Read a post from an ex-colleague of mine who moved to the colonies. Someone had put together an article titled "This is the problem with the American justice system". There are actually two contrasted articles about convicted criminals.
One was a homeless man who'd robbed a bank. He'd been given 3 bags of money but only took the $100 he needed (to stay at a detox center). The next day he handed himself into the police because he knew he'd done wrong.
The other man was a CEO of a mortgage company who'd been caught in a massive fraud to the tune of $3 billion.
The homeless man got 15 years in jail, the fraudster got 3. I don't know any more background than that, so it's difficult to judge, but it does seem a bit wrong.
Today's newspapers in the UK are carrying the story of the trial of Levi Bellfield for the murder of Milly Dowler. A senior policeman said the trial showed a 'disgraceful lack of humanity' in the justice system, as the Dowler family felt they were the ones being put on trial, and now even regret the prosecution. The trouble was that Bellfield didn't have any real defence, and so his lawyers had to resort to dirty tricks against the Dowler family to make any kind of case for him at all.
I have a weakness in that I always see good in people. But it's hard to see it in Bellfield, a serial killer.
The other victim here was the criminal justice system itself. The leader in The Times said, "It is impossible to see this outcome and consider it to be justice. For true justice cannot be so hollow and the approach to it so devoid of feeling."
How does feeling fit into the logic that drives the criminal courts? (I don't know, but I will be disagreeing with the Tom Wright book I'm reading in a later blog.)
When I was at university studying chemistry I went to an optional lecture by a forensic scientist. He had the details of how someone had been convicted of raping and murdering a girl (who happened to be a Sunday School teacher.) I couldn't concentrate on the details of the science because of the horror I felt at this crime that had been committed. And I was wondering, why does God let these things happen?
I'd have made a useless forensic scientist.
There doesn't seem much justice in this world. It's unfair. God is unfair.
But that's OK because God is unfair in a good way. I was reminded yesterday that for a Christian, it's all about grace.
We don't want God's justice. None of us would survive. What we need is God's grace. And that's what he gives us.
What happened to Jesus was unfair. But it's a source of God's grace. I don't fully understand the theology of the atonement. I don't intend to. But I know that I rely on God's grace and not his justice.
Ephesians 2:8 (NLT) "God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God."
Have you never seen the Alpha DVDs? - the picture of the judge who recognises the criminal as an old friend. The verdict is 'guilty' but the judge then goes and pays the fine that is demanded of the criminal. The GRACE of the cross is not an alternative to JUSTICE. The cross shows JUSTICE being enacted but the price is paid for us - and THAT is GRACE: It is God's loving response to God's requirement that justice must be done.
ReplyDeleteIt only looks like injustice if Jesus didn't WANT to pay the price for us but if that was true then there would also be a lack of perfect (self-sacrificial) love. I find the cross amazing because I cannot think of any other way that God could be seen to be totally just and yet at the same time totally loving. In fact, I tend to picture the cross as a sign of this. The "straight up" line is a picture of God's justice while the "horizontal arms" are a picture of him reaching out in love. I need to grasp the importance of both in order to understand the richness of his grace.
If you ever get a chance read the "The Shack." It was recommended to me a long time ago and it is a truly inspirational read.
ReplyDeleteYes i have read it. I think it's good that there's a book out there that makes Christians and non-Christians alike rethink their idea of what God is like. Personally I thought it a bit too tritheistic - you could get the idea that God is divided into 3 (or more) separate people. And I thought the background story was unpleasantly incongruous - but that's just me.
ReplyDeletegospel - Yes thanks, I have the complete set of Alpha DVDs (and VHSs too). That illustration of the judge paying the fine is helpful to a lot of people and I would be happy to use it. But like any explanation of the atonement, it is incomplete and doesn't answer all the questions.
ReplyDeleteThe punishment wasn't a fine - it was a death sentence. If the judge was hanged instead of the criminal, that's just not just!
There's also the problem of why God has to respond to his own requirement rather than simply change the requirement. Is he subject to his own laws in the way that the judge is? (I think that's to do with God being true to his own nature, but it's well outside the scope of the illustration.)
I'm happy to be amazed at what God has done for us through the Cross without ever having to fully understand it in a purely intellectual way.
The sticking point for you - the 'just not just' - is where LOVE comes into the equation:
ReplyDeleteI would agree that it is not 'just' if Jesus (or the judge) HAD to give their life to save the guilty party -
- but it IS 'just' if they CHOOSE to lay down their life for their friends[see John 15:13]
If you think that the injustice is still there because Jesus (or the imagined judge) lose their own life even if through choice, then it is important to add 'eternal life' into the balance: Jesus called us all to 'deny self, take up your cross' and he explained that such self sacrifice is ultimately rewarding! [Mark 8:34-35 and Mark 10:29-30]
So that's why I don't see God as 'unjust'. In fact, I cannot think of any other way in which God could have proved he is TOTALLY LOVING and at the same time TOTALLY JUST - the cross declares BOTH 100% - and THAT, I find 'AMAZING!'
