What is the Baptist identity?

Abstract:

This essay aims to present a profile of the characteristics of Baptist identity through an analysis of Baptist literature. Although it should not be assumed that Baptists possessed a single, consistent identity, we can see some general patterns: The believer’s baptism and freedom of conscience, baptism by immersion, authority from the Scripture and the Lordship of Christ, individual competency, priesthood of all believers, a “covenanted community” of regenerate believers with a strong emphasis the intentional formation of community in the discipleship process, the autonomy of the local congregation, the separation of church and state whilst standing up for human rights, a distinct Baptist emphasis on missions since the Evangelical Revival, and two ordinances.

Introduction:

John Smyth is recognised as the first Baptist, who baptised himself and his congregation in 1609.[1] Yet, this congregation split in 1610.[2] So comes a saying that this tendency to disagreeing and splitting among Baptists is one consistent feature of Baptist identity.[3] This essay aims to present a profile of the characteristics of Baptist identity through an analysis of Baptist literature.

Baptism and freedom of conscience:

Believer's baptism is a characteristic Baptist identity. From the outset, Baptists have been strong advocates for religious liberty, insisting on freedom to worship God without restraint and outside influence.[4] The freedom of the conscience of the individual[5] assumes the existence of choices and the competency to make choices. Salvation is a free offer from God, free from coercion. Positive human response is required to enact the covenant of salvation.[6] Baptism by immersion is another defining characteristic Baptist identity. The Baptists came to this conclusion because immersion is the only baptismal mode in the New Testament (NT).[7] The Second London Confession, which was a Baptist rewriting of the Westminster Confession[8] says “immersion… is necessary.”[9] In the 1850s Baptists mandated the Greek term baptizo for “baptism” be translated “immersion.”[10] However, Baptists do not see baptism as the most important Baptist distinctive nor insist that baptism is necessary for salvation.[11]

When Smyth’s and his congregation studied NT teachings on baptism, they concluded that Anglican baptism was invalid because the Church of England was a false church[12], and as there was no true church to receive true baptism from, he baptised first himself and then the rest of the congregation.[13] Infant baptism was also invalid because infants cannot exercise free conscience.[14] Smyth believed his congregation was an authentic expression in contrast to corrupt and counterfeit versions[15] and therefore “a true church of true believers”. Today Baptists are less radical, because no Christian communion can claim they are free from defects. Wright suggests that we can look at the rhetoric of “true church” eschatologically, as being something that has yet to be but towards which we are moving in our pilgrimage.[16]

Scripture, authority and individual competency:

Smyth had such a high regard for Scripture that he read and used them in the original language only.[17] Baptists are said to be “radically biblical”, but are often divided over biblical interpretation and doctrine.[18] Some Baptists are fundamentalists, identifying one for one the word of the Scripture and the Word of God. Mainstream Baptists look to the Scripture focused in the Word Incarnate.[19] Manley summarises that “under the authority of God and Lordship of Christ, Scripture as illuminated by the Holy Spirit is the determinative guide for understanding the gospel…”[20] However, commitment to the authority of Scripture does not set the Baptists apart from other Christians because not every Christian theologian committed to biblical authority are Baptists.[21] Furthermore, diverse contexts generated diverse expressions. For instance, in the seventeenth century, the main bodies are the Particular and General Baptists. The Particular Baptists were strictly Calvinistic while the General Baptists were Arminian.[22]

This leads on to the topic of individual competency and believer priesthood. Baptists believe that all regenerated persons[23] came to faith by the freedom of conscience and are therefore competent to interpret and understand Scripture for themselves.[24] Olley reminds us that the issue is not what is believed about the Bible but how the Bible is used in everyday situations, both individual and corporate[25], to live the story of a life shaped by the Bible.[26] Furthermore, “all Christians are called into ministry although there are some called into a ministry of leadership.”[27] In most Baptists understandings, ordination confers no special abilities on the one ordained. In Baptism, the disciple is committed to serve Christ in the church and society, so in a sense all Baptists are ‘ordained’[28]; the pulpit or celebration of the Eucharist and administration of baptism are not restricted to the minister.[29]

Covenanted congregation of regenerate believers:

A Baptist church is viewed as a covenanted congregation of visible saints, “walking together” in the ways of the Lord and “watching over” one another[30], so there is strong emphasis on discipleship. The call to make disciples goes beyond evangelism to the nurture of Christians so that they are mature.[31] Christian maturity has two main focuses: playing a full part in the work of the local church, and growing in holiness. The concept of “watching over one another” is not unique to the Baptist, but the radicalness of Baptist spirituality insists that visible saints “walk together”[32] with an intention to form a “covenanted community” of regenerate believers, where, in obedience to Christ’s call, they invest their lives mutually caring for one another.[33]^,[34] Modern technology allows us to access a wealth of resources through the internet, but Sutherland[35] reminds us that face-to-face-ness of the congregation cannot be escaped. Furthermore, while God speaks to each person in an individual way, God also speaks collectively through the church, so believers are encouraged to interact with other believers when interpreting the Scripture.[36] The freedom of conscience means there is a rich diversity of ideas within the gathered community. Therefore, we need to live out “unity in diversity” by being open towards the rights of others to describe God in their own language.[37]

Autonomy of the local congregation:

The priesthood of all believers means Baptists have generally adhered to the principle of “democratic congregationalism”, which declares that the final authority in the church resides in the entire membership. Leaders are selected to teach and guide, but they do not become a governing body over the members.[38] There is autonomy of the local congregation within the associational framework, with freedom from state control, freedom from a priestly succession, freedom from fixed liturgical forms, and freedom of conscience.[39] Baptists follow a disjunctive logic: If God holds absolute power then no power on earth can be absolute.[40]

Then comes the question of denominational control. Ralph sees nothing comparable to a denomination in the New Testament.[41] A denomination is not a church. The closest thing would be an authoritative assembly such as the “Council of Jerusalem” in Acts 15.[42] Therefore, attachment to a denomination should not be the same as the attachment to the church of Jesus Christ.[43] When a choice had to made, Baptists opted for the independent congregation rather than the corporate.[44] After all, denominational super-structures may change, but local churches remain the centres of evangelism, discipleship and service.[45] Ralph suggest that a healthy approach might be to see denominations as parachurch organisations standing alongside and serving their congregations for the sake of the gospel.[46]

Separation of church and state:

The term “Puritanism” was first heard in 1565. Their aim was to purify the church of the remains of “Catholic superstition”.[47] Under the rule of Charles I, there was a movement towards Catholicism, which fostered a renewal of the separatist tendency, and it was at this juncture that several of the early churches adopted a Baptist identity.[48] Helwys, one of the co-founders of the first Baptist congregation, proposes that “the King is a mortal man and not God, therefore he has no power over the immortal souls of his subjects… For men’s religion… is between God and themselves. The king will not answer for it. Neither may the king be judge between God and man.”[49]

The first Baptists were pioneering a new way of conceiving the temporal power.[50] This does not imply the separation of church from society. The government is not society itself, but the hard edge of society, given to maintain order in society. So separation of the church and state does not imply a withdrawal into the private mystical realm and taking no place in the public realm.[51] It cannot imply the independence of the church from the state as institutions shape each other. Furthermore, it is not the separation of the church from politics because all of life is political in that our daily lives involve the processes of negotiating, agreeing, and managing. Politics is intrinsic to corporate life, be it in schools, trades or congregations. It is not the systematic exclusion of religion from public life.[52]

Rather, it is a desire to distinguish between the order of preservation served by government and the order of redemption served by the church. The order of preservation requires the use of coercion and force. The kingdom of God should not use coercion and force, as Christ gave himself up and love those who persecute him. The external preservation of human societies is essential but cannot achieve human redemption[53], so there is a need for Christian churches to maintain a critical distance from power in order to fulfil their mandate faithfully.[54] Meanwhile, the “prophetic Baptist voice” still needs to be spoken out in society[55] against oppression and moral perversions. Three great Baptists in American history, Walter Rauschenbusch, Billy Graham and Martin Luther King Jr. each had an enormous influence on their nation and beyond.[56] If the church does not stand up for human rights, the result is devastating. In WWII, German Baptists were brought up in a pietist tradition and inexperienced in opposing the Hitler regime. They held a Lutheran interpretation of Roman 13 that inhibited the resistance to duly appointed rulers.[57] Wright suggests that if there comes a day where no tension exists between Church and State: “either the Church would have become the compliant tool of a totalitarian regime, or Christ’s kingdom would have arrived on earth without our noticing it.”[58]

Missions:

In the seventeenth century, the Particular Baptist ministers argued on the basis of numerous passages in the NT that the nature of the church was a fellowship of the redeemed, but other Baptist ministers, such as Andrew Fuller, Dan Taylor, and William Carey read it differently and see an obligation to enlarge the Kingdom of God[59] and preach the gospel across the whole world.[60] The Evangelical Revival in Britain and the Great Awakening in America were branches of the same vast revival movement.[61] The overriding result of the Baptist transformation by the revival was the increase in the priority of mission.[62] Other matters, such as church order, faded into insignificance.[63] Baptist numbers exploded, and they launched new missionary ventures at home and abroad. In the nineteenth century, they remained fervent Evangelicals. More new divisions occurred but the old contrast between Calvinists and Arminians faded.[64]

William Carey, “father of modern missions”[65], learned the languages of Asia sufficiently to translate the Bible into several different languages.[66] Although missions is not a uniquely Baptist theme, there is a distinct Baptist emphasis on this theme.[67] Baptists seemed to have produced a disproportionately large number of world-leading missiologists, but have yet developed a distinctively Baptist missiology. In hearing the call to make disciples, Baptists have been committed to the work of mission.[68] Furthermore, the Baptist church’s refusal to baptise children of church members mean it is always one generation from extinction.[69] The current pattern of world mission is now summed up by the word “partnership”. Missions are no longer sent from the West to the rest of the world, but the cooperative venture between equals across the world.[70] 

Two ordinances:

Another distinctive characteristic of Baptist identity is the use of the term “ordinances” rather than “sacraments” for baptism and the Lord’s Supper. “Ordinance” is derived from “ordain”[71] and refers to those acts ordained by Jesus for his disciples to practice.[72] The Catholic tradition uses the term “sacrament” because they believe these rites to be a means of imparting grace, which is a mystery.[73] The Baptists view these rites as universal experiences for the church which serves as reminders of Christ’s presence and work in redemption, and there is no need to be overly mysterious, and hence preferred the term “ordinance”.[74]  

Conclusion:

Although it should not be assumed that Baptists possessed a single, consistent identity[75], we can see some general patterns. The freedom of conscience means baptism can only be valid for believers and not infants. Baptism is by immersion because this is the only mode of baptism in the NT. The earliest Baptists saw themselves as the only “true church.” Today Baptists are less radical, because no Christian communion can claim to be free from defects, so it is recommended that the term “true church” be used eschatologically. Baptists are under the authority of God, Lordship of Christ, and the Scripture, which, when combined with freedom of conscience means that individuals are competent to interpret the Scripture for themselves, and priesthood is for all believers. There is a strong emphasis on community in the discipleship process, because a covenanted congregation of visible saints need to “walk together” in the ways of the Lord. Although the Baptist denomination is large, when a choice had to made, Baptists opted for the independent congregation rather than the corporate. The separation of church and state represents a desire to distinguish between the order of preservation served by government and the order of redemption served by the church. Therefore, it is still necessary to stand up for human rights. There is a distinct Baptist emphasis on missions since the Evangelical Revival. Finally, the term “ordinances” rather than “sacraments” is used for baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Bibliography:

Baptist World Alliance. “A Survey of Baptist World Alliance Conversations with other

Churches and some implications for Baptist Identity.” Accessed August 18, 2017. http://bwa-baptist-heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Survey-of-Conversations-with-Other-Churches.pdf

Beasley-Murray, Paul. Radical Believers: The Baptist Way of Being the Church. Didcot: BUGB, 1992.

Bebbington, David W. Baptists Through the Centuries: A History of a Global People. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2010.

Brackney, William H. A Capsule History of Baptist Principles. Atlanta: Baptist History and Heritage Society, 2009.

Briggs, John. “Memory, vision and mission: What our yesterdays have to say to our todays and tomorrows.” In Baptist identity into the 21^st century: Essays in honour of Ken Manley, edited by Frank Rees, 38-53. Melbourne: Whitley College, 2016.

Callam, Neville. “Worship and the Unity of Baptists Today.” In Beyond 400: Exploring Baptist Futures, edited by David J. Cohen and Michael Parsons, 222-235. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011.

Chatfield, Graeme. “Contributing to the global conversation on Baptist identity.” In Baptist identity into the 21^st century: Essays in honour of Ken Manley, edited by Frank Rees, 54-62. Melbourne: Whitley College, 2016.

Cole, Neil. Organic Church: Growing Faith Where Life Happens. San Francisco: Josey-Bass, 2005.

Costello, Tim. “World mission: Seeking the prophetic Baptist voice.” In Baptist identity into the 21^st century: Essays in honour of Ken Manley, edited by Frank Rees, 152-156. Melbourne: Whitley College, 2016.

Cupit, Tony. “Baptist identity in the 21^st century.” In Baptist identity into the 21^st century: Essays in honour of Ken Manley, edited by Frank Rees, 169-175. Melbourne: Whitley College, 2016.

