According to JD Walters:
“But when we really think about it, although we feel that punishment should be meted out for wrongdoing, is it true that justice has actually been done? So the Nazi officers who were tried and sentenced to death at Nuremberg got what they deserved...but their victims are still dead, and the survivors traumatized. The husband of a murdered wife may feel a sense of satisfaction watching the murderer go to the electric chair, but the wife is still gone, and nothing, not even the satisfaction of seeing punishment meted out can fully compensate for that loss.”
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2010/09/because-of-hardness-of-our-hearts-some.html
i) Of course, this confuses mundane punishment with everlasting punishment. Mundane punishment was never meant to be adequate. That’s what hell is for.
ii) It also assumes that the only rationale for retributive punishment is pragmatic. If it compensates for the wrong. But this overlooks the fact that justice is worthwhile in its own right.
iii) What is JD’s notion of adequate compensation, exactly? Is this a time-travel scenario whereby God turns back the clock to prevent the original crime?
“I suggest that what really lies behind our desire for justice is not for punishment to be meted out, but things to be made right.”
Which assumes that punishing the wicked is not a part of making things right.
“Let me illustrate with a less dramatic example. Suppose a thief breaks into my house and steals a priceless heirloom. The thief is caught without the heirloom ever being found, and is sentenced to pay a fine or goes to jail. Yes, that may be appropriate, but what I really want is my heirloom back. The punishment of the thief does not compensate for the loss of the heirloom. Now imagine that a thief steals the heirloom, but feels guilty about it (and really guilty, not just worried that he might be caught, but guilty because he realizes he's done me wrong) and returns it to me with sincere apologies. Is there any need for me to report the incident to the police? If I am impressed with his remorse and have recovered the heirloom, why should any further punishment be necessary? And even if I don't recover the heirloom, but the thief comes to me in remorse and promises to do whatever is in his power to make it up to me, why should I not forgive him? The thief's remorse might even be the opportunity for us to become friends, to be reconciled and no longer at cross purposes.”
But that’s a fairly trivial example.
“But what if the following conditions held: suppose the perpetrators of genocide were to become fully aware of the enormity of their crimes and were overwhelmed with remorse (again not just because they were caught but because they realized how deeply they wronged and violated their victims), all the hurt and suffering of the victims were completely erased so that the dead came back to life and wounds healed, including their memories so that they did not even remember the pain and anguish of their persecution, and a new society appeared in which it would be impossible for any further abuses to take place? Would we still demand that the perpetrators suffer?”
i) That’s a false dichotomy. I can imagine many victims who desire both retribution and restoration. They want their loved ones back. They want to feel whole again. But they also want to see the perpetrators punished. It isn’t one or the other, but both.
ii) What does JD think his hypothetical corresponds to in real world terms? Does he think God reunites all survivors and victims? Does he think God erases traumatic memories?
iii) Do survivors and victims want to share eternity with the perpetrators? Even if Josef Mengele were contrite, does this mean his victims want to spend eternity in the company of a penitent Josef Mengele?
iv) An obvious problem with JD’s scenario is that heinous crimes can also have some consequences which the victim or survivor doesn’t wish to reverse. Suppose a woman’s fiancé is murdered. As a result, she marries another man, has children by another man.
In one respect she’d still like to have her fiancé back. But not if the cost of restoring the status quo ante means undoing the life she had with her husband and kids.
“It seems to me that retributive justice is an accommodation to our fallen condition. Jesus said that it was because of the hardness of the Israelites' hearts that Moses allowed people to divorce (Matthew 19:8), and it seems that the same is true for the whole scheme of retribution.”
That’s not a real argument. Just bathos.
“In this fallen world we are often confronted with wrongdoers we don't know are truly repentant (or that we do know actually aren't), the majority of crimes cause harm which cannot be taken back, undone or made up for…”
i) It’s true that retributive justice presupposes the fall. But so does what JD is pleased to call “restorative justice.”
ii) Why does JD think we live in a fallen world to begin with? Was that a divine mistake? Is God working overtime to rectify the accidental fall?
Yes, retributive justice presupposes the fall, but the fall was a divinely intended event. Indeed, that supplies the necessary backdrop for mercy and justice.
“In such a condition, the only compensation that those who lose a loved one to murder can get is the satisfaction of knowing that the murderer is being punished. And in order to maintain its authority, the state has no choice but to uphold the law and mete out punishment. Note however that this is only partial compensation: it is not justice, because the loved one is still dead, and the murderer may still be unrepentant. True justice would be for things to be made right: the dead loved one restored to life, and the murderer repentant.”
That simply begs the question of what constitutes “true justice.”