PS I had presumed that "The Shack" was the inspiration behind your choice of sabatical location! (agree about the 'tritheism' though)
ReplyDeleteYes I suppose the Shed is somewhere to meet God, though maybe not as tritheistically as in the Shack.
ReplyDeleteNow, I totally agree that the cross shows God's L,ove for us - that's what it's all about. And God's grace means we can be forgiven. But I still don't see that it's just if the wrong person gets punished. We can all pretend to be Spartacus - it's a very noble, gracious thing to do - but it's still a pretense, so I don't think it's ultimately just. The self-sascrificial intention to be punished has no bearing on
that. It may fulfil the requirements of a specific, limited, system of justice; yes - but that takes us back to my other point that God doesn't have to be subject to his own laws. If I can think of a higher form of justice then so can God.
Rom 5:7-9
ReplyDeleteVery rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own LOVE for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died FOR US.
Since we have now been JUSTIFIED by his blood, how much more shall we be SAVED FROM GOD'S WRATH through him!
So if Jesus out of love can pay the price for us, how is it pretense? If it was pretense then we wouldn't really be saved.
In Matthew 5:38-40 Jesus teaches a new look at God's law of JUSTICE but he assures us the law DOES NOT CHANGE [Matt 5:18-19] - and it doesn't...
It is EYE FOR AN EYE in the Old Covenant and in the New it is CHEEK for CHEEK, SHIRT for SHIRT, MILE for MILE and Jesus' DEATH pays the price of Adam's sin so that we get LIFE instead of DEATH.
In each case the principle is exactly the same, that the penalty is lovingly paid by Christ / the Christian, as an expression of LOVE AND JUSTICE. This is no pretense but God's definition of how to demonstrate his unchanging rule of justice - but in love!
We seem to have lost sight of what I originally said, and the example of the Judge volunteering to take the punishment, which I still have in mind. I apologise for not making it clear sometimes when I'm criticising this metaphor and nothing more.
ReplyDeleteIf i remember alpha, the judge represents God in the first place, pronouncing a guilty verdict. He then steps down (representing the incarnation and neatly sidestepping the patripassionist heresy) and pays the fine out of love for the criminal. This represents Jesus' paying the price for us sinners, with his blood on the cross. And this action shows us God's grace.
I'm hoping that's uncontroversial.
Now the questions raised by this :
1. Why can't the judge just dismiss the charges against the criminal?
Ok that's because justice would not be seen to be done. Which works in the illustration, but is problematic when we apply it to God.
2. Who is the price being paid to?
Again in the illustration it's "the authorities" or something, but when we move from the judge to God himself, didn't he make the rules in the first place?
(In early versions of the theory, it was the devil that was paid, in later theology this was changed to God being paid. )
3. Is this all there is to be said about the atonement?
Most certainly not. It might be a neat bit of Pauline theology that works for him and anyone else that likes his style of writing but that doesn't mean it's all that happens at the Cross.
Also, I know there are no formatting options for comments, but please please STOP SHOUTING (which is how i read all those capital letters.)
Hi,
ReplyDeleteOK - didn't mean to shout - is 'OK' 'shouting'? :-)
The thing you originally said which sparked my comment was that you rely on God's grace and 'not his justice'... and that 'God is unfair'.
In reply, I have tried to show that God maintains the same rule of justice through Old and New Covenant and calls us to act upon the same rule with 'love' added, just as Jesus did on the cross. I have also shown, in Romans, that Jesus' death is the means by which Jutsice is done. Your words appear to conflict with these Biblical truths.
If we claim God is unjust in any way, or that his justice has ever been faulty then I think it is more likely that we are 'relying on our own understanding' as your later post quotes. Surely we must start with the understanding presented to us in the Bible.
God's rule of justice has not changed (eye for eye) but love is applied to our interpretation. This is the principle of justice he calls us to adopt.
We should surely also accept that ultimately God is certainly just. So, from this perspective, anything we see as injustice is actually 'beyond us', either:
1) It will be sorted out beyond our life on earth (heaven/hell) - or
2) It will make sense to us when we meet him face to face because he knows more than we do.
If you could take your comments and try to see them from this perspective, I would like to think that they fit into one of these two 'beyond us' catagories, thereby leaving God to 'be' totally just even when he doesn't always 'seem' just from our limited human perspective.
GOD BLESS! :-)