Justice and Osama

I think it was the right move to go after Bin Laden. He was responsible for terrible acts towards our citizens. Perhaps the most terrible part of 9/11 are the empty chairs at dinner tables across the United States and across the world. He wished that to happen. Even if he saw 9/11 as a move in a larger war rather than the start of one, he wished that to happen to women, children, men, Muslims, Christians, civilians.

He is dead now and people are celebrating. He was a symbol of terror. I would rather have denied him martyrdom and kept him in a jail cell for the rest of his life, but he is dead and that is probably good. I am sure those who carried out this mission did their very best and obviously they are incredibly competent. But should we celebrate Bin Laden's death?

In one sense yes. His death may help to protect America in the future by making it look strong to a culture that respects the appearance of strength and honor. I would say his death may act as a deterrent to future terrorists, but we all know that potential loss of life is of little consequence in preventing suicide attacks. But still, this act may contribute in some way to our long-term safety. Perhaps, if handled correctly, it will help the world remember the United States as it was right after 9/11 - unified, a symbol of stalwart freedom to the rest of the world, as opposed to the misguided superpower invading Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever.

But what is justice really? Has it been served? As mentioned, if more protection and deterrence has been accomplished, then to an extent yes. But is Bin Laden's death, in the retributive sense, justice? Not to me. For two reasons:

One - It changes little on the ground. The victims of 9/11 and the ensuing wars are still dead and injured. Another death does not change that. It is still unjust through and through.

Two - The only real justice that could be enacted on Bin Laden is for him to fully realize what he has done. Without this, he simply died thinking that he was right. He died seeing himself as God's servant, a martyr for his cause, and where is the satisfaction in that?

Rather, Bin Laden should have to know what it is like for a family to sit for years at a dinner table with chairs that he helped to empty. He should have to see the physical suffering at the site of 9/11 and feel compassion for the victims. True justice would be for Bin Laden to identify himself with those he killed and maimed, to identify completely with the little children growing up without mothers and fathers. True justice would be to let him drown in a sea of empathy, of the pure objectivity of a God's-eye view. He should have to see the suffering he enacted upon others as suffering enacted upon himself.

But this is beyond our power.

I think of these verses in Romans chapter 12:

"Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written,"Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Perhaps some think that we should not pursue revenge because God's revenge will be much harsher. They think that the reason we should be kind and honorable is simply that we are saving the horrible stuff for God. Rather, I think that a good God teaches us to be good, because He is good. He leads by example. So perhaps God's vengeance, rather than being a meaningless trade of pain for pain, would put Bin Laden in front of a mirror with all his illusions cast aside. Then he would see what he has done, and it would be terrible, unbearable, almost. And then, as a consequence of this vengeance, Bin Laden would be a new person. After all, if one truly realizes one's wrongs, then one wishes to do better and is therefore reborn. And the cosmos would have taken another step towards reconciliation, rather than another sideways step of retributive vengeance of pain for pain. Perhaps we leave vengeance to God because God can do what we cannot.

Perhaps this type of justice is praiseworthy, the true meaning of satisfaction, not simply because of its terrible power, but because of its purpose - rather than a static retribution, a dynamic rebirth.

This is the only revenge that fulfills the requirements of justice. The criminal's knees must hit the ground, his tongue must confess, his heart must be changed. The only true revenge is restoration.

Sounds Christian to me!

A response to Wade Burleson's recent blog on Christian Universalism

Warning! Theology to follow....

I am not a person who thinks that the Bible is God's perfect, inerrant revelation. In fact, I think the Bible is 100% man-made, albeit one of the most important man-made books ever. And it offers us spiritual riches for sure, perhaps even an entry-point into certain kinds of deep truth. I believe in faith (when it means "trust" anyway) and I use God-language in describing reality and in my deepest thoughts and feelings. I think I am a reverent agnostic.

Anyway, this post is not to criticize or defend Scripture, but I wanted to be clear on my opinion of Scripture.

All that said, I also enjoy arguing for Christian Universalism (the idea that in the end, God will save all), even when it means accepting the premise that Scripture is wholly reliable and uniquely inspired in its communication about God. It's a premise that I disagree with, but one that I can accept for the sake of argument. Why do I care? Because I love Christianity and I would rather it exist as something that a reasonable person could hope is true, rather than in a form that any reasonable person should hope is not true.

