The words “Impunitive” and “Impunity” have been frequent visitors to my thoughts. These visits are generated by the frequent news items detailing actions that appear to be contrary to law – yet no legal action is taken:
- The Department of Justice, under Attorney General Gonzalez, admitting it used political concerns in vetting candidates for positions within the Department. Clearly violating specific restrictions.
- Vice President Richard Chaney admitting on national television that he participated in approving methods of torture against prisoners. And he justified such methods even when challenged on their legality.
- Revelations that The Environmental Protection Agency has acted contrary to Congressional directions so as to benefit certain industries – industries that pollute or in other ways detract from our environment.
- Richard Nixon, in the movie “Frost/Nixon”, responding that “If the President of the United States does it, it is not illegal!” That same wording was repeated by V.P. Chaney relative to actions by President Bush.
- Revelations that many, if not all, of the recipients of billions from the “Bailout” are refusing to identify where the funds have gone, how they’ve been used, or any other legitimate queries about “our” money. There are admissions, even by the Treasury Secretary, that none of the monies have yet been used to relieve burdensome mortgages on “Main Street” – even though that was expressly stated when the “Bailout” was passed!
The list could continue almost endlessly - thus, my attention to the words “Impunitive” and “impunity”.
What do they mean? My dictionary [Random House] defines Impunitive as “not condemning either oneself or others and usually justifying the situation”; and, Impunity as “exemption from punishment”.
They seem to be appropriate words defining the items identified above.
They also seem reflective of a trend in our society that dates back more than 3 decades! Karl Menninger [well known psychiatrist in the 1960s and 1970s] wrote “Whatever became of sin?” His point was that public conversation about “sin” – a topic that had been very much a part of our nation’s heritage as well as a significant component of Christianity’s emphasis upon the Atoning acts of Christ, seemed to have fallen out of vogue. He believed that this lessening of an interest in or about sin had probably contributed to “a growing sense of personal irresponsibility in the 1960s and early 1970s.
From my perspective that trend continues today. There seems to be much less talk in church about sin and/or its punishments; few, if any, seem to be consigned to either hell or purgatory when discussing the deceased; an increasing number even question if hell exists; and sin? – well everyone makes mistakes and no one is perfect!
It is not my intent to suggest we restore “hell-fire and brimstone” to our preaching repertoires. Rather, it is to suggest we need to discuss:
a Is there sin?
b If yes, what is sin?
c If no, what are the ramifications for any of the three monotheistic Faiths, all of whom have the existence of sin as a central focus? If there are only “mistakes” and if any act that is strictly ‘personal’ is acceptable, than the Law seems irrelevant. And if the Law is irrelevant, than the Good News [i.e. Gospel] has no meaning.
While I believe impeachment trials would be healthy for our nation, it is even of greater importance that we direct our thoughts to the above points [a through c].
-
