The Abbey

10/22/2026

THE CASE AGAINST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT PART I: The Civic Arguement

“There isn’t anything good that will come from this.” This was my initial thought as I woke up last week and read that the US Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, announced that Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist who killed 13 people and injured 32 other people back in 2009, would be executed by firing squad. What disturbed me most was the plan for the ex*****on to be live-streamed for all the world to see—the first public ex*****on in the US since 1936.

In a government that seems to be intent on lowering the bar on human decency, I found this decision particularly distasteful. The act of a Western democracy live-streaming the planned shooting of a man is unacceptable, regardless of what this man has done.

While the proposal faced widespread condemnation across the political and religious spectrum, it still had enough support within the Trump base to make it seem likely they’d go through with it. Voices like far-right commentator Laura Loomer argued that publicly executing the Fort Hood shooter would "help improve the morale of Americans" who wanted to see clear justice delivered. Others argued a state-sanctioned public ex*****on would serve as an unambiguous warning to any potential terrorists. It should not surprise us that the only countries that still regularly perform public ex*****ons are Iran, Afghanistan, and North Korea—countries known to use fear to compel compliance from their own citizens. The US was set to join that exclusive group.

The parallels with first-century Rome are glaring. Crucifixion was the most common method of deterrence, conducted in prominent public areas where crowds could gather and witness the consequences of challenging Rome. While a few dozen people might be present for the actual crucifixion, the death could take several hours to a couple of days. During that time, hundreds of people would pass by and witness the still dying prisoner on the cross. Furthermore, Roman authorities rarely allowed immediate burial. Leaving bodies on crosses for days or weeks meant the total accumulative audience for a single crucifixion grew continuously over time as more and more people walked by.

Thanks to modern technology, a livestream of Nidal Hasan’s ex*****on could be watched instantly by millions; millions more could see it later as clips spread across social media and news broadcasts. Much like travellers who could not avoid seeing crosses lined along Roman roads, those who wish to avoid graphic footage could still encounter it by opening a feed or turning on the TV at the wrong time—leaving these unavoidable images exposed to all, including children. It has been well documented that witnessing public ex*****ons is linked to PTSD in children and can lead to further violence in general society by desensitizing the public.

I am relieved that the US administration came to its senses and decided not to broadcast Hasan’s ex*****on. I assume they recognized the obvious: live-streaming a terrorist's death is more likely to be used as propaganda rather than being a deterrent, turning a murderer into a martyr and fuelling further anti-American radicalization.

While Jesus and Hasan are two very different people, the state's intention to publicly execute them stems from this similar logic. Rome publicly executed Jesus to crush his movement. In spite of this intention, and because of the public nature of his death, he became a martyr—turning the cross from a symbol of Roman oppression into a global symbol of an anti-imperialist religion.

This recent episode in the Trump reality show that is the United States, with last month’s botched ex*****on of Christa Pike, feels like an apt time at The Abbey to talk about capital punishment. I am not someone who normally has black-and-white views. There are two things, however, that I am rigid about: the need to own a gun, and capital punishment. If you disagree, I completely understand. You’ll have to bear with me for the next 15 mins or so.

When I first began this reflection, I assumed that the vast majority of Canadians were opposed to the death penalty. But what I found while researching this topic is that, when it comes to capital punishment, I’m in the minority among my fellow citizens. According to a recent survey published in the National Post, 57% of Canadians now support reinstating the death penalty for murders, with only 35% of respondents disagreeing with bringing it back. Those numbers floored me.

There are three primary arguments advocates of state-sponsored ex*****ons give for those who commit murder. First, similar to public ex*****ons, they act as a deterrent to future murders. Knowing that the penalty for Killing another is one's own death.. should, in theory, decrease the number of murders in this society.

Second, it fulfills our perception of fairness: by matching the crime with the punishment, it should give the population the sense that justice has been served. This is especially true for friends and family members of the victim. The death of the perpetrator is often said to give some closure to that horrific chapter in their lives.

