Michael Vick was released from prison in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, this morning. He’ll serve the last two months of his sentence (for bankrolling a brutal dog-fighting operation) at his admittedly palatial Hampton, VA home. The e-mosphere (a term I’m trying to coin…electronic atmosphere) is abuzz this morning with debate about whether or not Vick should be allowed to play football again. Some thoughts: What does forgiveness mean? Jesus said that he who has been forgiven much loves much (Luke 7:47). The argument from Law goes like this: Sure, Vick has “paid his debt to society”, but the penalty did not fit the crime. It wasn’t enough. The Christian parallels are obvious:In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus preaches, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you” (38-42).It seems that this has far-reaching implications for forgiveness. Are Michael Vick’s sins so heinous that the “turn the other cheek” dictum doesn’t apply? Are we to go back to “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth?” Are there times when the popular rejoinder, “Jesus doesn’t want us to be doormats,” is true? What would it mean to forgive Michael Vick?
Sign up for the Mockingbird Newsletter
COMMENTS
27 responses to “Forgiving Michael Vick”
Leave a Reply
I’m glad we’re not afraid of controversial subjects here.
I think Vick should be able to play again. The reality is, though, that wherever he goes, regardless of if he plays ball or not, the Law will be ground into him mercilessly. Regardless of any remorse (or lack thereof) he might feel.
And on goes the beat of establishing one’s own righteousness. Pharisee and tax collector and all that.
You had me at ‘e-mosphere’
Sorry about the above deletion…I can’t abide grammatical errors, especially when their (sic HA!) my own. I said that I am now unabashedly rooting for Michael Vick, and would welcome him on the Steelers in a heartbeat.
Nick!
I was just thinking of posting on this hot topic. I’m so glad you did. I watched Sports Center today and everyone was agreed that for Vick to get the chance to play again he has to “prove” that he really has changed. Someone even something to the effect that contrition is important, but it’s not enough.
I feel for the guy big time. I was also pleasantly surprised to hear some of the analysts suggest the Steelers as a viable option for Vick. While I doubt they’d go for it, the Steelers historically steer clear of the “difficult players”, it would be a good fit I think. He’d get his feet back under him, and he’d be a part of a really solid squad with a no non-sense coach. Anyhow, I digress.
The gist of it is that I agree; he should play again. I have really loved Warren Sapp’s take on the situation. He’s very sympathetic or empathetic or which ever applies:) (I never remember which is which). I will dig it up and put up a link.
Hey guys. I am not much of a sports fan, so maybe you more knowledgable fellas can shed some light on what I am about to say.
But it seems strangely inappropriate to have a town referendum on the question of whether he “should” be allowed by the NFL to play again. I mean, where everybody states their opinion, decides whether they have personally forgiven him (kinda weird in itself since we aren’t one of the dogs he mistreated), and so on.
It seems like, as far as the issue of his continued career in pro ball is concerned, it shouldn’t have anything to do with what I personally think. It should be decided by what the NFL’s written policies say. So for example, if they have a policy that felons aren’t allowed to play pro ball, then I guess that answers that. If there isn’t any NFL rule he has violated, then he should be able to play.
Am I missing something?
Stamp –
The question of the town hall is, unfortunately, “Does he DESERVE to play?” There is no rule against convicted felons playing in the NFL: Ray Lewis was convicted of two counts of obstructing justice in the murder of a HUMAN BEING and was not even suspended.
Oh… well then in that case the proper response it seems to me is NOT to say that one personally thinks he deserves to play.
To offer an opinion, even one favoring Vick, implies that the question has some legitimacy, and that he’s lucky I am on his side.
Better is just to say: Where the hell do people get off even having an opinion? It’s not your business whether he “deserves” to play or not (whatever that means). He has a legal right to play and that’s it. Don’t go see him play if you don’t like it (which is your business).
It kinda reminds me of a moment when I was 18, and my brother was 20, and my mother was giving him a good deal of unsolicited advice about some particular thing or other. He said, if I remember right: “Mom. There are the things that are your business. And there are the things that are not your business. This is one of the things that is not your business.”
If the question is “Does he deserve to play?” then the answer is simple:
No. He, like the rest of us, deserves to die- horribly.
