Tag Archive for justice at Zeal For Truth

Tag Archive for 'justice'

Forgiveness, Justice, and the Death of Jesus

Published by Jasen Tracy January 21, 2008 in Religion and Philosophy. 6 Comments

You have probably heard a common Christian argument that goes something like this:

God is completely holy and cannot abide the presence of sin. Since God is also completely just, He cannot allow sin to go unpunished. He cannot simply forgive sin without there being some sort of satisfaction for sin (this argument typically focuses on personal sins, and not original sin).

We of course, can do nothing ourselves to either earn forgiveness by works or by punishment we suffer. God then sent Jesus, who suffered the penalty for our sins, and therefore we can have forgiveness through faith in Jesus. God is still holy and just because Jesus’ death takes away our sin and sin is punished.

An example of this is a well-known email that has made its rounds around the world. It depicts God as a judge who finds the defendant guilty. He then takes the penalty on himself, and is then able to pardon the defendant since the offense had been paid for. The idea is that if God had simply pardoned the defendant without there being a penalty paid, then God would be unjust judge that allowed sin to exist without punishment (implicitly endorsing it).

My question is: how exactly is it just that the innocent is punished for the guilty? Furthermore, with the whole Trinity concept, Jesus is God. So, not only is an innocent party punished, it’s actually the party the was wronged that is punished (defining sin as an offense against God). But somehow, this innocent and wronged party (the Trinity) couldn’t, or perhaps wouldn’t, forgive us until He had been had taken the penalty Himself.

I understand from the perspective of grace, but how can it be termed just?

Book Review: The Externally Focused Church

Published by Jasen Tracy July 30, 2007 in Religion and Christian Books. 3 Comments

Authors: Rick Rusaw and Eric Swanson

“If we were to examine church calendars and budgets, we could determine fairly quickly what really matters most to our churches today. Is it what mattered most to Jesus?” - from The Externally Focused Church

The main idea of the book is that many churches are too inwardly focused, and that a change to an external focus is needed. Inward focused churches are those that measure success by attendance and activities in the church. They might offer great teaching and worship, things that are necessary but are not sufficient for a healthy church. Such churches are often excellent at telling the gospel message, but not at showing it.

In contrast, externally focused churches value impact and influence in the community more than attendance, and they would be missed by the community if they left. They focus on deploying people into the community where they can be salt, light, and leaven. Such churches build bridges to the community around them instead of walling themselves off. These churches seek to promote the welfare of the cities the find themselves in; based on the example of the command to the Israelites to seek the good of the pagan cities they were a part of during the exile. (Jeremiah 29:7)

The book talks a lot about service, which is viewed as an essential aspect for an effective church. Service is basically expressed in the “good deeds” verses in the Bible (taking care of windows and orphans, visiting prisoners, seeking justice for the oppressed, etc). Externally focused churches often partner with community charities, schools, and other organizations to better serve people. Inwardly focused churches miss out on this, opting for a “serve us” mentality instead of a service mentality wherein people are only concerned with what they can get out of church themselves.

Jesus seems to have had a special love for those people on the margins of society, and therefore externally focused churches do as well. These groups are often the people we can most serve. Specific groups identified in the book: the poor, children, the aged, widows and single parents, orphans, prisoners, the sick and disabled, and immigrants.

The book talks about three spheres: what God commands and desires, what the Church can provide, and what the community around us want. Service is one thing that is in all three spheres, and thus is an irreplaceable means of reaching our community. Service does not preclude presenting the gospel message; in fact, it makes it possible. This is because the church no longer occupies the privileged position it used to, and as a result of being inwardly focused has forfeited it’s right to be heard in the eyes of the non-Christian population. Service is the way the church can earn it’s right to be heard.

Externally focused churches seek to move beyond this type of “mercy” service to also seek justice (see amongst others Micah 6:8 and Isaiah 58:6). Seeking justice means addressing the issues that created the need for mercy in the first place. For example, in addition to feeding the homeless, externally focused churches also try to fix the problems that have caused so much homelessness.

Unfortunately, many of the examples of actual implementation of the ideas in the book were done by large churches and often would not be practical for smaller churches. One example I found interesting was a church that implemented the “5+5″ tithing strategy. They asked their members to give half their tithe to local charitable organizations. They also encouraged their members to spend time volunteering with those organizations to which they had donated money.