Dyer, Keith. “Suitably Abrahamic Australia? The Bible and Baptists in the twenty-first century.” In Baptist identity into the 21^st century: Essays in honour of Ken Manley, edited by Frank Rees, 73-79. Melbourne: Whitley College, 2016.

Grenz, Stanley J. The Baptist Congregation. Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 1985.

Haymes, Brian. “One church, one faith, one Lord: Questions of Baptist identity.” In Baptist identity into the 21^st century: Essays in honour of Ken Manley, edited by Frank Rees, 25-37. Melbourne: Whitley College, 2016.

Helwys, Thomas. A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity. Amsterdam: N.P., 1612.

Holmes, Stephen R. Baptist Theology. London: T&T Clark, 2012.

Lumpkin, W. L. Baptist Confessions of Faith. Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1959.

Manley, Ken. Baptists: Their Heritage and Faith. Brisbane: Baptist Union of Queensland, 1974.

Manley, Ken. “’The Beating of the Baptist Heart’: Mission and Baptist Identity.” In Mission: The Heart of Baptist Identity, edited by Graeme Chatfield, 15-39. Macquarie Park: Morling Press, 2009.

McAlpine, Steve. “The Little Church That Could.” In Beyond 400: Exploring Baptist Futures, edited by David J. Cohen and Michael Parsons, 101-115. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011.

Moore, Richard K. “Baptist Witness to New Testament Baptism beyond 2009.” In Beyond 400: Exploring Baptist Futures, edited by David J. Cohen and Michael Parsons, 171-185. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011.

Olley, John. “Shaped by the Bible: Acting together in the continuing drama.” In Baptist identity into the 21^st century: Essays in honour of Ken Manley, edited by Frank Rees, 80-86. Melbourne: Whitley College, 2016.

O’Neil, Michael D. “Beyond Identity Crises?” In Beyond 400: Exploring Baptist Futures, edited by David J. Cohen and Michael Parsons, 56-72. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011.

Parsons, Michael. “Church as (Covenant) Community – Then and Now.” In Beyond 400: Exploring Baptist Futures, edited by David J. Cohen and Michael Parsons, 207-221. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011.

Ralphs, Peter. “Is a Denomination a Church?” In Beyond 400: Exploring Baptist Futures, edited by David J. Cohen and Michael Parsons, 73-85. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011.

Sutherland, Martin. “Meeting for Minutes? Baptist Congregational Life in the Age of Twitter.” In Beyond 400: Exploring Baptist Futures, edited by David J. Cohen and Michael Parsons, 207-221. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011.

Smyth, John. “The Character of the Beast (1609).” In The Works of John Smyth, edited by W. T. Whitley, 564-574. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915.

Smyth, John. “Prepositions and Conclusions.” In The Works of John Smyth, edited by W. T. Whitley, 733-750. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915.

White, B. R. The English Baptists of the 17^th Century. London: Baptist Historical Society, 1983.

Wright, Nigel G. “Baptist Christians: Repentant and Unrepentant.” In Beyond 400: Exploring Baptist Futures, edited by David J. Cohen and Michael Parsons, 1-16. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011.

Wright, Nigel G. “Human Religion: Evangelical Faith, Baptist Identity, and Liberal Secularism.” In Beyond 400: Exploring Baptist Futures, edited by David J. Cohen and Michael Parsons, 17-33. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011.

---

[1] David W. Bebbington, Baptists Through the Centuries: A History of a Global People (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2010), 32.

[2] Bebbington, Baptists Through the Centuries, 35.

[3] Brian Haymes, “One church, one faith, one Lord: Questions of Baptist identity,” in Baptist identity into the 21^st century: Essays in honour of Ken Manley, ed. Frank Rees (Melbourne: Whitley College, 2016), 27.

[4] Tony Cupit, “Baptist identity in the 21^st century,” in Baptist identity into the 21^st century: Essays in honour of Ken Manley, ed. Frank Rees (Melbourne: Whitley College, 2016), 169.

[5] John Briggs, “Memory, vision and mission: What our yesterdays have to say to our todays and tomorrows,” in Baptist identity into the 21^st century: Essays in honour of Ken Manley, ed. Frank Rees (Melbourne: Whitley College, 2016), 46.

[6] William H. Brackney, A Capsule History of Baptist Principles (Atlanta: Baptist History and Heritage Society, 2009), 24.

[7] Brackney, A Capsule History, 47.

[8] Stephen R. Holmes, Baptist Theology (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 69.