“And in fact, due to our sinful condition, retribution itself can become an injustice, when the desire for revenge demands punishment out of all proportion with the crime.”
i) But that’s a straw man. The question at issue is divine justice. The Day of Judgment.
ii) Moreover, Scripture doesn’t regard the demand for retribution as inherently sinful. Consider eschatological setting of Rev 6:10.
iii) Furthermore, Scripture doesn’t treat forgiveness and retribution as mutually exclusive. To the contrary, God forgives the redeemed because he exacted punishment on the Redeemer. Penal substitution lays the foundation for divine forgiveness.
“What is surprising then is that throughout history the chief proponents of restorative justice have also been the ones that experienced the most horrific injustices.”
I don’t see many survivors of the Holocaust or Killing Fields, &c., penning books on universalism.
“Because he [Martin Luther King] was convinced that God was a God of justice and love, he had the courage to bear injustice without striking back, just as Jesus did as he was going to his death. He was convinced that ultimately love and reconciliation would prevail.”
i) Jesus is the Judge (2 Thes 1) as well as the Redeemer. The Lamb of God’s wrath (Rev 6) as well as the paschal lamb.
ii) In Scripture, divine forgiveness is contingent on repentance and retribution. We don’t have unconditional forgiveness in Scripture, where God forgives the impenitent.
iii) In my observation, I don’t see JD actually following in the footsteps of King. He helps himself to that touchy-feely rhetoric, but in real life he holds grudges. He doesn’t extend blanket forgiveness to those who have (allegedly) slighted him.
OK,
ReplyDeleteI'm going to go ahead and answer this despite my resolution to avoid interacting with you, primarily for the sake of other readers. I already know that by your own admission your beliefs are 'battle-hardened' and rigid so I know you don't interact with people expecting to learn something or to potentially change your mind, but just to demonstrate to your followers how inadequate your opponents' arguments are. But I still can't resist the chance to respond to these criticisms. So here goes.
"i) Of course, this confuses mundane punishment with everlasting punishment. Mundane punishment was never meant to be adequate. That’s what hell is for."
You missed my point entirely. It was not that human punishment is unsatisfactory because we cannot inflict enough of it. It was precisely that no amount of punishment (and satisfaction from witnessing that punishment) can restore what has been lost in wrongdoing.
"ii) It also assumes that the only rationale for retributive punishment is pragmatic. If it compensates for the wrong. But this overlooks the fact that justice is worthwhile in its own right."
You're reducing justice to the punishment of the guilty. And even if that were its primary connotation, why exactly is it worthwhile in its own right? What does it accomplish for God or for human beings?
"iii) What is JD’s notion of adequate compensation, exactly? Is this a time-travel scenario whereby God turns back the clock to prevent the original crime?"
No, it is God healing wounds, calling the perpetrator to repentance and the victim to forgiveness. For some reason (a version of which you also espouse) God chooses not to prevent something bad from happening altogether but to turn the consequences of that action toward a good purpose.
"Which assumes that punishing the wicked is not a part of making things right."
How does everlasting punishment make things right?
"But that’s a fairly trivial example."
That you think a theft and repentance which results in a person gaining a friend is trivial says a lot about your character. And I go on to present a much more serious example, and you do not acknowledge my acknowledgment of its seriousness.
"i) That’s a false dichotomy. I can imagine many victims who desire both retribution and restoration. They want their loved ones back. They want to feel whole again. But they also want to see the perpetrators punished. It isn’t one or the other, but both."
ReplyDeleteMere assertion on your part. And you ignore the fact that an essential part of this scenario is the sincere and full repentance of the perpetrator. And why exactly do they require this? What else does punishment accomplish that is not accomplished by the healing of wrong and the repentance of the perpetrator?
"ii) What does JD think his hypothetical corresponds to in real world terms? Does he think God reunites all survivors and victims? Does he think God erases traumatic memories?"
Your use of 'real world' here is curious, because you believe in the advent of a world in which God will wipe away all tears from our eyes, and in which the former things have passed away. Are you suggesting that there are constraints that apply in this fallen world that carry over to what God can and cannot do in the next?
In any case, I am imagining a scenario, not so much in which all the former networks of relationship are maintained and restored exactly as they were before, but one in which the hurt caused by wrongs within the context of those relationships is erased and undone. If God does not wipe away the memory of a traumatic event entirely, he certainly prevents it from ever again being a source of anguish and distress.
"iii) Do survivors and victims want to share eternity with the perpetrators? Even if Josef Mengele were contrite, does this mean his victims want to spend eternity in the company of a penitent Josef Mengele?"
Do first century believers want to spend eternity in the company of a penitent Saul, who dragged them away to imprisonment and even death? Do redeemed slaves want to spend eternity in the company of John Newton?
But your scenario seems not to have entirely taken into account the enormity of the transformation that would have taken place. We are not imagining a scenario in which Mengele is repentant but his victims are still traumatized and scarred. It is one in which they have been restored and raised to full and glorious life, the wrongs they suffered scarcely even a remembrance, if that. I for one would have no trouble accepting a penitent and transformed Mengele into eternal company. What would be left in me to hold back from forgiveness? My joy would be such that nothing could take it away.