I could be wrong, but a premise of our justice system (first use!) is that punishment is designed to fit/atone for the crime. While obviously imperfect on a vertical level, this is one case where ‘I did my time’ should count for something.
However, our struggle as Christians probably has to do with a strong view of Christ’s vicarious atonement for God’s retribution for sin. The cross seems to pose a sin = death = new life, so that once the guilty party has undergone the penalty, they are forgiven.
On the other hand, I am not sure that this ‘I did my time’ is a universally-valid appeal for total clemency on a civil level. For instance, if someone had been convicted for child abuse, after ‘doing their time’, it is doubtful that they should be allowed to re-enter that field again. I know we like to operate on ‘total grace’ on one level, but I would be astounded if any of us knowingly hired that convicted child abuser to babysit our children. So, is Vick a special case? Is it unforgiving/ungracious not to invite said babysitter?
Mr. Potter, I think your scenario is a case of “first use”. You dont let the convicted child abuser babysit the kids in the same way that you dont allow a baby to play around a pool alone.
just my thought.
In my view, the babysitter decision (I opt not to have you babysit my kids) is not an issue of PUNISHING the guy in any kind of sense — 1st use or 2nd use or whatever.
In a 2nd use sense, the Law is confined to what may be going on in a man’s heart and with respect to his vertical relationship with God. In its 2nd use, if it happened at all, it happened when Vick or the child molester viewed himself correctly as a monster driving him to horror and begging forgiveness from Christ Jesus. This is something that no one but God Himself can know about.
In its 1st use, the Law would have been there to punish a man for a specific infraction of a legal code.
But once that is discharged, my PERSONAL decision to not let the molester babysit my kids, or to let Vick care for my beloved dogs, isn’t an example of me using the Law in its first sense to PUNISH the guy further. The act of saying no to the guy as a caregiver is not, in other words, an action that is really about HIM and ME at all (I need to work up a more forgiving heart for him, he hasn’t been punished enough so I am punishing him some more, etc.).
It’s an ethical act that falls under the sphere traditionally identified as Prudence. I have a prudential obligation to make sure my kids/dogs are safe. I can love the guy, have no desire to see him punished, have no anger or bitterness or judgment against him (“you BAD man!”), have no desire to see the state in any way control his further actions, and yet still say Hey I Still Can’t Have The Guy Babysit My 9-Year Old Girl.
I agree with all that’s been said, but on a less theological note, to the questions of “does he deserve to play?” or, “does he have the right to play?”
Nope. He sure doesn’t.
That said, I think the Commish should give him a suspension (for lying to him about the dogfighting) and then let him resume play.
The thing is, though, we’re not hiring a child abuser to babysit kids (speaking pratically). We’re hiring one who fought dogs to quarterback a football team. I don’t think he’ll be a danger to those big linebackers in the locker room.
Just don’t get him around a bunch of pit bulls.
Good thing playing in the NFL is not child care or dog care, then Vick would have no shot.
I think Stamper has hit on the key issue that Nick brings up and that is that everyone and their brother in the sports world (with a few exceptions) is not forgiving Vick, and why does their forgiveness matter at all? It seems to me the forgiveness of the commissioner is the only one that really matters or the forgiveness of the dogs themselves, I guess.
ANyhow, I think Nick’s post points out the fact that we are an unforgiving society and race as humans for that matter. It’s really a case of he who is without sin should cast the first stone kind of a thing. Sadly, up to this point a lot of people are standing ready with fists full of rocks for Vick. I do think it’s alright to stand with the guy figuratively. I know I would want some people on my side during such a time. BUT as has been correctly pointed out, it really only matters if Jesus is standing on your side.
Sorry for rambling.
My guess is that he will play again and if he does well, the fans of the team he plays for will love and forgive him and the fans of the teams he beats will feel that the team he is playing for prostituted themselves by hiring a dog molester thug for their quarterback. Either way, it’s just performance/reward. That’s all the world’s got to offer.
Right, Michael.
He should play football, but I’d be weary of allowing him to adopt a cute, cuddly, pit bull.