[9] W. L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1959), 291.

[10] Brackney, A Capsule History, 28.

[11] Richard K. Moore, “Baptist Witness to New Testament Baptism beyond 2009,” in Beyond 400: Exploring Baptist Futures, ed. David J. Cohen and Michael Parsons (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 172.

[12] John Smyth, “The Character of the Beast (1609),” in The Works of John Smyth, ed. W. T. Whitley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915), 564-574.

[13] B. R. White, The English Baptists of the 17^th Century (London: Baptist Historical Society, 1983), 24.

[14] Smyth, “The Character of the Beast (1609),” 564-574.

[15] Nigel G. Wright, “Baptist Christians: Repentant and Unrepentant,” in Beyond 400: Exploring Baptist Futures, ed. David J. Cohen and Michael Parsons (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 9.

[16] Wright, “Baptist Christians: Repentant and Unrepentant,” 11.

[17] Brackney, A Capsule History, 54.

[18] Keith Dyer, “Suitably Abrahamic Australia? The Bible and Baptists in the twenty-first century,” in Baptist identity into the 21^st century: Essays in honour of Ken Manley, ed. Frank Rees (Melbourne: Whitley College, 2016), 73.

[19] Haymes, “One church, one faith, one Lord,” 35.

[20] “A Survey of Baptist World Alliance Conversations with other Churches and some implications for Baptist Identity,” Baptist World Alliance, accessed August 18, 2017, http://bwa-baptist-heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Survey-of-Conversations-with-Other-Churches.pdf

[21] Holmes, Baptist Theology, 83.

[22] Bebbington, Baptists Through the Centuries, 52.

[23] Parsons, Michael. “Church as (Covenant) Community – Then and Now,” in Beyond 400: Exploring Baptist Futures, ed. David J. Cohen and Michael Parsons (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 208.

[24] Brackney, A Capsule History of Baptist Principles, 34.

[25] John Olley, “Shaped by the Bible: Acting together in the continuing drama,” in Baptist identity into the 21^st century: Essays in honour of Ken Manley, ed. Frank Rees (Melbourne: Whitley College, 2016), 83.

[26] Olley, “Shaped by the Bible,” 85.

[27] “A Survey of Baptist World Alliance Conversations”

[28] Holmes, Baptist Theology, 111.

[29] Holmes, Baptist Theology, 113.

[30] Holmes, Baptist Theology, 151.

[31] Holmes, Baptist Theology, 151.

[32] Holmes, Baptist Theology, 156.

[33] Holmes, Baptist Theology, 157.

[34] Michael D. O’Neil, “Beyond Identity Crises?,” in Beyond 400: Exploring Baptist Futures, ed. David J. Cohen and Michael Parsons (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 61.

[35] Martin Sutherland, “Meeting for Minutes? Baptist Congregational Life in the Age of Twitter,” in Beyond 400: Exploring Baptist Futures, ed. David J. Cohen and Michael Parsons (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 54.

[36] Brackney, A Capsule History of Baptist Principles, 34.

[37] Dyer, “Suitably Abrahamic Australia?,” 78.

[38] Stanley J Grenz, The Baptist Congregation (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 1985), 56.

[39] Wright, “Baptist Christians: Repentant and Unrepentant,” 3.

[40] Wright, “Baptist Christians: Repentant and Unrepentant,” 6. This contrasts with the conjunctive logic of Roman Catholics and monarchies, which tells us that because there is one God, so there should be correspondingly one pope, and one emperor.

[41] Peter Ralphs, “Is a Denomination a Church?,” in Beyond 400: Exploring Baptist Futures, ed. David J. Cohen and Michael Parsons (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 74.

[42] Ralphs, “Is a Denomination a Church?,” 77.

[43] Ralphs, “Is a Denomination a Church?,” 85.

[44] Haymes, “One church, one faith, one Lord,” 30.

[45] Brackney, A Capsule History of Baptist Principles, 98.

[46] Ralphs, “Is a Denomination a Church?,” 85.

[47] Bebbington, Baptists Through the Centuries, 16.

[48] Bebbington, Baptists Through the Centuries, 21.

[49] Thomas Helwys, A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity. Amsterdam: N.P., 1612.

[50] Nigel G. Wright, “Human Religion: Evangelical Faith, Baptist Identity, and Liberal Secularism,” in Beyond 400: Exploring Baptist Futures, ed. David J. Cohen and Michael Parsons (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 17.

[51] Wright, “Human Religion,” 18-19.

[52] Wright, “Human Religion,” 19.