"iv) An obvious problem with JD’s scenario is that heinous crimes can also have some consequences which the victim or survivor doesn’t wish to reverse."
I'm sure God has enough knowledge and wisdom to determine which consequences need to be undone and which will be preserved, in order for full creation harmony to be restored.
"i) It’s true that retributive justice presupposes the fall. But so does what JD is pleased to call “restorative justice.”"
As I explained in my comment to Chris Price, the question is not whether a certain action or institution is in response to the Fall, but which of those actions and institutions are the ultimate ends God aims at. The Jewish Law was our schoolmaster until Christ came. God did not intend for the law to be his mode of dealing with his people for all time. In the end he is simply with them, no temple rituals or sacrifices necessary. I am asking here whether the same is not true for the framework of retributive justice. In contrast, I think restorative justice IS God's ultimate end, and retributive justice a temporary measure that aids in that purpose for a time.
"Yes, retributive justice presupposes the fall, but the fall was a divinely intended event. Indeed, that supplies the necessary backdrop for mercy and justice."
ReplyDeleteYou clearly hold to supralapsarianism, which I reject, but this is not the place to argue about that.
"That simply begs the question of what constitutes “true justice.”"
So does simply asserting that justice=punishment of the guilty.
"ii) Moreover, Scripture doesn’t regard the demand for retribution as inherently sinful. Consider eschatological setting of Rev 6:10."
Again, collapsing justice to punishment. The slain martyrs call for God to judge the people of the Earth and to 'avenge' (ekdikein) their blood. This does not always refer to vengeance in the sense of inflicting harm for harm. It can also mean "to vindicate one's right, do one justice" Obviously the martyrs want to see their cause vindicated, but they do not specify exactly how God is to do that.
Now, I need to be clear here. That I reject retributive justice as the ultimate framework of divine justice does not mean that I am a universalist. I do believe that some will reject God's offer of reconciliation and thus be excluded from the eschatological community. But this exclusion is not retribution in a legal sense, of a punishment for a wrong, but a simple consequence of their rejecting an invitation to communion which is on God's terms.
"I don’t see many survivors of the Holocaust or Killing Fields, &c., penning books on universalism."
Universalism is not the issue, but whether divine justice demands punishment before forgiveness can be granted. On that issue, the witnesses to nonretributive forgiveness and reconciliation are legion. See Miroslav Volf, survivor of the Serbian Massacre ("Exclusion and Embrace"); Richard Wurmbrand, survivor of decades of torture in communist prisons ("Tortured for Christ"); Immaculee Ilibagiza, survivor of the Rwandan massacre ("Left to Tell"), to take just a few examples.
"ii) In Scripture, divine forgiveness is contingent on repentance and retribution. We don’t have unconditional forgiveness in Scripture, where God forgives the impenitent."
Your second sentence is one I agree with, but it doesn't follow from the first. Of course God doesn't forgive the impenitent. I agree. I have always argued that forgiveness demands repentance. Your claim is that God never forgives without exacting retribution first, and I disagree that all examples of divine forgiveness in the Bible were preceded by retributive punishment (or at least, a full measure of retributive punishment).
"iii) In my observation, I don’t see JD actually following in the footsteps of King. He helps himself to that touchy-feely rhetoric, but in real life he holds grudges. He doesn’t extend blanket forgiveness to those who have (allegedly) slighted him."
I'll forgive you in a heartbeat if you take down that slanderous post and apologize. How you could have missed my emphasis on repentance as part of reconciliation is completely beyond me.
It seems that my middle comment was there a few minutes ago, I don't know what happened to it.
ReplyDelete"i) That’s a false dichotomy. I can imagine many victims who desire both retribution and restoration. They want their loved ones back. They want to feel whole again. But they also want to see the perpetrators punished. It isn’t one or the other, but both."
ReplyDeleteBut why should they want such a thing? If the perpetrator is sincerely and fully repentant, and the wrongs undone, what further purpose would punishment serve?
"ii) What does JD think his hypothetical corresponds to in real world terms? Does he think God reunites all survivors and victims? Does he think God erases traumatic memories?"
I don't see how God can wipe all tears from our eyes unless he somehow neutralized the impact of memories which in our current state reduce us to convulsive crying and depression.
"iii) Do survivors and victims want to share eternity with the perpetrators? Even if Josef Mengele were contrite, does this mean his victims want to spend eternity in the company of a penitent Josef Mengele?"
By the same reasoning, do first century believers want to spend eternity with a penitent Saul? Do redeemed slaves want to spend eternity with John Newton? Do Michael Servetus' redeemed relatives (if he had any) want to spend eternity with John Calvin?
To refuse to do so would be precisely to disobey Christ's command to forgive others as our heavenly Father has forgiven us.
"iv) An obvious problem with JD’s scenario is that heinous crimes can also have some consequences which the victim or survivor doesn’t wish to reverse."