And finally, taxpayers should not bear the financial burden of housing, feeding, and providing medical care to murderers for the entirety of their lives. Why should we pay to keep a killer alive.

In my opinion these arguments supporting capital punishment do not hold up under closer scrutiny.

There is overwhelming evidence that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. A 2009 survey in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology found strong consensus (87%) among leading criminologists.. that the deterrence argument is a myth and offers no additional benefit over life in prison. And of course this makes sense, considering most violent crimes are committed in heat-of-the-moment passion and/or when intoxicated - in other words, by people who are not considering the long-term legal ramifications of their actions. In fact, many states and nations that have abolished the death penalty maintain lower homicide rates than neighbouring areas that actively carry out ex*****ons.

Second, capital punishment does not save taxpayers money. When evaluated solely on financial metrics, according to numerous studies and articles, the death penalty imposes a far greater burden on taxpayers than life sentences without parole. Recent estimates indicate that seeking an ex*****on increases death row inmate costs by two to five times. This price disparity is driven by extended legal battles, multiple appeals over an average fifteen-year period on death row, and the significant administrative costs associated with high-security solitary confinement.
Whether an ex*****on brings closure to a victim's family varies significantly from person to person. Still, real-world evidence and psychological studies show that ex*****ons rarely deliver the closure people expect, and for many families, they actually prolong trauma.

Quoting an article from the Death Penalty Information Center (DPI), an independent nonprofit organization that provides objective data, analysis, and research on capital punishment, explains why this is the case:

"Capital cases are always lengthy, given the procedural safeguards in the system intended to protect individuals from wrongful conviction, and these safeguards can slow the healing process for grieving family members. Marilyn Armour, the Director of the Institute for Restorative Justice and Restorative Dialogue, has worked with homicide survivors for over two decades. She and fellow researcher Mark Umbreit published a study in 2012 comparing how victims’ family members cope with loss… in Texas, a death penalty state, and Minnesota, which does not have the death penalty. Their research interviewed family members at different stages after the initial sentence and found that participants from Minnesota showed a marked decrease in grief symptoms over time, unlike those from Texas. The Minnesota families were able to move on sooner as they did not have to repeatedly relive their trauma through the lengthy appeals process, testifying about their loss and facing the defendant in court."

Even if one ignored everything else, one fact should matter most. Individuals have been and will continue to be executed for crimes they did not commit. According to the 2014 peer-reviewed study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, it is believed that at least 4.1% of defendants sentenced to death in the United States are innocent. To put it another way, that's 1 in every 20 convictions. The researchers emphasized that 4.1% is a conservative, minimum estimate, meaning the actual proportion of innocent people sentenced to death, and potentially executed, is likely higher.

The reality is the state gets things wrong all the time, and it consistently targets people based on their race and income. Plain and simple: if you’re poor or a person of colour, you’re much more likely to end up on death row. At the end of the day, given the statistics, some here may not agree with me, and that’s okay. But I am convinced that any society that adjudicates death as punishment diminishes that society each time the act is performed. To take a life to pay for a life taken is just more death.

Next week, I will expand this exploration within the framework of Christianity, showing how our religious orientation toward grace, forgiveness, and redemption offers a unique and powerful perspective.

10/15/2026

This Sunday, October 18th, 7pm @ Summerside Trinity United.

10/08/2026

04/25/2026

Hi everyone,
Heather and I are hosting a casual potluck dinner at our place this Sunday to celebrate The Abbey surviving one more year! It’ll be a wonderful chance to get together and catch up one last time before the summer break kicks in.

The Details:
When: Sunday, 5:30 PM – 9:00 PM
Where: 365 Beaver Street, Summerside

We’ll be providing the drinks and some food. For those who would like to bring something more food is always welcome—but please, no pressure at all to do so!
Looking forward to seeing you all there and celebrating together.