[53] Wright, “Human Religion,” 20.

[54] Wright, “Human Religion,” 21.

[55] Tim Costello, “World mission: Seeking the prophetic Baptist voice,” in Baptist identity into the 21^st century: Essays in honour of Ken Manley, ed. Frank Rees (Melbourne: Whitley College, 2016), 156.

[56] Costello, “World mission,” 155. Walter Rauschenbusch was the father of the social Gospel, Billy Graham is a well-known evangelist and Martin Luther King Jr. was a leader of the Civil Rights Movement.

[57] Briggs, “Memory, vision and mission,” 48.

[58] Wright, “Human Religion,” 30.

[59] Brackney, A Capsule History, 25.

[60] Holmes, Baptist Theology, 162.

[61] Bebbington, Baptists Through the Centuries, 71.

[62] Bebbington, Baptists Through the Centuries, 81.

[63] Bebbington, Baptists Through the Centuries, 187.

[64] Bebbington, Baptists Through the Centuries, 277.

[65] Holmes, Baptist Theology, 142.

[66] Brackney, A Capsule History, 25.

[67] Holmes, Baptist Theology, 142.

[68] Holmes, Baptist Theology, 151.

[69] Holmes, Baptist Theology, 143.

[70] Bebbington, Baptists Through the Centuries, 230.

[71] Grenz, The Baptist Congregation, 30.

[72] Bebbington, Baptists Through the Centuries, 179.

[73] Brackney, A Capsule History of Baptist Principles, 46.

[74] Brackney, A Capsule History of Baptist Principles, 46.

[75] Bebbington, Baptists Through the Centuries, 2.

capital punishment and physician involvement in capital punishment

The issues of capital punishment and physician involvement in capital punishment have long raised much ethical debate. This essay reviews the arguments in the context of utilitarian  and deontological ethical theories and the medical ethical principles of non-maleficence, beneficence and autonomy.

Utilitarianism is the ethical theory which asserts that no action is intrinsically wrong, but that the right action to be taken in any given instance is that action with the best consequences for the majority of individuals. Act utilitarianism proposes that an act may be ethically justifiable if it has at least as good a consequence as any other course of action available, while rule utilitarianism suggests that all individuals should act in accordance with general rules which, if followed by everyone, would produce the greatest good. 

Presumably, the state could assert that the benefit of capital punishment is solely to prevent criminals from further harming the public. Act utilitarians would refute this claim, as the benefit could be achieved less controversially by providing life imprisonment without parole. Rule utilitarians would also dispute the ethical reasoning behind this idea, as it would break a common rule, do not kill. If no-one were to murder anybody else, this would provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. In the rare case of execution, the murder of an individual, which would break the rule, would not provide a strong enough reason to change the rule for all cases. Thus, on the grounds that the execution of a criminal would prevent this criminal from further harming the public, both the act and  rule utilitarian would have to oppose capital punishment on ethical grounds.

Act and rule utilitarians would be faced with the same arguments if the state were to assert that the execution of it’s prisoners was ethically justified as it acted as a deterrent to crime. It cannot be disputed that an effective deterrent to crime would result in the best consequences for all members of the state. However, there is currently no evidence that capital punishment in itself deters other potential criminals (1), thereby eliminating the basis for act utilitarian ethical justification, as the action does not result in the best consequences for the majority of individuals.

Rule utilitarians would again have to consider the rule, do not kill. While the benefit to society would theoretically be great if an effective deterrent were found, the evidence does not support this. Regardless, if capital punishment were found to be an effective deterrent in the future, the benefit in itself does not provide a compelling enough argument to completely disregard the rule. Therefore, regardless of the benefits that may be suggested by the state, both act and rule utilitarianism, from current evidence, would reject any ethical justification for capital punishment.

The ethical theory of deontology maintains that an individual will be acting in an ethical manner if they adhere to the rules and obligations placed upon them by their societal role or by their profession. Rights-based deontology argues that an individual who is competent and autonomous has an inherent right not to have that autonomy infringed. Duty-based deontology would argue the inherent wrong in defying certain rules and obligations imposed either by the society or the profession of the individual.

In the case of capital punishment, a rights based deontologist would acknowledge the infringement of autonomy perpetrated by the criminal in question, but would not be able to ethically justify a similar transgression by the state in the name of punishment. The emphasis here is on the autonomy that another individual intrinsically holds, which, in no circumstance, can be breached by others. The duty based deontologists would hold utmost their obligation to society to refrain from involving themselves in any manner with the death of another human being. The basic rule or obligation not to kill another would remain paramount. Hence, for both rights-based and duty-based deontology, the basic nature of the death penalty, that of killing an individual, can not be reconciled and would be ethically opposed.