Wade Burleson, in a recent blog post here talks about Christian Universalism, which is a hot topic thanks to Rob Bell's new book. It's called "Hell's Bells" I think. Oh wait. I mean "Love Wins" is the title! ;)

I would like to say that I enjoy discussing things with Wade quite a bit. He considers what his conversation partner is saying, he is polite and he is straightforward. I have always appreciated this. Wade does a great job of outlining the two premises that many Christian Universalists accept which leads them to the conclusion that God will save every person who has ever lived. He phrases the premises in the following way:

1. It is God's redemptive purpose for the world, and therefore His will, to reconcile every single sinner to Himself.

2. It is within God's power to achieve his redemptive purpose for every single sinner.

Wade states that if a person believes these two premises, then it will necessarily lead to Christian Universalism, for God has both the will and the power to save every person.

Wade agrees with premise two, but he disagree with premise one. This is the standard Calvinist position, in contrast with the Arminian position that accepts premise one but not premise two.

Wade believes that God does not wish to save certain people. He believes that God has created people that He does not love enough to save. Wade writes that while he agrees with Bell on God's love, grace and kindness, he disagrees "with him over the extent to which, or maybe it is better said "the sinners to whom," God has chosen to show His love, grace and kindness."

God will withhold his life preserver from many, despite having the power to pull them out of the waves, and it is simply because He does not want to help them.

I may get into what I perceive as a deeper disagreement with Wade in a subsequent post, but first I look at the Scriptures Wade uses to justify His position that God does not wish salvation for all people.

"How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?" (Hebrews 2:1-4).

First, the typical Christian Universalist maintains an exclusivist position. This means that they do not believe a person can come to God if he ignores salvation through Jesus Christ. Rather, the universalist simply believes that in the end every person will cease to ignore salvation and will be saved by God. So this Scripture does not seem to violate Christian Universalism at all. Secondly, if one looks at the context of this verse, then we see that there are consequences for ignoring God's salvation. Once again, this is certainly a view shared by the Christian Universalist. If being apart from God is suffering and being with Him is bliss, then this is obvious. The typical CU position I have run across is that people will certainly resist God's salvation, leading to their own suffering. But given the unending love of God, the extreme benefit to the sinner of coming to God, and the unlimited means at God's disposal (patience, time, etc.), then all will eventually come home. So the Hebrews verse presented simply says that a person cannot be saved if he ignores God's salvation. A Christian Universalist would agree but add that in the end God will accomplish His redemptive purpose by leading all people to stop ignoring this great salvation.

I could bring up Scriptures which state plainly that God does will the salvation of every sinner (1 Timothy 2:3-7 comes to mind). But it's not too hard to come up with a view and find Scriptures to support it. Many criticize the Bible for this, perhaps justly, but I also think it contributes to the richness of the Bible. It can be quite theologically ambiguous. Perhaps we must seek ourselves, using our ethical intuitions and our reason in determining a view of God that is (hopefully) truly worthy of praise. For his supreme power? Sure. But much more importantly, for His perfect goodness.

And my question to Wade must be - if God has the power to save, to reconcile, to perfect His creation, and yet He lacks the will to do so, then is God perfectly good? I imagine that Wade would respond that our sinfulness means that we all deserve eternal separation from God (presumably by God's own decree), and that God is not obligated to do anything for us in order to maintain His perfect goodness (I apologize to Wade if this is an incorrect guess at his view). But this seems odd to me. If one has the power to make something better, to sincerely convict the heart of the sinner, to bring about healing and redemption, and one does not do it, this does not sound like perfect goodness.

Then we might also ask why God wishes to create sinful creatures with a will counter to His own (yet He created them that way so is it really counter to His will?) if there is no ultimate purpose of redemption for them. The Calvinist response I have often read is something like - God has created some people not to save so that, in the interest of His own glory, he can display His justice on them for eternity. Their suffering will be a testament to God's holiness, righteousness and justice. And their suffering is God's intent.

But if this is what we use the label "good" for, then I am not sure I want to be "good".

I appreciate Wade's engagement with this issue. I will try to write a bit further on broader notions of love, justice and goodness. And I would love to read other's thoughts.

Alternative Views of Christ's Mission

On a couple of previous posts, two commenters offered their views on what the death of Christ means in Christian theology. Their ideas are an alternative to penal substitutionary theory. They said I could repost their comments in the context of this post, so I appreciate them contributing their points of view! I have really enjoyed reading them and thinking about them.

John pointed out some problems with penal theory by referencing the first book in C.S. Lewis' Narnia series. The character Aslan the lion is meant to represent Christ. He is the son of the Emperor Across the Sea (who does not directly enter the stories). The Witch represents evil, or perhaps even the devil.