04/22/2026

The Harvard Study of Adult Development is one of the longest formalized studies of human life ever conducted. Beginning in 1938, “it has tracked the same individuals and their families, asking thousands of questions and taking hundreds of measurements—from brain scans to blood work—with the goal of discovering what really makes for a goodlife” (HSAD website). Today, that study is still ongoing, now in its ninth decade, following more than 1,300 descendants of the original 724 male participants.

Last week, we watched a 2015 TED Talk from Dr. Robert Waldinger, the study's fourth director. His conclusion, then as it still is today, is that after all these years of following these young men’s lives—and now the lives of their children and grandchildren—strong relationships have the greatest impact on physical health, mental health, and longevity. In the TED talk, Waldinger boiled it down simply: “Good relationships keep us happier and healthier. Period.”

This study originally caught my eye because I have long argued that my greatest unearned advantage in life is not my skin color, gender, or sexual orientation, but the fact that I was born and raised in a healthy, well-adjusted home. While we were not financially affluent by any means—and I grew up amidst the chaos of having four brothers and no sisters, which created its own brand of dysfunction—at the end of the day, there was an unwavering foundation of assurance that my parents loved one another and each of us.

Beyond that, and this is what I want to focus on tonight, I grew up in a healthy spiritual community. The church my dad pastored here in Summerside was my second home, and its members were my extended family. In so many ways, I was a lost child at school. Academically, I did poorly; emotionally, I was all over the place; and because I was the smallest kid, I was the target of relentless bullying. But unlike many children who feel lonely and isolated in school, I had a supportive community outside those walls where I could find refuge and a sense of belonging.

What makes a healthy spiritual community, and why are they so hard to find today?
To answer the second question first, we can’t talk about community,or the lack thereof, and ignore the impact of social media. In so many cases, offline communities have steadily moved online, including religious ones. This migration from face-to-face interactions to living life in front of a screen has transformed how we communicate.

We are still being told that social media is part of the solution to the "loneliness epidemic." It is, after all, designed for social connection. Yet paradoxically, multiple studies show that the more time people spend interacting online, the more likely they are to experience increased loneliness and isolation.

The reason is not simply that social media directly causes loneliness; it is that people are choosing to spend hours on it, sacrificing time that would otherwise be spent engaging in the real world with friends and family. Yes, it increases our ability to connect with others in both sheer numbers and across greater distances, but it reduces the quality of those interactions.

For me, when I message people online, it takes much longer to communicate through writing than it does to speak in person. The reason is simple: it takes time and effort to choose the right words to convey the intended emotion and tone that would be obvious in a face-to-face interaction. Fewer words are needed in person because anywhere from 65–93% of all communication is nonverbal.

Misunderstandings are more common online, and when they occur, they are rarely rectified in real time; the delay can be hours or even days before a response is given, if one is given at all. You can be part of a thriving online community, spend hours engaging with that group, and still feel utterly lonely.

I get a lot of flak for this opinion, but I believe the communities that best mitigate loneliness and isolation are exclusively offline. Whatever online components exist must be treated as a necessity rather than a convenience. To put it more bluntly: online engagement should never come at the expense of time spent together in person.

So tonight, I want to talk about the markers of a healthy spiritual community.

First, they are multi-generational. Churches that cater exclusively to young people or the elderly tend to be unbalanced. Each generation brings something crucial. It is the blending of hope for change with the acceptance of what cannot be changed that gives a community perspective. The passion of the young meets the wisdom of the old! The lived experience of seniors finds new life in the energy of youth. Sometimes people my age simply need to get out of the way and let this short but precious window of time, where the oldest and youngest bring out the best in one another, happen as it has throughout human history.

Second, they are multi-perspective. In today’s culture, this may be the rarest and most difficult trait to navigate. We live in a polarized world, shaped by online algorithms that divide us into ideological echo chambers where our beliefs are rarely challenged and those who disagree are demonized.