The issue of the ethical basis of capital punishment is further complicated when one attempts to justify the involvement of physicians in the practice. To examine the ethics of physician involvement, the framework by which the actions of medical professionals are judged must be considered. The four ethical principles which are regarded central to the practice of  medicine, outlined by Beauchamp and Childress (2), are that of non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy and justice. These principles represent a compromise between the major ethical theories of utilitarianism and deontology. In this discussion, the former three principles will be addressed; the latter will not be dealt with, merely for the benefit of brevity.  It will be shown that each of these principles oppose physician involvement in capital punishment.

A major argument that is raised against physician participation in capital punishment is the Hippocratic dictum primum non nocere - first do no harm. The utilitarian would only support non-maleficence if this would result in the best outcome for the greatest number of people. It is submitted that the act utilitarian would adhere to this principle for two reasons. Firstly, a doctor who does no harm to their patients provides a good outcome for the patients. However, a lack of physical harm does not equate with overall good, so an act utilitarian may not consider this a reasonable enough explanation to accept the first do no harm dictum. If the act utilitarian were to consider the outcome if the principle of non-maleficence were broken, a different picture emerges. Where the physician does harm to their patients, it is not only physical; the trust in the physician and the profession is also damaged. This disadvantages the greatest number of people. For this reason, the act utilitarian would support the concept of first do no harm. The rule utilitarian would support the existence of a rule in accordance with non-maleficence and take this at  face value. Under both systems of utilitarianism, the principle of non-maleficence is justified.

Both rights and duty based theories of deontology support the medical ethical principle of non-maleficence. A rights-based deontologist would argue that if the physician were to break the Hippocratic dictum and proceed to harm his patient, he would infringe upon the patients autonomy and thus behave in an ethically unacceptable manner. A duty-based theorist would suggest that the professional obligation of the physician to do no harm, constitutes an duty strong enough that, if violated, amounts to unethical behavior. The duty here is held paramount. Thus, both interpretations of deontological theory lend credibility to the medical principle of non-maleficence.

While the binding nature of the principle of non-maleficence is assumed, it is contended that this is not equal to a ban on physician participation in executions. Some argue "that an execution itself may not be a harm, that participation by a doctor does not cause harm to the condemned but is in his interests and that the doctor may owe a duty to society, that is morally more important than the principle of ‘do no harm’ (3, page 135).

Some may consider that death is not always harmful. Execution by its nature as a punishment must constitute harm. In contrast, cases where a patient is afflicted with immense suffering as the result of a terminal disease, a doctor who aids in their death is seen to ultimately be preventing harm by allowing a dignified death. In such cases, death is the least harmful of all possible consequences. Any assistance given by a physician is merely as an adherence to the principle of patient autonomy. Physicians cannot use the same reasoning with respect to an execution, as death is clearly not a lesser harm. If we reason that the execution should not be seen as a murder, but as a punishment, and thus not constituting harm, we encounter a simple problem of definition; punishment by it’s nature is "the loss or suffering inflicted in the name of discipline (4, page 871)". Unlike the suffering of a terminally ill patient an execution, where there is no previous significant harm or suffering of the condemned, death can only result in the greatest harm. Therefore, the execution of a criminal can be regarded as harmful to that individual and physician participation in such an act is prohibited by the medical ethical principle - first do no harm.  

Beneficence is the ethical principle which asserts that one should seek to benefit others by preventing harm and promoting good (5, page 283). In the case of beneficence, the act utilitarian cannot argue that the absence of harm does not necessarily constitute the greatest good; the basis of beneficence is not only to prevent harm but also to promote good. If all physicians, were acting in accordance with this principle, it is obvious that the greatest good would eventuate for everyone, thus the principle must be supported. Again, the rule-based utilitarian could not deny that a rule, where harm is prevented and good is promoted, if followed by all physicians, would lead to the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals, fulfilling their criteria for ethical justification. Hence, both act and rule utilitarians would support the principle of beneficence.

The two understandings of deontological theory allow ethical justification of the principle of beneficence. The rights-based deontologist states that an individual has an intrinsic right to be prevented from any harm which would encroach on their autonomy, and at the same time is entitled to benefits which promote their autonomy, thus supporting the principle of beneficence. The duty-based deontologist would regard the societal role of the physician as ‘healer’ as an ethical obligation unto itself. The physician is bound not only by their professional ethics but by their duty to society to promote good. Thus, beneficence as a medical ethical principle is justified by the theory of deontology.