I trust God has the wisdom and knowledge to discern which consequences should be reversed and which should be preserved.
JD WALTERS SAID:
ReplyDelete“You missed my point entirely. It was not that human punishment is unsatisfactory because we cannot inflict enough of it. It was precisely that no amount of punishment (and satisfaction from witnessing that punishment) can restore what has been lost in wrongdoing.”
i) And you miss the point. Punishment needn’t restore what was lost. Even in cases of restoration, punishment is additional to restoration.
Victims often want both. Restoration supplies something that punishment does not while punishment supplies something that restoration does not.
ii) And the warrant for punishment is not continent on restoration. Punishment is warranted by the demands of justice.
“You're reducing justice to the punishment of the guilty.”
No, I’m making that a necessary condition.
“And even if that were its primary connotation, why exactly is it worthwhile in its own right? What does it accomplish for God or for human beings?”
It doesn’t have to “accomplish” anything to be intrinsically good.
“No, it is God healing wounds, calling the perpetrator to repentance and the victim to forgiveness.”
i) Now you’re backpedaling. You originally included the erasure of traumatic memories in your hypothetical. Was that just window-dressing?
ii) What if the perpetrator refuses to repent?
iii) What if the victim refuses to forgive?
You predicate your argument on restoring the victim, but then you make demands on the victim. Indeed, you make a very onerous demand on the victim by insisting that he or she forgive the perpetrator.
How does that respect the feelings of the victim? You act as if “restorative justice” is for the victim’s benefit, but then you turn the transaction into a coercive quid pro quo.
“For some reason (a version of which you also espouse) God chooses not to prevent something bad from happening altogether but to turn the consequences of that action toward a good purpose.”
I’ve stated the reason for that on many occasions. It’s a source of second-order goods. Otherwise unobtainable goods.
Cont.
ReplyDelete“How does everlasting punishment make things right?”
i) I never said it did. Rather, I said that’s a “part” of making things right.
ii) I don’t think retributive punishment was ever meant to compensate every victim. There are many situations in which both victims and perpetrators go to hell.
iii) To “make things right” doesn’t necessarily mean restoring what the victim lost. Both victim and perpetrator are sinners. If God punishes both, that, too, is making things right.
iv) In the case of the saints in glory, retributive justice is a partial compensation. Not the whole nine yards.
“That you think a theft and repentance which results in a person gaining a friend is trivial says a lot about your character.”
i) Stealing an heirloom is fairly trivial. And that’s why you used the example in the first place. Because it was less controversial than paradigm-cases of evil.
So you can spare me the disingenuous indignation.
ii) BTW, the fact that you keep assailing my character exposes an emotional and practical tension in your position. You pay lip-service to your heroes (King, Tutu, Volf, Mandela), but you can’t stand dealing with people like me whom you dislike. So you have this paper theory about love and forgiveness, but when the turf meets the surf you’re only loving towards the lovable. You’re nice to the people you like. But as soon as you encounter somebody who rubs you the wrong way, you’re spiteful and resentful. Friendly to all and only those who are friendly in return.
It’s easy to make pretty speeches, JD. But the moment you step down from the podium, you’re just as petty and punitive as everybody else is naturally inclined to be. Like the typical universalist who’s a wholesale philanthrope in the abstract, but a selective misanthrope in the concrete.
JD Walters said...
ReplyDelete"It seems that my middle comment was there a few minutes ago, I don't know what happened to it."
Might be a Blogger glitch due to the automatic spam filter. That's been a problem over at Beggars All. I'll check the spam.
I take it that what punishment supplies that restoration does not, in your view, is the satisfaction of justice. But you still haven't given a good argument for why, exactly, punishment is required in order to satisfy justice.
ReplyDelete"It doesn’t have to “accomplish” anything to be intrinsically good."
That's a very unbiblical stance. In the Bible people praise God for His justice in punishing the wicked precisely because it vindicates His name or because it vindicates the sighs of the oppressed (or both). Punishment is never simply good in its own right, but for the goods it accomplishes for others.
"i) Now you’re backpedaling. You originally included the erasure of traumatic memories in your hypothetical. Was that just window-dressing?"
No, I said God would neutralize those memories so that they are no longer the source of anguish and pain. I didn't say he would erase them altogether.
"ii) What if the perpetrator refuses to repent?"
Then justice demands that they be excluded from God's kingdom of reconciliation. But the point is that God didn't make acceptance of their repentance contingent upon the infliction of punishment first. The final eschatological exclusion will not be on the basis of crimes committed during this life, but upon refusal of God's offer of reconciliation with Him.
"iii) What if the victim refuses to forgive?"
Jesus is clear on that score. Because we are not only victims of various crimes but also offenders, if we do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will our heavenly Father forgive ours.
"You predicate your argument on restoring the victim, but then you make demands on the victim. Indeed, you make a very onerous demand on the victim by insisting that he or she forgive the perpetrator."