"The penal substitution is so well described in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. It makes sense because the Witch WANTS Aslan's blood. She WANTS him dead. She is evil. Aslan lets her kill him so that Edmond may live. She is happy as she wants Aslan's blood. That all makes sense to me. However, in the sacrifice of Jesus my upbringing taught me that God was wanting Jesus to die on the cross. Essentially, God wanted Jesus's blood. That is really confusing. God and the Witch are playing the same role. I understand it better when the Witch is involved, not when God is involved. Plus, people always seem to state that two wrongs don't make a right. Well, does one wrong? Did killing Jesus really make things right? Or, was it a tragedy that he died for trying to get the people around him to open their minds to new ideas about who God is and what it means to have a close relationship with Him?"

John is quite right that in Lewis' version of events, Aslan is sacrificed to pay the Witch, not the Emperor Across the Sea. In penal theory, God is the one whose justice demands appeasement. Here is John's idea of the mission of Christ:

"My best interpretation of it is simply to say that, with the assumption that Jesus is God and that Jesus rose from the dead after being murdered, then He showed the ultimate level of forgiveness and mercy to all those around Him by still being forgiving and merciful even after being murdered viciously. So, i can understand the Christian thought process of following Christs example by loving, forgiving, and showing mercy to the same level He did on the day He rose from the dead and continued His path of love rather than revenge (so the opposite of retributive justice, right?). Anyway, that explanation only works with the assumption that Christ and God are one."

nuclear.kelly's vision of the atonement of Christ runs like this:

"Mainly, I see Jesus as "activist," if you will. Sage, prophet, commentator, charismatic leader. Social and political turmoil was high during the Roman occupation of the Palestinian coast. Without going in to much detail, I think that Jesus' life, as touched by and in tune with God, stands as a demonstration of what every person's life can be, and his death (reasonably inevitable though it was) became the proof that we must be willing to sacrifice everything for what is right (don't confuse this with sacrificing everything for what we think God wants!). Most of us would be willing to sacrifice most of what we have for a few people; Jesus was willing to sacrifice everything he had for all people (even those who hated him), because it was the only "righteous" conclusion to his life to that point (to run away from death would have made him simply another fleeting character in a history book, full of a sense of fairness but unwilling to fulfill what was necessary to plumb the depths of unfairness). In that sense, the atonement doesn't have anything to do with judgement or sin or debt, but is instead a beacon of what is attainable at the limits of human nature. Atonement is being willing to lose everything for nothing; the natural outcome of utter sacrifice."

Both John and nuclear.kelly's view are really meaningful to me and could lead to a lot of great discussion!

The version I will offer here is still one of substitutionary atonement. It maintains that Christ still takes the place of sinners in a sense. But it removes the "penal" part, which is the idea that Christ's sacrifice was to appease God.

Christ submitted himself to death at the hands of sinners. He showed us the wages of our sin by taking them on himself, for sinfulness responds to love in violent ways. Contemplating the death of Christ at the hands of men, who represent the imperfections we all have, convicts our hearts. This leads us to turn from the destructive ways of sin. Therefore Christ has substituted himself for us, showing and bearing the consequences of our sin and convicting our hearts in order to lead us to the more beneficial path of right action. And of course, this right action, leads us to "at-one-ment" with God.

Christ dies for our sins, because of our sinfulness. But not because God needed to be appeased, but rather because there is a natural, metaphysical suffering that comes about when we do not know love.

This interpretation is one along the lines of Ghandi's hunger strikes. By taking this physical burden on himself to protest potential combat between Muslims and Hindus, he convicted the hearts of both sides and, at least for a while, led them to avoid conflict. His was a substitutionary atonement.

If you are one that thinks about Christian theology, what is your view?

Justice part three

I accidentally posted a blog that I was working on (Justice part four). Sorry about that if you saw it! I will edit it and have it up for real in a few days. Oops. But here is part three:

I am going theological with this post, so what out! Hopefully the meaning will translate even if you are not particularly religious.

Remember the Penal Substitution idea of some brands of Christianity? It says that because mankind has sinned against God, we deserve punishment, and Christ bore that punishment (for some at least) on the cross. God could not merely forgive, but rather He required an appeasement, a punishment, which was carried out on the innocent but willing person of Jesus.

First of all, it is questionable as to whether punishing an innocent person in a guilty person's place would really satisfy any version justice, retributive or utilitarian. Exploring this idea is not my intention here, but Ken Pulliam has written extensively on this subject, analyzing the views of many, many historical theologians, over on his blog located here.

The bigger problem with Penal Substitutionary Theory, and with the conservative Christian idea of God, is that it makes justice fundamental to His character and love secondary. Love, through Christ, is only what creates a possible escape from the foundational, unavoidable reality of God’s justice. Love becomes the servant of justice.

