Perhaps if we shifted our language a little, our thinking might follow? If we trace the etymological roots of the word "justice", we would find it is strongly associated, maybe even identical with righteousness, or right-doing. The word do, here, however, is one of a creative activity, a making-right, rather than a finalizing, destructive activity.

So what if we said "create justice" rather than "do justice", or that justice "is being created" rather than "has been done"? The present tense and the idea that something must be forged rather than annihilated would seem to refocus our gaze and efforts, and we might realize that "justice done" never truly justifies the past.

This event felt very heavy last night and I prayed that grace is available for this man. At the same time you can't ignore the evil that was done by him and in his name. If I am making the correct assumptions, according to Islamic law, justice was done. As a follower of Jesus the Christ I can't help but feeling that a more creative and redemptive process would have proved a better alternative.
Rob Bell is doing a sermon series, Calling all Peacemakers, where he mentions "the myth of redemptive violence". One of the statements issued from the White House said that they know this will not end the violence in Iraq. The Iraqis must also know that all this will do is raise the stakes once again and this struggle will fall further into the myth of redemptive violence.
I really like what Corbin wrote. It would have been a statement to the world and more immediately to the people of Iraq if a truly creative act of justice had been carried out rather than the unjust act of a body for hundreds of bodies.

I completely agree that, according to Islamic law, justice was done. I also recognize the importance of allowing them to carry this out the way they saw fit.

But most Americans don't think this was just because it is the way of Islamic law...they think it is just because of what you typed at the end of your post..."a body for hundreds [or thousands or millions] of bodies." That is the part that is so sad to me. I believe Christians around this country celebrated last night, while the one whose name we bear wept.

Just to clarify, I was basing that number soley the Dujail massacre for which he was convicted and executed. But you are correct in pointing out that it is because of the thousands, maybe millions, that people celebrated. I wonder if they feel safer today.

while acknowledging your assumptions as valid...I would still like to have a source or two for the Islamic Law and its understanding of Justice.

I am not sure that I assumed that justice was done according to their law.

If you have the time you can look through this and make your own decision.

http://law.case.edu/saddamtrial/dujail/opinion.asp

If democratic or republican power is given to the government by the assent of the individual constituents, then it is illegitimate for the constituents to grant powers they do not have individually. If an individual does not have the right to determine retribution, then the citizenship cannot grant that "right" to its government.

This argument was presented in the Fall 2005 Journal of Philosophy in discussion about the nature of just war. I cannot remember the author's name, and I do not have the reference on hand, but it is a compelling argument if we want to avoid tyrrany.

Happy New Year's everyone!

corbin,
I appreciate the logic that you bring to the discussion and I believe that we need to apply it holistically, rather than in specific, isolated cases, as I fear is being done by others. The notion that justice is facilitative rather than punitive is essential to one's understanding of this concept. With this knowledge, one must look at the situation in Iraq in it's entirety: the main objective has been to facilitate freedom on a number of levels, namely personal, political, spiritual, social, etc. While some might view the condemnation and subsequent execution of Saddam "unjust", one must view it within the context of the larger facilitation of justice.

While the death penalty is never the best case scenario, we must understand that the individuals making the decision to execute Saddam do not necessarily have our same moral or spiritual convictions. Justice as an earthly construct, much like beauty, will always remain in the eye of the beholder. Our responsibility, therefore, is to reflect Christ to others, to truly be His hands and feet, so that the ultimate justice, the true act of righteousness, the price paid on the cross, was not done in vain. Perhaps if we did more praying for our world, more ministering in our world and less complaining (see other posts), things would actually change...
Again, I appreciated the post corbin.

I'm glad to see that online discussion is still around--unlike several who have opined that it is a poor way to interact, I see writing to have more opportunity for accuracy and clarity than speech. That being said, I know that we will also often misunderstand each other's tone and writing style, and it will be helpful to clarify those things as well, until we get to know one another better.

Let me remind those in this discussion that I approach the topic very differently from Brad and others who have a decidedly Christian commitment as part of theri concern and hermeneutic. I do not feel any necessary allegiance to an authority of text, institution, or divine being, so my understanding and beliefs are shaped with these things only as historical considerations, and not as epistemic commitments. For example, and this is only one among many, I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus, and do not believe his teachings or life to be privileged by his person--rather, any privilege I give to Jesus' life and teaching is a result of the truth and goodness that I believe he resonated with, something determined independent of his being. If it is true that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, it is true whether or not Jesus ever lived, etc.