It is only onerous if the victim must forgive without assurance that the wrongs suffered will eventually be undone. It may be psychologically difficult in this life, because ultimate restoration happens at the end of time, but ultimately it is not a burden to forgive. It is a release, a joy. Why cling to retribution and the desire for vengeance? It only darkens the soul.
If I forgive others for the wrongs they do to me, God forgives me for the wrongs I do to Him and to others, and all who similarly forgive are restored to right relationships. What could be sweeter than that?
JD Walters said...
ReplyDelete“So does simply asserting that justice=punishment of the guilty.”
There are two or three lines of appeal when debating ethics:
i) You can mount an argument from authority, viz. divine revelation.
ii) You can appeal to intuition, wherein you cite examples and counterexamples which appeal to the intuition of the reader.
iii) On a related note, you can also try to connect a particular example with some larger body of beliefs which the reader shares.
It’s possible to objectively establish an ethical claim given an argument from authority–assuming the authority in question.
But intuitive appeals are person-variable. As such, intuitive objections cut both ways.
Moral beliefs connected to a larger body of beliefs are only as good or bad as the auxiliary beliefs which underwrite our moral beliefs.
“Obviously the martyrs want to see their cause vindicated, but they do not specify exactly how God is to do that.”
In the context of Revelation, with its violent scenes of judgment on the wicked, they’re not calling on God to forgive their persecutors.
“Now, I need to be clear here. That I reject retributive justice as the ultimate framework of divine justice does not mean that I am a universalist.”
So how do you think God restores the victim?
“Universalism is not the issue, but whether divine justice demands punishment before forgiveness can be granted. On that issue, the witnesses to nonretributive forgiveness and reconciliation are legion. See Miroslav Volf, survivor of the Serbian Massacre (‘Exclusion and Embrace’); Richard Wurmbrand, survivor of decades of torture in communist prisons (‘Tortured for Christ’); Immaculee Ilibagiza, survivor of the Rwandan massacre (‘Left to Tell’), to take just a few examples.”
Once again, how does that restore the victim? To use your own framework, how does that revive decedents and erase memories? And if it doesn’t, then how does that comply with the sweeping terms of “restorative justice”?
“I disagree that all examples of divine forgiveness in the Bible were preceded by retributive punishment (or at least, a full measure of retributive punishment).”
That’s confused. The Cross has retroactive merit.
“I'll forgive you in a heartbeat if you take down that slanderous post and apologize.”
You’ve given me no reason to think it’s “slanderous.”
“How you could have missed my emphasis on repentance as part of reconciliation is completely beyond me.”
How you could have missed your own paradigm-examples of unconditional forgiveness is completely beyond me. For instance, did King forgive Bull Connor because Connor was remorseful?
"ii) I don’t think retributive punishment was ever meant to compensate every victim. There are many situations in which both victims and perpetrators go to hell."
ReplyDeleteWhich is why I reject your view of justice. Ultimately it's not about restoring fellowship between God and human beings, but about balancing some cosmic scale, which must be balanced for no other reason than, well, it must be balanced. I see no merit in such a view of justice, whether logical or moral.
"iii) To “make things right” doesn’t necessarily mean restoring what the victim lost. Both victim and perpetrator are sinners. If God punishes both, that, too, is making things right."
Except God doesn't want to make things right like that. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Rather than vent his wrath on us, he would rather cleanse us of what makes us objects of his wrath. He would much rather circumvent retribution than satisfy it.
"Stealing an heirloom is fairly trivial. And that’s why you used the example in the first place."
No, I did not say it was trivial. I chose it because it allows us to ease into discussing the possibility of forgiveness without punishment, which would be more difficult if we jumped right into the most difficult examples.
I don't know whether you've ever owned an heirloom that was perhaps passed down for generations and was bequeathed to you in trust out of love and respect, but surely you know that such items are priceless. They are not trinkets so that stealing one would be trivial. My use of the word 'family heirloom' was precisely meant to connote this sense that the theft is a real wrong, not just an annoyance.
"ii) BTW, the fact that you keep assailing my character exposes an emotional and practical tension in your position."
First of all, I hope you understand the difference between pointing out a character flaw and 'assailing' someone's character. You yourself have no qualms about pointing out what you think are the moral and intellectual deficiencies of your opponents. If I feel that your response is morally inadequate, I will call you out on that.
And second, yes I acknowledge that I am naturally inclined to be petty and punitive. I reacted to your slanderous post in anger because you used what is a very painful memory for me to score a cheap shot in our debate.
But that was not the only reason why I had resolved to ignore your responses for a while. It was also because I was beginning to realize that this isn't a dialogue for you, it's a demonstration. Stage combat. To show your followers that your common faith is the only reasonable position.
I still think what you did was wrong and should apologize, but I guess my anger has subsided somewhat. I don't want to be petty and punitive. I want that part of me to be purged.