The book ends with two appendixes that quote a lot of scripture verses. The first is “Revealing God’s Heart for the Poor, the Needy, Widows, Orphans, and Aliens,” and the second is “Concerning Good Works and Good Deeds.”

I found The Externally Focused Church to be a very interesting book, although I think it dragged a bit towards the end. It is also an interesting illustration of how ideas of service and seeking the good of our surrounding community, traditionally associated with liberal protestants and more recently with the missional/emerging movement, are having an impact in traditional American Evangelicalism.

Concepts of justice in The Heritage of Hastur

Published by Kenneth Martens July 19, 2007 in General, Politics and Book Reviews. 1 Comment

This article contains plot spoilers for The Heritage of Hastur by Marion Zimmer Bradley. If you intend to read The Heritage of Hastur and do not wish to know some specific plot points, you should not read this article.

The Heritage of Hastur is a fantasy novel by Marion Zimmer Bradley. It is set on the planet Darkover, a pre-industrial planet that hosts a single trading outpost of the galactic Empire. Darkovan feudalism and traditions are intricate, and mostly serve to isolate Darkover from the Empire. Darkover holds nothing of no interest to young Regis Hastur, so he strikes a deal with his grandfather: Regis will attend the traditional three years of cadet training, then he is free to join the Empire and leave Darkover to explore the galaxy.

But at the academy, cadet-master Dyan Ardais sadistically abuses the children in his care. Regis’s friend Danilo rebuffs the cadet-master’s pedophiliac sexual advances; in retaliation, the cadet-master uses laran, a form of magic, to mentally and psychologically torture Danilo. When Danilo is expelled from the academy for retaliating against the cadet-master’s abuse, Regis swears to exact justice and clear his friend’s name.

The quest for justice is a theme throughout the novel. And yet, the justice that Marion Zimmer Bradley gives us is a perversion.

“Danilo-Felix Syrtis, I offer you here before my peers and my kinsmen a public apology for the wrong done you, in that I did unjustly and wrongfully contrive your disgrace, by provoking you willfully into a breach of cadet rules and by a misuse of laran; and I offer you any honorable amends in my power. Will this settle the challenge and the blood-feud, sir?”

Danilo drew a long breath and wet his lips before he could speak. Then he said, “I accept your honorable amends, Lord Dyan. And for myself and my house, I declare no feud remains the the challenge settled.”

Dyan’s pallor was gradually replaced by a deep, crimson flush. He spoke almost breathlessly. “What amends will you ask, sir? Is it necessary to explain here, before all men, the nature of the injustice and the apology? It is your right…”

Danilo said quietly, “It is not necessary, Lord Ardais. I have accepted your apology; I leave the amends to your honor.”

He turned quietly and returned to his place. His hands were shaking. More advantages to the custom of formality. Everyone knew, or guessed, and most of probably guessed wrong. But now it need never be spoken.

Marion Zimmer Bradley presents this as a satisfactory resolution. But is it? Dyan admits guilt, but never publicly acknowledges the nature of his crime. He receives no punishment; Danilo effectively pardons him. But Danilo is only one victim among dozens. Can he–should be–have the power to forgive Dyan of all crimes? Bradley presents the preceding scene as the appropriate culmination of the quest for justice, but I disagree. Justice is served when abuse and wrongdoing are punished, not when they are ignored at the bequest of one among dozens of victims.

Modern justice systems do not give victims the power to pardon the offending criminals. That power rests with the government. That is where it should be, not in the hands of the victims.

The Power to Pardon

Published by Kenneth Martens June 28, 2007 in General and Politics. 9 Comments

A curious part of modern justice systems is the power to pardon. In America, the government is divided into three separate branches: judicial, legislative, and executive. You might expect that pardons, being related to justice, would come from the judicial branch. Not so. The power to pardon rests in the executive branch, and specifically, solely in the President. State governments give similar power to governors, with similarly few restrictions. The American system is descended from the British tradition in which the power to pardon was held only by the king.

Daniel T. Kobil has a written an article called “The Quality of Mercy Strained: Wresting the Pardoning Power from the King.” [ Link to the article ] He argues that the power to pardon is too open to abuse. The executive’s power should be limited. I summarize his article below.

Kobil classifies pardons into two broad categories.