On that note, I would have to say that I suspect Tim's question as asking for a biblical interpretation that recognizes Paul's authority in the epistle to the Romans. I don't prioritize this passage or any of the Bible, so any attempt to provide my interpretation is merely an attempt at critical reading. Subversion and Sipes have written about this passage from their faith commitments, which (since they share a faith commitment to Jesus with Tim, I believe) might better meet the needs implied in his question. I will post my thoughts after some review of the text and some time with my old Greek resources, but it will be a humanist reading that I propose.

In direct response to Tim's question about God's institutionalizing punishment, I have a few responses not tied to the text: 1) I don't believe in God, so I don't believe he/she instituted punishment, 2) since I don't my disbelief in God dogmatically, my understanding of God's nature and my reality would be very skeptical of accepting a God who identified redemption and punishment, and 3) punishment is institutionalized outside of a theocratic organization, so I doubt that punishment is solely God's terrain, and the institutionalization of punishment outside theological organizations has put the benefit and nature of punishment in question.

As far as Todd's comments, I appreciate the compliments and the attentive readings. I do agree strongly that each act must be taken in context and examined as such. But I want to question whether facilitating justice and doing justice are the same thing (see my first comment). Also, in regards to "Justice as an earthly construct, much like beauty, will always remain in the eye of the beholder", I have a few responses to this as well: 1) I'm not sure I would label justice as a construct as much as a regulative principle, 2) rather than relativizing justice, I would say that justice is context-driven, interpretation-laden, and thus relationally dependent but not arbitrary, and 3) I would question distinguishing an earthly justice from a divine justice--what is meant in the distinction?

Thanks for the food for thought, everyone, and I hope this stimulates more conversation, rather than interfering with the discourse. Also, Tim, I do intend to do a focused reading of the Pauline text, and will give it a thoughtful rendering to the best of my ability and faithful to my understanding of its intention, not just what I want it to mean.

Great conversation going on, guys. Todd, thanks for joining in. It's nice to hear from you.

I don't have a whole lot to add right now, but I do have a little bit:

Todd, you wrote: "While the death penalty is never the best case scenario, we must understand that the individuals making the decision to execute Saddam do not necessarily have our same moral or spiritual convictions." I do understand this, and I affirmed it in my earlier comment on this post. My concern, as I stated there, is the same: people who align themselves with Christ had a response to this event which I believe was contrary to that which Christ would have. The celebration by American Christians (generally) was, in my opinion, because of an understanding of "justice" which is diametrically opposed to the words Jesus spoke which I posted originally. I know that the people who made the decision don't have the same spiritual convictions as me...I'm just afraid that a lot of people who do have the same spiritual convictions as me celebrated Friday night.

You also wrote "Perhaps if we did more praying for our world, more ministering in our world and less complaining (see other posts), things would actually change..."

I can only assume that you're talking about me, and, while I bristled when I originally read it, I can't disagree. I do pray for our world, and I try hard to minister to our world, but I also complain. I need to do less of the latter and a whole lot more of the former. Thanks for calling this to my attention, and I ask your forgiveness for my attitude.

If you weren't talking about me, well, chalk it up to a bad case of paranoia, and know that I still learned a lesson.

And, for what it's worth, Timmy, sorry for the fate of the Bengals today.

BT

brad,
Thanks for your openness. The comment was intended to be more general in nature, and it applies to me as much as anyone. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this discussion as I am afraid that my PhD program is more "vocational tech" in nature than intellectual dialogue. It is great to have meaningful discussion (especially diffiuclt ones) where the dialogue is bilateral.

Corbin, thought-provoking post. I'll do my best to keep that line of dialogue going when I have a little more time.

Have a blessed week all!

good healthy multi-logue here. I highly recommend the afore-mentioned sermon series by Rob Bell. He shed some light on the original passage Brad quoted in his post.

I too am not satisfied with the general "Christian" response to what is going on in Iraq. When I hear Christians (even family members) suggest some kind of disastrous retaliation in the middle east (the reference was to solving this problem like we did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki)...I'm going to make a real scene.