ReplyDelete"You pay lip-service to your heroes (King, Tutu, Volf, Mandela), but you can’t stand dealing with people like me whom you dislike."
Obviously I can stand it, since I'm dealing with you again.
"So you have this paper theory about love and forgiveness, but when the turf meets the surf you’re only loving towards the lovable."
I don't want to be enemies with you, Steve. I want to be friends. I respect and admire your apologetics in many fields. Your pastoral theology is also often moving and comforting to me (such as your recent allegory about how the race changes as one passes from youth to old age).
But since I am only human, I reacted strongly when you began to take cheap shots at me.
So how about this: I am sorry that I reacted so strongly, and that I gave you the cold shoulder. I'll admit that was an overreaction on my part, and I was motivated partly by pettiness. Will you forgive me for that?
No one said this view of justice was easy. On the contrary, it is easy to be vindictive, to want to harm others for the harm they have caused us. It is much harder to forgive without retaliation, to confront one's enemy with the desire to be reconciled.
BTW, I haven't found your other comment which disappeared. If you saved it, you could try posting it again.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I haven't found your other comment which disappeared. If you saved it, you could try posting it again.
ReplyDelete"Once again, how does that restore the victim? To use your own framework, how does that revive decedents and erase memories? And if it doesn’t, then how does that comply with the sweeping terms of “restorative justice”?"
ReplyDeleteWe don't have the power to do those things. What is in our power is to forgive. We must still do our part even if God will do His part at the end of history. We are commanded to forgive in anticipation of what God will do at the Last Judgment.
"How you could have missed your own paradigm-examples of unconditional forgiveness is completely beyond me. For instance, did King forgive Bull Connor because Connor was remorseful?"
Again, we must keep the different roles in the forgiveness transaction separate. It is the part of the victim to forgive. It is the part of the offender to repent. It is the part of God to forgive and undo the wrong.
Let's keep in mind the diachronic dimensions of this process. Not all three parts unfold at the same time. It may be that the victim chooses to forgive, and only decades later the perpetrator chooses to repent.
And let's also remember the primary motive for forgiving others: because our Father in heaven forgives us. Not because the perpetrator will repent, although we aim also at that in offering our forgiveness.
J.D. said: “You're reducing justice to the punishment of the guilty.”
ReplyDeleteSteve said: “No, I’m making that a necessary condition.”
This is precisely what I don't understand, Steve. If "the punishment of the guilty" is a "necessary condition" of justice, then how can the elect go justly unpunished? They are the guilty. They sinned. Jesus was innocent, not guilty. He didn't sin. I cannot see how your "necessary condition" was met in the crucifixion unless we unhinge the concept of guilt from sin, that is, unless "guilt" is a declaration or imputation that God makes and not the state of having sinned.
JD WALTERS SAID:
ReplyDelete“Mere assertion on your part.”
i) To the contrary, that’s a commonplace of human experience. I draw upon my own observations, as well as the observations of many others.
If you think many victims don’t want both retribution and restoration, then that’s a reflection of your youthful inexperience, as well as the pressures of you’re a priori thesis.
ii) BTW, you yourself began by “asserting” that “all human beings, deep down, have a thirst for justice, and this manifests itself in a desire to see evildoers punished,” as well as “asserting” that “what really lies behind our desire for justice is not for punishment to be meted out, but things to be made right.”
It’s not as if you could even begin to validate that claim through direct, commensurate evidence.
iii) I’d add that your sweeping assertion is quite implausible. Do evildoers desire to see evildoers punished?
“And you ignore the fact that an essential part of this scenario is the sincere and full repentance of the perpetrator.”
I ignore that because that’s merely your postulate, which you telepathically impute to the minds of each and every victim. Since I have no reason to think that’s true, I have no reason to take it seriously.
“And why exactly do they require this?”
“They?” Who’s the “they”? The victims don’t require this. *You* do. That is JD’s stipulation.
“What else does punishment accomplish that is not accomplished by the healing of wrong and the repentance of the perpetrator?”
i) What is accomplished is the offender getting what he deserves.
ii) And since you deny being a universalist, what’s your fallback when “restorative justice” fails?
“Your use of 'real world' here is curious, because you believe in the advent of a world in which God will wipe away all tears from our eyes, and in which the former things have passed away.”
i) And I don’t define that to the exclusion of retribution.
ii) Moreover, I don’t indulge in the amount of detailed speculation you do regarding the way in which God keeps his eschatological promise.
“But one in which the hurt caused by wrongs within the context of those relationships is erased and undone. If God does not wipe away the memory of a traumatic event entirely, he certainly prevents it from ever again being a source of anguish and distress.”
But since you deny universalism, then the terms of “restorative justice” often go unfulfilled (e.g. “the perpetrators of genocide were to become fully aware of the enormity of their crimes and were overwhelmed with remorse (again not just because they were caught but because they realized how deeply they wronged and violated their victims), all the hurt and suffering of the victims were completely erased so that the dead came back to life and wounds healed, including their memories so that they did not even remember the pain and anguish of their persecution…”).