Thanks for your thoughtful responses gentlemen. However, a special word for Joshua: there is no need for this ‘mr’ language, as anyone here who knows me will tell you, a simple ‘your grace’ or ‘sir rt rev dr’ will do (fiddling with pectoral cross).
according to this most Americans think he should be allowed to play: http://www.newsy.com/videos/vick_s_release_sparks_debate
I think he should as well, he served his time and is working with the Humane Society to end dogfighting. What is in question here is punishment, what more can we do to this man? What more can we expect him to do in the way of atonement?
I remember when this story first came out and a PETA spokesperson said to the press, “Michael Vick is a sick puppy and needs to be put down. You can interpret that anyway you like.”
Yikes, thats a public threat to murder!
Definitely eye for an eye.
StampDawg and all, I have a sincere question.
When I responded to the admittedly incongruent comparison of the molester babysitting by saying that this might be a 1st use issue, I was thinking of the 1st use in a protective/civil order sense. In other words I was not thinking of the 1st use as a punishment for the convicted (time-served) molester, but as a natural means of protecting children.
Now, this is not to say that the molester may not experience my rejection of his application as accusatory “Law.”
My question then is: Does the first use of the law necessarily imply punishment? Or, (at least from the perspective of the subject) can it be aimed at the children’s protection?
I have never thought of the 1st use as punitive- as a “use”
Is there a distinction between a “use” of the law and a “function” of the law. The answer to my first question may lie in the answer to this.
hope this makes sense. And sorry to stray.
I think that the first use can appear punitive to the subject (the child who cries for not being allowed to play in the street) but doesn’t lead to condemnation (the child who grows up to hate his parents). As PZ always said, no one grows up and complains that their parents put bumpers on their crib and kept their hands away from fire.
Hey Josh! So sorry it’s taken me a few days to get to your post. I only just saw it. I have been totally snowed under at work. This H1N1 thing has got us HOPPIN!
Here is a quote from Luther on exactly what he means by “the First Use of the Law.” I took it from David Browder, who helpfully provided it in an earlier thread discussing the Law, 1st Use, 2nd Use, etc. I’ll give the Luther quote here and then follow it up with a comment after that.
========================
Luther writes:
“The Law has a twofold purpose. One purpose is civil. God has ordained civil laws to punish crime. Every law is given to restrain sin. Does it not then make men righteous? No. In refraining from murder, adultery, theft, or other sins, I do so under compulsion because I fear the jail, the noose, the electric chair. These restrain me as iron bars restrain a lion and a bear. Otherwise they would tear everything to pieces. Such forceful restraint cannot be regarded as righteousness, rather as an indication of unrighteousness. As a wild beast is tied to keep it from running amuck, so the Law bridles mad and furious man to keep him from running wild. The need for restraint shows plainly enough that those who need the Law are not righteous, but wicked men who are fit to be tied. No, the Law does not justify.
The first purpose of the Law, accordingly, is to restrain the wicked. The devil gets people into all kinds of scrapes. Therefore God instituted governments, parents, laws, restrictions, and civil ordinances. At least they help to tie the devil’s hands so that he does not rage up and down the earth. This civil restraint by the Law is intended by God for the preservation of all things, particularly for the good of the Gospel that it should not be hindered too much by the tumult of the wicked. But Paul is not now treating of this civil use and function of the Law.
[Luther then goes on to talk about the “use” St. Paul has in mind, which is what Luther will call the 2nd Use or Theological Use.]
So as you can see from the Luther quote above, the “first use” of the law is what all ordinary people, including agnostics and atheists and Muslims and so on, understand by what people mean by how the Law is used. That is, it typically takes the form of civil laws and regulations like “Rape is illegal”, “Murder is illegal”, “Arson is illegal”, and so on. If you do these things, the State says that you will be fined, imprisoned or even executed. These threats of punishment are scary and prevent most of us from indulging in the BEHAVIOR (though not the thoughts, and thus the first use is of no help towards restraining or reducing sin; indeed the first use often increases sin). Does this use stop all people all of the time from indulging in the behavior? — “by no means!” But just try to imagine NYC if murder, rape, and theft were not prohibited by civil law! By and large God’s left hand use of the Law in this first sense is a great blessing.
My guess is that you are getting your understanding of the First Use (bumpers on cribs, etc.) from reading or being taught by PZ. I can’t be sure what his intention was when he gives those examples — he’s probably trying to focus on some very specific stuff about child rearing or something and how grace/law can play out in that. PZ is always a big help — maybe that’s what he was talking about?