I think the fact that this is even a topic of discussion is a beautiful thing...and you are beautiful men...totally plutonic man-crush there...

Romans 13...this exhausting piece of text has become both anathema and orthodoxy, depending on what you are defending. I'm truncating here because I've done it elsewhere. Our understanding of the OT law, namely that of blood for blood, is a justified approach in a theistic Hebrew culture, which we are not. The torah, mishvat, and other forms of Law granted in the OT are character shaping moments and reveal the character of God in narrative but are not universally normative for those who would follow Jesus, unless they are explicated in his character and activity. The Numbers passage quoted must be juxtaposed against the character, life, and teachings of Jesus (such as those in Mt. 5-7, which are individual only in that they lead individuals into collective effort living). Can we reconcile blood for blood against the character and activity of Jesus?

The context of Romans 13 is possibly that the Roman government is protecting early Christians (AD 50+) from Jewish violence and therefore Paul is making a very logical statement that would change as conditions changed. Two caveats: this passage begins in 12:14, not 13:1 which brings the issue of both corporate humility in the church as well as the existence of rulers as beneath God--a statement that might not have sat well with servants of Caesar who see a divine quality in their emperor. With this submission of all government to God, the logic of the argument moves from "Be loyal to the government because God put them there" to "Be loyal to God because he is over even those who bear the sword." The movement of this logic would eventually lead to the sword, once Rome became wise and Paul began the litany of "Jesus is Lord, Caesar is not" rhetoric that would characterize much of the epistles and the Jesus movement as a whole.

I think this gets at the exegetical point, namely that to justify capital punishment, democracy, political rights, etc. is to vastly undercut the message of Paul. The poise of the disciple is humility, the weapon is "goodness", charity, and humility and that does not change from reality to reality. Paul is not ordaining any government (if so, how did he end up in prison so many times? Why didn't he show them his copy of Romans 13?) but showing all power (cp. Colossians as a brutal blow to imperialism via Jesus) to be subject and pale in comparison to King Jesus.

I know I've done this before, and I don't do this to efface anyone (Timmy or anyone else) but to simply set the texts in front of us once again. Hope it helps.

Justice is righteousness (as Corbin suggests), which becomes synonomous with peace, faithfulness, love, mercy, and truth, when the law is fulfilled. (See Psalms 85:10).

Jesus says, in Matthew 9:13 "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." He also says he came to fulfill the law not to abolish it. (Matthew 5:17)

We are to enter into the fulfillment of the law with Christ, not continue in slavery to it. (See Galatians 2:15-3:19,),(Thank you, Subversion, for your thoughts on OT law and Romans 13).

If we as Christians (or just we as humans) could wrap our arms around what true justice really is, it would be nothing less than revolutionary in this bleeding broken world. May God grant us all the grace to...

...Create Justice!

Casey and I have discussed Romans 12-13 a number of times elsewhere, so Casey, forgive me for asking for yet more clarification. You and others have said in previous discussions and you alluded to it somewhat here that the context of this passage on submission to government is expressly related to the Jewish response to the yoke of Rome. Yet can we not draw parallels to and seek guidance from it for our own interaction with government now, two millennia removed from Paul penning these words? Are we to take this passage and narrowly limit its influence to an episode of civil unrest 2000 years gone? If we do that, how are we to take anything else in the Bible and apply it to our lives now? It seems that both now and in past discussions, those who don’t hold with the view that Romans 13 grants the authority to punish those who break the law have argued that those of us who support that view are taking the passage out of context. I would contend that perhaps they are reading the passage with too narrow a lens. I’m not trying to be antagonistic, merely curious.

Mike

sorry all. i am having technical diffiuclties. i'll try to get it figured out and jump back in. tb

mike--please don't apologize for asking that question! that's the real heart of what this is getting to!

first, let me clarify: the situation in AD 50+ was sketchy and difficult to pin down, but it appears that Rome tolerated Christianity to a certain extent because they saw it as a facet of the neutralized Jewish faith. It would not be long before this break would lead to Christian persecution. Persecution by some Jewish people (notice "some") was becoming violent towards followers of Jesus and Rome did not tolerate anything that looked like insurgency. So, the items in Romans 12:14-13:1ff could have both a present implication as well as a preparatory statement about persecution yet to come. Either way, it is highly subversive to the natural tendency toward retribution.

the application of Rom. 12:14ff from then to now is more about, again, the poise of the followers of Jesus within the empire than prescribing the role of empire as something inherently godly--Paul's complimentary statements regarding Rome and God's appointment are to subvert and humble, not to exalt.