Cont.
ReplyDelete“Do first century believers want to spend eternity in the company of a penitent Saul, who dragged them away to imprisonment and even death? Do redeemed slaves want to spend eternity in the company of John Newton?”
i) You’re resorting to the same bait-and-switch tactic that universalists engage in. You begin with intuitive appeals to what, “deep down,” “really lies behind” the outward expression of our desires. That’s an emotive, intuitive appeal. What the victim feels. What motivates the victim.
ii) But then you suddenly shift to paradigm-examples of Christian forgiveness. However, that’s a counterintuitive appeal. That often cuts against the grain of human impulses. So these are contradictory arguments.
“I for one would have no trouble accepting a penitent and transformed Mengele into eternal company. What would be left in me to hold back from forgiveness?”
i) You’re in no position to say that. That’s the glib conceit of the outsider.
ii) You can, of course, posit on Scriptural grounds that if God saved Mengele, as well as saving one or more of his victims, that somehow there will be a reconciliation. But that’s not an argument from experience. That has no intuitive appeal.
“I'm sure God has enough knowledge and wisdom to determine which consequences need to be undone and which will be preserved, in order for full creation harmony to be restored.”
Which doesn’t mean he restores things on your stipulative terms.
“The Jewish Law was our schoolmaster until Christ came. God did not intend for the law to be his mode of dealing with his people for all time. In the end he is simply with them, no temple rituals or sacrifices necessary. I am asking here whether the same is not true for the framework of retributive justice. In contrast, I think restorative justice IS God's ultimate end, and retributive justice a temporary measure that aids in that purpose for a time.”
That’s your claim. But it’s not as if OT redemption is retributive whereas NT redemption is not. You allude to Galatians, but Paul uses forensic categories to explicate the atonement. And the NT also uses forensic categories in reference to eschatological salvation and judgment.
“I take it that what punishment supplies that restoration does not, in your view, is the satisfaction of justice. But you still haven't given a good argument for why, exactly, punishment is required in order to satisfy justice.”
i) I don’t have to give a philosophical argument when an exegetical argument will suffice.
ii) But as far as that goes, guilt is an objective moral property. Subjective properties like contrition don’t alter the objectivity of guilt. “Satisfaction” must operate on the same level as the offense. Within the same domain.
“That's a very unbiblical stance. In the Bible people praise God for His justice in punishing the wicked precisely because it vindicates His name or because it vindicates the sighs of the oppressed (or both). Punishment is never simply good in its own right, but for the goods it accomplishes for others.”
The verb is indexed to the noun. Justice is intrinsically good because God is just. That’s a divine attribute. Justice is good in its own right because God is good, and justice is an aspect of God’s nature. The *exercise* of justice is good because God’s righteousness is intrinsically good. The action is grounded in the essence.
Cont. “No, I said God would neutralize those memories so that they are no longer the source of anguish and pain. I didn't say he would erase them altogether.”
ReplyDeleteYou’re rewriting your original claims. This is what you initially said: “all the hurt and suffering of the victims were completely erased so that the dead came back to life and wounds healed, including their memories so that they did not even remember the pain and anguish of their persecution.”
If, on reflection, you wish to scale back your original claim, fine. But don’t substitute something different, then tell me that’s what you said all along.
“Then justice demands that they be excluded from God's kingdom of reconciliation.”
In which case the impenitent perpetrator has thwarted the conditions of restorative justice, as you yourself defined it.
“Jesus is clear on that score. Because we are not only victims of various crimes but also offenders, if we do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will our heavenly Father forgive ours.”
But that doesn’t follow from your psychic exercise concerning what “really lies behind” the desire for retribution. That’s a different principle entirely.
“Why cling to retribution and the desire for vengeance?”
Once retributive justice is visited on the perpetrators, there’s no further need to “cling” to it.
“Which is why I reject your view of justice. Ultimately it's not about restoring fellowship between God and human beings, but about balancing some cosmic scale, which must be balanced for no other reason than, well, it must be balanced. I see no merit in such a view of justice, whether logical or moral.”
i) Your rejection only makes sense on your own terms if you espouse universalism. But you keep telling me that you deny universalism. If, however, you deny universalism, then you can’t say divine justice was divinely intended to compensate every victim. You keep careening back and forth between opposing principles.
ii) And I’d add that universalism is also counterintuitive, since what victims usually tell us they want is not reconciliation with the perpetrator, but having their loved ones back, having the lost years restored.
“Except God doesn't want to make things right like that. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Rather than vent his wrath on us, he would rather cleanse us of what makes us objects of his wrath. He would much rather circumvent retribution than satisfy it.”
I don’t know where you think your God comes into the story of the world. You act as if God happened upon an accident scene. He had nothing to do with the accident.
Put another way, you act as if an evil God made then world, then another God, the good God, comes into the story at a later stage in the process, and performs triage.
