Several people have asked me to clarify what I mean when I say that an act may be \u201cjustifiable\u201d but not \u201cjust.\u201d\u00a0 The background is my post about the killing of bin Laden which I suggested might be justifiable but not just.\u00a0 Someone said that it is okay to celebrate bin Laden\u2019s death (something I denied) so long as one is celebrating the justice in it and not the killing per se.\u00a0 I cannot bring myself to celebrate something that is less than just.\u00a0 Hence the question.<\/p>\n
I agree with theologians such as Reinhold Niebuhr who argue that true justice is inseparable from love even if, in our sinful world, it is often at best an approximation of love.\u00a0 And in this sense, \u201clove\u201d is being defined by Jesus\u2019 Sermon on the Mount and 1 Corinthians 13 (etc.) as selfless benevolence to the other.<\/p>\n
In Christian tradition, going back at least to Augustine, love and justice are the twin and inseparable Christian ethical principles.\u00a0 Well, that raises the question, what about when there is a conflict between them?\u00a0 Ultimately, they cannot conflict in reality because they are both rooted in God\u2019s character (from a realist, not a nominalist, perspective).\u00a0 However, from our finite and fallen perspective there does sometimes seem to be tension between them.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Niebuhr helpfully distinguished between \u201cperfect justice,\u201d which would be love in action (e.g., tough love) and \u201cproximate justice\u201d which is love compromised in the face of the reality principle.\u00a0 For example, in this fallen world there is such a thing as the \u201clesser of two evils\u201d that must be done\u2013at least by governments.\u00a0 (A difference between Niebuhr and Yoder is whether Christians can rightly participate in this practice.\u00a0 Niebuhr said so and Yoder said no.)<\/p>\n
When I say that something can be \u201cjustifiable\u201d but not \u201cjust\u201d I mean in Niebuhr\u2019s terms.\u00a0 A war can be justifiable but is never truly just in the highest and best sense of just.\u00a0 The highest and best sense of justice must be restorative and not retributive\u2013if it is indeed inextricably linked to love.\u00a0 War is rarely restorative.\u00a0 Restoration may come after ware (e.g., the Marshall Plan), but during the bombing one can hardly call it restorative.<\/p>\n
I simply wish to preserve the distinction between true, perfect justice, which is, for example, tough love, and proximate justice which is something less than perfect love.\u00a0 It is love accommodated and may even be love approximated but not achieved.<\/p>\n
I cannot call a killing \u201cjust\u201d because when I think of something being or not being \u201cjust\u201d I think of love as the norm.\u00a0 However, in this sinful, fallen world some killing may be justified\u2013e.g., when it is absolutely necessary to preserve innocent life.<\/p>\n
I cannot celebrate any killing or death.\u00a0 I can\u2019t even celebrate the justifiable nature of it because that is, at best, a necessary evil.\u00a0 I can only celebrate true justice which I see achieved, for example, in rehabilitation of a criminal or restoration of a broken relationship.<\/p>\n
I can think of one possible exception, but I\u2019m not sure it\u2019s really an exception to my rule.\u00a0 That is when someone lays down his or her life to be killed to save someone else\u2019s life.\u00a0 But then it is not so much the actual killing I celebrate but the act of selfless love that was involved in it.\u00a0 So, for example, I celebrate the cross of Jesus Christ as the Son of God\u2019s selfless sacrifice for us, but I don\u2019t celebrate the act of the executioners.\u00a0 I realize that\u2019s a fine distinction.\u00a0 Some will no doubt call it a distinction without a difference, but it makes sense to me.\u00a0 Even Jesus prayed for his executioners\u2019 forgiveness, so he must not have thought their act was a good thing in every sense.<\/p>\n
Now, having said all of that, the theologian in me kicks in and I have to say something that is not obvious but may be necessary: that there is really only one ultimate ethical norm and that is love.\u00a0 Since perfect justice is normed by love, it is not really a separate ethical norm.\u00a0 Love is God\u2019s nature.\u00a0 Scripture says (in 1 John) \u201cGod is love.\u201d\u00a0 It does not say \u201cGod is justice.\u201d\u00a0 Justice, then, is always at best some manifestation of love.\u00a0 I conclude that restorative justice is love in action in the social realm whereas retributive justice is a necessary evil because of the fallenness of the world.\u00a0 Christians should always aim at restorative justice because of Jesus.\u00a0 When they have to participate in retributive justice (e.g., in the violent defense of a weak neighbor under attack), assuming that is every the case, repentance rather than celebration is called for because of the \u201cnew law\u201d Jesus delivered of indiscriminate, selfless love that includes non-resistance.<\/p>\n
Where I find myself caught is between Niebuhr, who argued that Christians must not always avoid compromise of the law of love (because that would require withdrawal from society) and Yoder who argued that Christians ought always to keep the law of love even if it means a certain withdrawal from society (not geographic or physical withdrawal but social non-engagement).\u00a0 Yoder seems right ideally while Niebuhr seems right realistically.\u00a0 So far, anyway, the only way I can see to mediate this difference is to advocate and practice repentance when involved in doing the lesser of two evils to avoid withdrawal from social responsibility.<\/p>\n
The case study is, of course, Bonhoeffer.\u00a0 Bonhoeffer himself, apparently, did not think killing Hitler was a righteous thing to do.\u00a0 He saw it more as a necessary evil and was conflicted about it.\u00a0 I cannot imagine him celebrating Hitler\u2019s death if the conspiracy had been successful.\u00a0 I can only imagine him repenting while at the same time experiencing a certain satisfaction that a terrible evil had been removed.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Several people have asked me to clarify what I mean when I say that an act may be \u201cjustifiable\u201d but not \u201cjust.\u201d\u00a0 The background is my post about the killing of bin Laden which I suggested might be justifiable but not just.\u00a0 Someone said that it is okay to celebrate bin Laden\u2019s death (something I […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":58,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-439","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n