In the context of capital punishment, some suggest that physician participation benefits the condemned. These individuals argue that "physicians have a responsibility to ensure the patient receives proper care and a quick and merciful death. [They maintain] that if a life must be taken, it should be done in the most humane way possible" (6, page 18). Therefore, physician participation is seen as a compassionate act. In support of their arguments, many articles (3,7) cite examples where, due to a lack of medical expertise, the first attempt is aborted, necessitating painful ‘ second attempts’ to ensure that the execution is successful. This pain, say advocates, is not in the best interests of the patient and can be prevented by physician involvement. Sikora and Fleischmann (8) suggest that because physicians possess the technical skills to provide a less painful death, it cannot then automatically be assumed an ethical pursuit. It is submitted that these skills could be acquired by individuals who are not physicians, thus eliminating the basis of  ethical debate. In any case, the infliction of direct harm or mutilation of healthy persons without medical benefit, regardless of intent and societal goals, is not part of the ethical practice of medicine and should not be condoned by the medical practitioner (9).

The ethical dilemma of physician involvement in capital punishment is further complicated by the situation where the condemned individual requests such participation. This introduces the principle of autonomy, which states that a physician should respect the decisions of individuals, given that these decisions do not infringe on the autonomy of others. Ridley (5) asserts that the two forms of utilitarianism clearly require that autonomy be respected. The basis of utilitarian theory rests with the consequences of certain actions, whether this is determined on a case-by-case basis or by following certain rules. In either case, an action whose consequence results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people is considered ethically justifiable. To achieve this, the individual performing the action must have some idea of what will be considered the best consequences. No-one is more qualified to decide what an individual will consider the best consequences than the individual themselves. This being the case, any utilitarian theory must accept the principle of autonomy.

Deontology supports the ethical principle of autonomy in both interpretations of it’s theory. Rights-based theory supports the principle as it constitutes the basis of the theory. In the medical setting, the rights-based theorist would suggest that the doctor must support any decision the patient makes, providing that the decision does not prevent the doctor from acting autonomously. The patient cannot call on their right to autonomy to force the doctor to participate in something to which they are opposed. The duty-based deontologist gives ethical justification to the societal obligation to allow an individual to decide the outcome of their own lives. Therefore, deontological theory supports the medical ethical principle of autonomy.

A condemned individual’s request for physician involvement in their execution often draws analogies with the request made of the physician to assist in euthanasia. The nature of death facing a patient on death-row cannot be regarded as one that they can choose with their own free will. Most criminals would aim to avoid death by execution by whatever means possible. Therefore, the physician cannot accept the patient’s right to autonomy as justification for participation. Regardless, the patients request, if fulfilled by the physician, may infringe on the physician’s right to decide not to participate. While some argue that physician participation in an execution can be ethically justified by appealing to the condemned’s right to autonomy, this argument ignores the coercive nature in which this request is inevitably made.

In conclusion, it has been demonstrated that utilitarianism and deontology, the two major ethical theories, do not support capital punishment. Likewise, the medical ethical principles of non-maleficence, beneficence and autonomy, which are born of a compromise between these ethical theories, lend no justification to physician involvement in capital punishment. It follows that capital punishment can never be ethically justified, and that physician involvement in such a practice undermines the moral foundations of the medical profession, by breaching the fundamental principles which govern the practice of medicine.

REFERENCE LIST

1.    Radelet, M., Akers, R.L. Deterrence and the death penalty: the view of experts. J. Criminal Law Criminol. 1996; 87, 1-16.

2.    Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J.F. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

3.    Michalos, C. Medical ethics and the executing process in the United States of America. Med. Law. 1997; 16: 125-167.

4.    Moore, B. (ed.) The Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary. 4^th Edition. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1996.

5.    Ridley, A. Beginning bioethics. A text with integrated readings. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.

6.    Committee on Bioethical Issues of the Medical Society of the State of New York. Physician involvement in capital punishment. NY State J. Med. 1991; 91: 15-18.

7.    Ragon, S.A. A doctor’s dilema: resolving the conflict between physician participation in executions and the AMA’s code of medical ethics. University of Dayton Law Review. 1995; 20: 975-1007.

8.    Sikora, A. and Fleischman, A.R. Physician participation in capital punishment: a question of professional integrity. J. Urban Health. 1999; 76, 400-408.

9.    Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Female genital mutilation. JAMA. 1995; 274: 1714-1716.