So, take this passage and it's indications to followers of Jesus towards submission, etc: if we take into account that Rome is an empire, and no ordinary citizen (especially ones who espoused Jesus as Lord, not Caesar) had any say in the practices or habits of the empire, then we see that Paul's mandate is to act in subversive humility toward others and the empireknowing that they are all subservient to God anyway.

now, take this thinking into a democratic society: the difference is that now followers of Jesus have a say in the policies of the empire (for the most part). so, how to do we act as responsible followers of Jesus in a context where democracy exists? it doesn't really change the idea that we need a politics of humility and submission, and now it includes how that is accomplished. The measure of passages like Matthew 5-7 gets felt here, when we act with a politics of humility and follow Jesus' lead in social/political issues because they are, quite frankly, discipleship issues anyway.

Last and probably most importantly, Paul is not using this passage to justify/deconstruct capital punishment. We must see that he is not making a prescriptive statement but a descriptive one. No contemporary of his would deny that Rome and the "pax romana" was built on the backs of many dead (innocent) people to whom they "bore" the sword. He indicates the reality of Rome's tendency toward the sword as a cultural condition for the politics of humility begun in 12:14 and echoed throughout the Gospels. The reality is also that during this time there were still many Jewish Christians who would seek to oppose Rome violently--a bad idea given the above details of Rome's propensity to the sword, not to mention the admonitions about "cheek...cloak" in Jesus' teachings.

Whether or not capital punishment is legit does not seem to be a question for Paul but a reality of who Rome is. Now, for us: who are we? Rome brought peace and deterrence through violence, yet Jesus proposed the way of peace. For the followers of Jesus does a politics of humility such as Paul gives, along with the many incidences of Jesus v. empire in the Gospels, support capital punishment as acceptable to followers of Jesus today?

And the second thought that must naturally come: in a culture where the "sword" is not inevitable, would Paul encourage people of the way to influence a democratic society towards the way of peace/reconciliation?

Great question Mike--as always.

Mike,

I want to try and answer (very concisely) your question because I think you were also asking about hermeutics...how should we read the Bible.

I think Casey and I and others would say the historical context is important because we have to understand the meaning that the original hearers understood. In other words, in order for us to understand what Jesus was teaching about this or that, we have to understand what he taught and said to those specific people.

By understanding the context Paul is writing in, it chages the meaning somewhat, correct?

Let's say you came across a letter from a man to a woman, and the following passage was included in this letter:

"It's over. I've been tired of all of this for some time now and I have to say it will be a relief not to have to deal with all of the stress this situation has put on me. My only hope is that I can move on from all of this and not look back."

You might assume this man was breaking up with the woman. Or you might assume that he just got done with some stressful period of his life and is simply letting her know of his relief to be out of it. How ar we to know what the real meaning is if we don't understand what was actually meant?

By understanding what biblical authors were saying and why they were saying it, we can better understand the actual meaning of their words. Then, and only then, can we draw out a contemporary meaning, command or message.

I'm trying to fulfill my commitment to Tim's request for my reading of Romans 13. Looking at the text today I found several variations in how the text has been received, as well as three or four important points at which the text turns. It will require more attention than a comment (perhaps even a book) can attend to. I'll work on it for the next week or so, and when I have at least a reasonable response I will post it on my blog with a link to the specific entry left in comment on this blog.

Thanks for your patience. I will say that it does seem that Romans 13 is intended to be read with chapter 12 as an ethical challenge for the social individual. It challenges us for a thorough reading and response, so I hope we will not rest with any one person's rendering, much less any one rendering.

Leaving capital punishment aside, what about other types of punishment? Is there not precedent in the scriptures for there being consequences when we sin? Proverbs 13:24 "He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly." My son isn’t old enough to know the difference between right and wrong and thus earn punishment for disobedience, but once he is old enough to know the difference, there will be discipline meted out when it is warranted. The severity of the punishment will obviously depend on the level of disobedience/wrong-doing.

