminal and to expect both civil and spiritual justice for his actions.

It sounds like these guys were acting on a decision taken from a general discussion of the bad guy, who should have been prosecuted at the time of the previous murders if the accusations were true. If they'd been acting out of some established tribal code of law it may be different, but I haven't heard that to be the case.

A case Im familiar with occured where a man had raped a woman, but they were both members of the criminal underbelly. Her friends assumed that the law would not believe her nor prosecute, so they took it upon themselves to tie the man to a chair and castrate him. Would that be lawfully appropriate in a third world country, but not so in a developed one?

If the facts appeared to coincide with what I had been told, I'd probably inform the authorities. God is sovereign over them, and who and how they prosecute is determined by Him.

The aim of missions is to glorify God primarily and secondarily to convert men.

Also,
Obedience to the civil gov't ranks low on the priority list among desired outcomes. It is a good thing but not the first objective that comes to mind, especially if the gov't is corrupt or of the Religion of Peace. Among many needful items teaching on civics must wait....


But, good points...

 

[BJClark]

Pergy,

Why compare the situation to the 'wild west?'

The three clans apparently held their own court (he killed three people) they found him guilty; He admitted he would kill again. Jails probably do not exist in the area, and they probably don't have financial ability to support a jail, so they dealt with the criminal element within their midst expediently with the death penalty.

Does it matter it was done at night and not in the light of day?

Why do we assume they must go to jail or taken to a larger city or community to deal with the criminal element amongst them?

It wasn't a lynch mob, it was three people representing three different clans, which you said

was done after representatives of these 3 clans got together and decided it was best for Person A to die since he has already murdered and is threatening to murder again.

Certainly sounds like a trial and determination of sentencing was done at that point. So why should we take issue with it?

Why should I or anyone report it to any other government authorities?

that would be like a person killing three people in Florida, they go to trial here, they are sentenced to death, Florida executes them and then informing the authorities in Georgia as to what they decided..Why should the authorities in Georgia care what another state did, unless of course the person also killed people there and they were looking to prosecute the person for other crimes? Doesn't make sense.

How was it done in secret if the clans got together and determined the man was guilty and sentenced him to death? Sounds like the only thing done in secret was the timing..but, it sounds possible (in that they don't have jails to where he could be detained for extended periods of time, where tax dollars support the criminal) he would have either fled or continued on his own killing spree. Sounds like they acted in most responsible way in order to protect others within their communities..

I guess I don't see what the problem is on how they handled it.

 

[Pergamum]

Thanks Bobbi;

I compare it to the Wild West because in both cases there is a gov't - but way far away. One would have to bind the criminal and travel for days and days to get to a jail.


Yes, I am leaning towards your view.

 

[Kenneth_Murphy]

Just to throw something else into the mix.

If you look at Jesus' trial/execution. The local tribes (jews) wanted and felt they had the authority to execute Jesus for violation of their laws. However, the Jewish tribe was actually under the broader roman empire and were therefor not free to enforce their own capital punishment laws or risk upsetting the Romans. So they had to go a more complex route to enforce justice as they saw it.

So in the case of the tribes in your example I would say it appears they did what they felt was their custom of law enforcement. I'm not saying it's biblical or not. They then have to decide how great a risk there is in a "higher" government taking note of their case and doing something about it. Which like you mention could be bad for the tribes overall. So are they remote enough from the "higher" government to escape notice? I would imagine if someone "informed" the "higher" government that person would be looked down upon by the community if they found out who leaked the information.

 

[Pergamum]

yes, no one would know probably unless someone (on outsider) saw and told.

 

[Mushroom]

The aim of missions is to glorify God primarily and secondarily to convert men.

Ya got me there, Pergs. Guess I was doing that assuming thing and taking that part for granted. All things redound to the glory of God.

Its easy for folks like me to sit here in the comfort of my safe American home and make broad statements on things like this so far detached from the facts on the ground. But what I do worry about is that if you sit by and do nothing in regards to this, it could become a legal difficulty for you or even ammunition for any enemies in the future.

I know there are situations where a gov't will outlaw behavior that is required of christians, such as carrying out the great commission, but would that then imply that all laws that gov't enacts are free for christians to break? If they outlaw christian witness, should we also defy a law against shoplifting? Not reporting a murder one knows about is a crime in this country. If it is in that one, is it acceptable to break it?

Whoever might have told you about this has a motive for doing so. I would be nervous about that at the very least. Perhaps they are looking to see how you react? This could be a very dicey thing, brother, I would suggest to you to be very cautious, perhaps seek counsel form those who have spiritual oversight over you, or at least some of the shepherds here on PB, to determine a wise route to take.

 

[kvanlaan]

Mary, one thing about your post there: the Underground actually assumed the mantle of the civil government in many cases (unless one argues that the occupying Nazis were the rightful government in authority, but I don't buy that). The rightful civil government was in exile and the queen herself had charged the populace with defending against and resisting the Nazis (by radio braodcast). Thus it would appear that though it was an ad hoc deputization, the Nederlands Binnenland Strijdkracht/other Underground groups did have the authority to act as deputized by the queen.

 

[Pergamum]

Brad: Thanks. I didn't mean to correct you, I profit from your words. Thansk for the advice. Hard decisions.