Communities that include different points of view inevitably create friction. Yet, being able to first build relationships and bond over the 90% we share in common makes a world of difference when confronted with the areas where we disagree—especially compared to arguing with a stranger online. A bit of friction within the foundation of real-life relationships is a good thing. It tends to grind down the sharp edges of our political and theological dogmas. Our beliefs become more nuanced, and we gain a greater appreciation for those who don’t share them.

Third, healthy spiritual communities are multi-focused. They are not sustained by rallying around a single idea or issue. This is another area where I get pushback.

The cause nearest to my heart for the past 25 years has been the Pride movement. In that quarter-century, I have seen an unprecedented societal shift toward the embrace of LGBTQ rights. Within the Christian community, while progress has been slower due to theological and biblical obstacles, the change is still impressive.

Yet, over the last few years, I have noticed that there are those within this movement—most often the "allies" rather than people who identify as LGBTQ—who are angrier and more intolerant of any divergence from full-hearted allegiance to the cause than ever before. The original spirit of that movement, captured in the inclusive message of “love is love,” has often given way to a more combative stance.

Often, this is what happens when a community's identity, motivation, and energy become sustained through grievance rather progress and healing. This is happening across an ever-fragmenting society, on both the left and the right. As traditional marginalized communities are broken into smaller and smaller sub-groups, a competitive race for recognition now seems to be the norm.

This leads to the fourth point: healthy spiritual communities reduce fragmentation rather than highlighting it. They celebrate unity in diversity rather than focusing solely on differences. While uplifting our differences ensures each person’s identity is valued, going too far creates an imbalance that privileges the "fragment" above the "whole." When communities find a balance between individualism and the collective, both benefit. And when that balance also incorporates caring for the world outside of that community, it adds positive value to all three.

Fifth, healthy spiritual communities minimize the “us-versus-them” dynamic. Communities whose identity is shaped by what or who they are against tend to be insular and offer little value to the outside world.

Finally, healthy spiritual communities are welcoming even to those who bring negative energy and anger. It has become "in vogue" to surround oneself only with positivity and shun anyone who might bring the mood down. Like individuals, fragile communities often marginalize people who disrupt the "good vibes." Healthy churches, however, can absorb a level of negativity and conflict that would unravel others. They trust that the cohesion of the whole is more transformative than the disruption of the one. They recognize that those who arrive with the most negativity are often the ones who need the protection of a loving community the most.

A poem by Edwin Markham captures this perfectly:
He drew a circle that shut me out
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle and took him in!

YEAR END - CLOSING REMARKS

I didn’t have a chance to check, but I’m pretty sure this is the ninth last service of the year that I have held. When I began the Abbey close to a decade ago, the purpose was not to facilitate community. My intention was simply to create a space where individuals felt free to come and go without being accosted by a greeter or feeling any pressure to be part of something more organized. I saw it as a drop-in center for sacred space and theological reflection.

In many ways, this service was designed based on what I would want if I were to walk into a new church for the first time. What never occurred to me is what I would want this place to be the 10th, the 15th, or the 25th time I walked through these doors. Would I still desire to be a stranger in a sanctuary of other strangers?

One of the things that opened my eyes happened last fall when, due to a scheduling conflict with the church, I had to cancel our service. Instead of taking the week off, I decided to invite anyone who was interested to our place for a potluck dinner. I expected maybe five or six people to show up, but to my surprise, everyone who could have made it was there.

After it was over, I received so many comments about how nice it was to finally have a real conversation with this person or that person—people who had previously been limited to a quick "hello" before or after the service. It was this recognition for me, and probably for all of us, that we might have, over these years, accidentally become a community.

I won’t lie: this idea that the Abbey is a community fills me with some apprehension. It means I’m not just invested in this service, but also in each of you—and to some degree, you in me, and you with one another. Whatever that means, however long we have, I’m so glad to have you with me to share this journey.

04/11/2026

We are back this Sunday night, April 12th, @ 7 pm, Summerside Trinity United.

04/04/2026

Happy Easter, everyone!