Cont. “I don't know whether you've ever owned an heirloom that was perhaps passed down for generations and was bequeathed to you in trust out of love and respect, but surely you know that such items are priceless.”
ReplyDeletei) What can be precious is having the personal effects of a departed loved one. That’s a reminder of the person we lost. It has a “sacramental” value (as it were).
At the same time, it’s just a placeholder. It’s something we will leave behind when we die. And hopefully we won’t need or want the keepsake anymore because we have our loved one back.
ii) But while we’re on the subject, you place disproportionate value on a “priceless” heirloom, yet you devalue the truly priceless blood of Christ.
“Will you forgive me for that?”
I appreciate the offer. And I’m sure you’re a better man than I.
But there’s nothing to forgive. My own emotional investments lie elsewhere.
“But that was not the only reason why I had resolved to ignore your responses for a while. It was also because I was beginning to realize that this isn't a dialogue for you, it's a demonstration. Stage combat. To show your followers that your common faith is the only reasonable position.”
If this were a private email exchange, it would have a different dynamic. It would just be the two of us.
But when you launch a public attack on penal substitution, then it becomes a question of defending a core doctrine of Christianity. That’s for the benefit of others.
JD WALTERS SAID:
ReplyDelete"We don't have the power to do those things. What is in our power is to forgive. We must still do our part even if God will do His part at the end of history. We are commanded to forgive in anticipation of what God will do at the Last Judgment."
That doesn't solve the problem you posed for yourself. Since you reject universalism, you don't believe that God will "do his part" in every case. Therefore, "restorative justice" is frustrated in all those cases where the perpetrator remains impenitent.
"Again, we must keep the different roles in the forgiveness transaction separate. It is the part of the victim to forgive. It is the part of the offender to repent. It is the part of God to forgive and undo the wrong."
i) That's just a muddle. Do you or do you not believe in unconditional forgiveness? You oscillate between the two.
ii) Speaking for myself, I don't think it's incumbent on victims to automatically forgive offenders.
Although there are some passages of Scripture which speak of forgiveness in unqualified terms, there are other passages which qualify the scope of the obligation. So that's a case in which we ought to construe general statements in light of specific statements, not vice versa. The obligation to forgive is implicitly conditional.
Srnec said...
ReplyDelete"This is precisely what I don't understand, Steve. If 'the punishment of the guilty' is a "necessary condition" of justice, then how can the elect go justly unpunished? They are the guilty. They sinned. Jesus was innocent, not guilty. He didn't sin. I cannot see how your 'necessary condition' was met in the crucifixion unless we unhinge the concept of guilt from sin, that is, unless 'guilt' is a declaration or imputation that God makes and not the state of having sinned."
I already addressed that objection in response to Ken Pulliam. You've done nothing to advance the argument.
"I already addressed that objection in response to Ken Pulliam. You've done nothing to advance the argument."
ReplyDeleteI was not trying to advance "the" argument, whatever that is. If I wanted to argue against penal substitution, I would. I didn't.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteOnce again this conversation is branching off in a thousand different directions and I don't have time to keep up with all the different tangents. At this juncture I'm essentially interested in one question: whether punishment of evildoers is essential to true justice, whether the punitive suffering of the evildoer provides some aspect of justice which could not be otherwise provided. I also ask whether this is true in all cases. I'll concede that maybe sometimes punishment is essential in order to achieve, as you put it, some second-order good. But to inflict punishment as inherently good is something I cannot make sense of.
P.S. If you read the original statement I made about what God does for the victims, you will see that I never said God would erase the memories altogether: I said the hurt and suffering would be erased, and be forgotten. Their memories, meanwhile, would be healed, not erased. I never said they would forget that anything bad had ever happened to them. In our fallen state, memories of bad things actually recreate and revive the pain we originally felt: the two are inseparable. But the healing of memory I speak is one in which the hurt itself, the anguish and despair is erased, and the recollection of the harm done is painless. The victims will be aware that it happened, but it will no longer subdue and oppress them. I did not take anything back.
ReplyDeleteJD Walters said...
ReplyDelete“At this juncture I'm essentially interested in one question: whether punishment of evildoers is essential to true justice…”
The very nature of justice is for evildoers to receive their just desserts.
“…whether the punitive suffering of the evildoer provides some aspect of justice which could not be otherwise provided.”
The aspect involving just desserts.
“I also ask whether this is true in all cases.”
It’s true in all cases, although the mode varies, viz. penal substitution.
“I'll concede that maybe sometimes punishment is essential in order to achieve, as you put it, some second-order good.”
That’s a fringe benefit, not a requirement of retributive justice, which would still be obligatory absent the fringe benefit.
“But to inflict punishment as inherently good is something I cannot make sense of.”
Frankly, it takes a certain moral blindness not to sense the inherent good in just desserts. It’s a primitive concept, like the innate sense that something's wrong with torturing little kids for fun.