Justice-enhancing
Justice-neutral

Justice-enhancing

A justice-enhancing pardon seeks to remedy a defect in the administration of justice. A President may erase a wrongful conviction, or commute a disproportionately harsh sentence. Traditionally, Presidents and governors have made little use of justice-enhancing pardons, partly owing to fear of the political fallout. Kobil mentions California Governor Edmund Brown, who declined to commute the death sentence of Richard Lindsey because “a legislator with the swing vote on an important piece of legislation for migrant workers was strongly in favor of the execution and would withhold his support if Brown granted clemency.” In 1893, Illinois Governor John Peter Altgeld pardoned three anarchists who had been wrongfully convicted of a bombing. “Not surprisingly, he was not reelected to a second term as governor.”

Justice-neutral

A justice-neutral pardon is one that serves the public good, but not necessarily justice. For example, President Washington issued an unconditional pardon after the Whiskey Rebellion. President Johnson offered pardons after the Civil War. Carter pardoned Vietnam draft dodgers. None of these serve to fix any defects in the justice system. They are at odds with justice. Presidents issue such pardons when they believe the result will be better for the public than the strict adherence to justice and the rule of law.

The Problem

The power to pardon is intended to enhance justice, but in reality it rarely works that way. Kobil shows that presidents don’t issue many pardons. Even a deserving person is unlikely to receive a pardon. The political fallout is too great. No politician can afford to risk his public support. The few pardons that do get issued are politically motivated:

As Edward Hammock, the former chairman of the New York State Board of Parole, which reviews clemency applications for the governor, notes: “[W]ith the governor, it’s not the individual case he’s looking at. He picks a few from that pool of eligible individuals on the basis of a political statement he wants to make.“

The Solution

Kobil proposes dividing the power to pardon into two parts.

The clemency process should be bifurcated. While the executive alone would remain responsible for making occasional justice-neutral clemency decisions, justice-enhancing clemency decisions would be made by a professional board that is independent of the political pressures which inevitably distort the decisions of elected officials. Such a board could, like the federal judiciary, be appointed during good behavior, and be selected based on expertise in various areas relevant to assessing the fairness of the punishment imposed.

In other words, the President only gets the power to issue justice-neutral pardons. Justice-enhancing pardons would be handled by a non-political board, which could issue pardons to those who deserve them. Kobil proposes that the board should examine pardon applications and issue pardons when any of the following conditions are met:

Substantial Doubt of Guilt
Diminished Mental Capacity, Retardation, Intoxication, or Minority
Disparate Sentencing: Proportionality - For example, “it is fundamentally unfair to sentence one offender to death, while another offender judged to be equally culpable receives a lesser sentence.”
Disparate Sentencing: Special Circumstances - “A reason for granting clemency based on disparate sentencing exists when a sentence is disproportionate in light of the offender’s age or terminal illness. A seventeen-year-old murderer and a ninety-year-old murderer are not affected in the same way by the passage of time: life imprisonment would result in differing degrees of disadvantage for each. Similarly, a five-year sentence given to an offender in the waning stages of a battle with AIDS amounts to life imprisonment.”
Sentencing That is Unrelated to Deserts - “Clemency also is properly granted where there is a substantial likelihood that the sentence was based on factors such as the race or gender of the criminal or victim, rather than on the punishment the individual deserved.”
Crimes Committed out of Necessity, Coercion, or Adherence to Moral Principles - The punishment should fit the circumstances of the crime. “A mother who steals to feed and clothe her children is not as morally blameworthy as one who steals to buy a new television.”
Crimes in Which the Offender Has Suffered Enough - “If an offender who assaulted someone was blinded as a result of injuries received in the fight, and the damage can be said to fairly approximate what she deserved for her crime, further punishment would be excessive and should be remitted.”

The President retains the power to issue justice-neutral pardons. Kobil suggests further that the President be required to give his reasons for issuing a pardon. Each presidential pardon will be immediately forwarded to Congress, which may veto it by a supermajority vote.

Kobil’s suggestion would likely require a Constitutional amendment, so it is unlikely to be implemented. If it were, it would prevent abuses such as President Clinton’s decision to issue hundreds of last-minute pardons as he left office. Under Kobil’s system, those pardons would be reviewed by Congress before becoming effective. The system would have a check against a rogue President. No such check exists today.

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Oct
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30

Zeal For Truth