And in this context - what IS justice? In the traditional "retributive justice" view of Scripture, it is an "evening out" of things. An eye for an eye.

So in conservative Christianity, the foundational aspect of God’s character is that he requires revenge.

Surely revenge is an outdated idea and one unworthy of God.

But here is a different idea. I think (or hope) that love is foundational to reality. And love is identifying ourselves with others. This is the metaphysical good of the universe. According to this idea, justice as revenge does not serve much purpose. Instead, justice becomes a tool to bring about greater Love. And what exactly is this tool? It is action with a focus on bringing about correction, safety and deterrence.

Justice is now the servant of love!

Justice part two

Thought Experiment #1

Imagine a society with several powerful families, or clans perhaps. Each clan is constantly striving for control. Because of this, clans often kill members of the other families. And every single time a member is killed, a revenge killing occurs, without fail. It become a series of vendettas, which are always satisfied.

According to the idea of retributive punishment, would this not qualify as a just society? Each time a killing occurs, it is answered in equal proportion. Few young people remain alive within the clans, as the killings are fairly constant, but a sense of order or an "evening out" of actions is maintained.

Is this a just society?

Thought Experiment #2

Imagine that a man has killed another man. Although this is totally impossible, now imagine that we know without question that he is totally reformed. We know that he understands what he has done is wrong and that he is truly sorry for it. Moreover, we also know beyond question that he will never commit murder again. And beyond that, we also know that no one will ever know if we let this man go. In other words, it will not sacrifice the deterrent effect of the law on any potential criminals if the man is released, because no one knows what happened.

What purpose does it serve to put this man in prison or to kill him? Does it rob society of another productive member? Does it simply make two wrongs instead of a right?

Can we make a case for retributive punishment in the above thought experiments without referencing the goals of a more utilitarian theory of punishment - namely rehabilitation, deterrence or security?

Justice part one

I have been interested in the subject of justice for quite a while now. While justice encompasses a broad range of subjects from fair distribution to ethics - it is theories of punishment that are most interesting to me.

I suppose the popular idea of penal substitutionary theory in Christianity is a big reason for my interest in the nature of punishment, but I have been interested in the idea since I was a teenager.

Penal Substitutionary Theory (PST) states that Jesus was killed to pay the price for humanity's violations of God's law. This requires a view of punishment that is retributive in nature. This means that a person should be punished for wrongdoing to achieve a sort of "evening out" of events. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I think this idea sees justice as an end in itself, not a method to another end. Achieving this "evening out" of events, this balance, is seen as the way things should be. I do not see justice as an end in itself, but rather see justice as a means to achieving better lives for individuals and society as a whole. I believe that the letter of the law serves the spirit of the law.

So I do not agree with the retributive theory of punishment. While I am not sure I agree completely with broader utilitarian views, I think the utilitarian view of punishment is correct. This idea is that punishment should accomplish a purpose, and that the retributive idea of "evening out" is not coherent when it is not accompanied by one of the following reasons for the punishment. Good reasons are:

1. Rehabilitation - attempting to educate, heal, create empathy and understanding of the wrongdoing in the criminal.

2. Deterrence - creating disincentives for potential criminals to violate the law

3. Security - keeping dangerous people locked up for the safety of society

4. Paying back something when it is actually possible to do so - suing someone for some reason - lost wages, pain and suffering, to get back stolen money, etc.

The last category above is different than the idea of "evening out" in retributive justice. The reason is that if I have lost wages because of a car accident, and I sue the person that hit me, I can actually get back some of what I have lost. Money. If a person steals from me, loses all the money, and goes to prison, then this punishment does not actually pay me back anything at all. I am personally no better off.

I am going to leave #4 above for now, but actually, I don't think it qualifies as punishment at all.

Of course if someone murdered someone close to me, I might really feel that I want them dead. But regardless of this, the idea of retributive justice here is an absolute insult. It suggests that by the murderer being killed, it could somehow make up for the absence of my deceased loved one. No way. The death of the murdered pays me back in no way whatsoever. If they die, justice has not been served in my book, because the death of my loved one is a violation that can never be repaid. My loved one's death would be unjust and would remain unjust. The only thing close to justice would be for the killer to really, REALLY realize what he/she had done. And this is rehabilitation. And the person must be locked away for the security of society, both to keep the killer off the streets and to show create deterrence for others who may be tempted to kill.

Retributive justice is punishment inflicted without the purpose of rehabilitation, security, deterrence or making material amends when it's actually possible to do so; and this type of punishment, even when done carefully and dispassionately by the state, is still synonymous with another term. Revenge.