Similarly, punishments handed out by courts for criminal acts vary depending on the crime committed. Now, our judicial system is not perfect, but it serves the role of disciplinarian in our (human) society and keeps society from descending into anarchy. Without there being consequences for wrong-doing, what deterrent is there to those who would wish to commit an act of crime/sin? If government—in power at God’s discretion—cannot level some manner of discipline for wrong-doing, then what point is there to government in any form? Is prison time or a fine or community service just as "wrong" then in the eyes of scripture as capital punishment?

"Is prison time or a fine or community service just as "wrong" then in the eyes of scripture as capital punishment?"

Sure it is Mike...because the scriptures teach us to transcend or "fulfill" the law as Jesus did and taught. The law (then and now) is empty without love, mercy, and forgiveness.

The scriptures demand accountability and mercy from us...as it has been given to us.

Community service, prison, and any other form of punishment cannot solve or redeem a wrongful/sinful act. It only ask for confession for the sake of "proof", not for redemption or resurrection.

The Church must embed itself in systems and governments in order to "fulfill" the law, and many times stand against it (like MLK...who certainly understood Romans 12,13).

That is why non-violence through mercy and love is so subversive...MLK and his followers did not create their own law and imprison those who lynched them...they loved them, showed them mercy, even while being beaten and thrown in prison. They certainly were not perfect in this process...but through accountability and mercy (rather than a guerrilla revolution, a civil war, or our own American Revolution), they made real progress and achieved true freedom.

Furthermore, the law, as its own entity, is about authority through power of enforcement...and all the while Grace seems powerless, it will heap burning coals of shame on their heads.

Javert (from Les Miserables): "It's a pity the law doesn't allow me to be merciful."

I have two children Mike (my oldest is three)...and I would challenge us both to replace the word punishment with mercy in a sentence you wrote.

"The severity of MERCY will obviously depend on the level of disobedience/wrong-doing."

This doesn't mean that we do not hold our children accountable, teaching them the narrow path...sometimes allowing natural consequences to happen...but always looking them in the eyes, giving them the Grace that has been given to us from our Father.

Is there any other way to teach them about Jesus? Can Sunday School, Christmas plays, or Easter Sing-Alongs really convey this understanding in the same way?

No Way!

At the same time...it is often a real struggle not to be strict, harsh, and really angry...and sometimes I am...and that is why God created Woman.

Peace to your family.

I still plan to write my reading of Romans 12-13 later this week. Some personal responsibilities may delay it a couple of days, but I am working on it.

I did just post a little something about justice in relation to a television show I saw tonight--nothing new to the conversation, just an example: http://ckctomcat.livejournal.com/72442.html?mode=reply

Tim, et. al.,

My reading of Romans 12-13 is up: http://ckctomcat.livejournal.com/73677.html

There is so much more work to be done, and because of the nature of interpretation, the task will never be finished. But this is what one week (about 15 hours) has permitted me, and I tried earnestly to focus on the words and not on my ideology. That does not mean that my ideology was absent--the very method of critical reading is ideological. But I did my best to be fair in the process. I hope it advances the conversation...

corbin,

well done research and extremely well thought out. i still find myself somewhere in the middle of the issue, and will use your post to further my understanding of the text. i am just glad i could understand you for once, lol!

tim

Back to the notion that jail time, etc is "wrong". What is to be done then with Michael Devlin, the kidnapper of two young boys? If the State meting out punishment is un-Biblical then what is to be done with him? The families may forgive him, but does the State not have a responsibility to protect other families from him?

How does one determine what punishment is equivalent to what actions? How does punishment render the crime ineffective or canceled out? Who determines right and wrong and how to administrate it?

When we tell a lie to our boss, should there be a legal penalty, or just the consequences of a broken relationship, lost trust, and greater scrutiny of the employee? Brokenness brings its own consequences and complications. Healing is what should be added to make justice.

The State cannot protect us from ourselves. Determining who is "criminal", "impaired", or "deviant" is a move of power that disregards true human interaction. We can spend the time and effort trying to prevent crime by healing broken relationships, or we can put all our resources into making a spectacle of the "worst of these" so that we can ignore our own contributions of brokenness. We are perverse. It's not about them, it's us.

What we need is not a plan to deal with this kidnapper, but an effort to deal with ourselves, and in the process to love our neighbors in a way that might be transformative for all involved.