And certainly PZ is right that forbidding your child from doing certain things (touching the stove, running into traffic, etc.) are examples of the first use. The father or mother is just taking the role of the State. But just because we grow up doesn’t mean the first use vanishes — one’s parents aren’t the ONLY way that the Law is used in this first sense.
Part of the problem here is that we are talking about words and definitions. And as Humpty Dumpty said, “I can define a word to mean anything I like.” If I define the Law to be “food from the grocery store”, and the First Use to be the first time in the day that I eat food, then breakfast is a great example of the First Use of the Law, and for most of us is the only example.
That caveat made (about the essential arbitrariness of definitions), here is my stab at something useful (see below)….
THE LAW is a series of statements, usually explicitly worded, about is right/wrong, and always in the form of command from a lawgiver (the State, a parent) to a person (citizen, child).
THE FIRST USE of the Law is when the law is used to control behavior (usually with some success but not always). The typical reason for this use of the Law is so that persons/property are protected from obvious harm and that a reasonable amount of civil order can be maintained.
THE SECOND USE of the Law is when it presses terribly on our conscience and makes us realize how bad we are, not only in (perhaps) our outward behavior, but also (for certain) in our innermost thoughts and feelings. The law in this sense convicts as sinners. In its proper 2nd use it makes us so much despair of ourselves that we would be incredibly grateful to hear the story of the Cross so we could flee to it.
That strikes me as general enough to capture all the meaning we want to give to the terms but also specific enough so that the terms just don’t end up meaning virtually anything.
In particular, it is specific enough to exclude things that I think are too vague. It seems to me a mistake to define the Law or its First Use so loosely that it can mean “any time anyone takes an action to reduce the chance of a bad thing happening.” So for example I can see that a storm is coming and therefore I go roll the windows up on my wife’s car — that isn’t an example of the first use of the law. Or I put some plastic doohickeys in all the electrical sockets to protect my 1 year old, or I vaccinate him against the flu; that strikes me again just as prudential, not as the first use of the law.
A helpful litmus test for when we are talking about the law is whether a command is being given. If the person who is the object of the law is totally unaware of anyone commanding him to do a thing, then we can’t be talking about the First or Second use of the law, or indeed Law at all. Now if I vaccinate my child because I have been commanded to do it by somebody then of course we are seeing the law at work (command attempting to control behavior). Or if I command my child not to touch the socket — again definitely law. But in a lot of cases I am just doing a thing because common sense suggests it will help protect somebody I love, but I am not issuing a command nor do I feel like I have been commanded. These things in my view fall better under the ethical sphere classically called Prudence.
All that said (LOL!) that is why I don’t see your private decision not to employ a previously convicted child molester as a babysitter as an example of the first use of the law. You aren’t issuing a command to the guy, you aren’t telling him what a bad man he is, you aren’t agitating for the State to control him in some fashion — you are just take some prudential action to protect your children.
Hope that helps.
Wow StampDawg, thanks you for your thoughtful and thorough response. You have given me a lot to think about. Its always helpful to go “ad fontis”
Sure thing, Josh!
BTW, I am guessing your parish home is the Advent, since you live in Birmingham. I have such a happy memory of that place, and of PZ there who was such a help to me.
As a footnote, the whole Ex-Con Child Molester Babysitter conundrum is in issue that continues to be debated in public policy; and to the extent that it represents the State attempting to formally command/restrict the behavior of people released from prison it certainly falls under the First Use of the Law. (Examples are laws or details of a man’s sentencing which state that he is forbidden after release from going within 200 yards of a school, or which require him to register with a sex offender registry.)
Such a use of the Law can and should be debated for appropriateness; not every First Use is a good or wise first use. There are a number of federal and state laws I’d like to see repealed myself.
But still, in order for something to be an example of a “first use of the Law” it does seem to me that there has to be some sort of command being issued to the afflicted individual by a major authority figure. That’s why it seemed like it wouldn’t be a First Use example if a mom or dad were just privately choosing not to employ an ex-con cild molester as a babysitter: no attempt to tell the guy what to do, no attempt to require him to register on a list or tell him where he can live, just a prudential exercise of choice by a parent.