Patheos

BuddhistCatholicContemplativeEvangelicalGeneral ChristianHinduJewishLatter-day SaintMuslimNew VisionsProgressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Patheos

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

rogereolson

The difference, theologically, between "justifiable" and "just"

Last updated on: August 18, 2011 at 7:27 pm   by Roger E. Olson

The difference, theologically, between "justifiable" and "just" 2011-08-18T19:27:33-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Several people have asked me to clarify what I mean when I say that an act may be “justifiable” but not “just.”  The background is my post about the killing of bin Laden which I suggested might be justifiable but not just.  Someone said that it is okay to celebrate bin Laden’s death (something I denied) so long as one is celebrating the justice in it and not the killing per se.  I cannot bring myself to celebrate something that is less than just.  Hence the question.

I agree with theologians such as Reinhold Niebuhr who argue that true justice is inseparable from love even if, in our sinful world, it is often at best an approximation of love.  And in this sense, “love” is being defined by Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and 1 Corinthians 13 (etc.) as selfless benevolence to the other.

In Christian tradition, going back at least to Augustine, love and justice are the twin and inseparable Christian ethical principles.  Well, that raises the question, what about when there is a conflict between them?  Ultimately, they cannot conflict in reality because they are both rooted in God’s character (from a realist, not a nominalist, perspective).  However, from our finite and fallen perspective there does sometimes seem to be tension between them. 

Niebuhr helpfully distinguished between “perfect justice,” which would be love in action (e.g., tough love) and “proximate justice” which is love compromised in the face of the reality principle.  For example, in this fallen world there is such a thing as the “lesser of two evils” that must be done–at least by governments.  (A difference between Niebuhr and Yoder is whether Christians can rightly participate in this practice.  Niebuhr said so and Yoder said no.)

When I say that something can be “justifiable” but not “just” I mean in Niebuhr’s terms.  A war can be justifiable but is never truly just in the highest and best sense of just.  The highest and best sense of justice must be restorative and not retributive–if it is indeed inextricably linked to love.  War is rarely restorative.  Restoration may come after ware (e.g., the Marshall Plan), but during the bombing one can hardly call it restorative.

I simply wish to preserve the distinction between true, perfect justice, which is, for example, tough love, and proximate justice which is something less than perfect love.  It is love accommodated and may even be love approximated but not achieved.

I cannot call a killing “just” because when I think of something being or not being “just” I think of love as the norm.  However, in this sinful, fallen world some killing may be justified–e.g., when it is absolutely necessary to preserve innocent life.

I cannot celebrate any killing or death.  I can’t even celebrate the justifiable nature of it because that is, at best, a necessary evil.  I can only celebrate true justice which I see achieved, for example, in rehabilitation of a criminal or restoration of a broken relationship.

I can think of one possible exception, but I’m not sure it’s really an exception to my rule.  That is when someone lays down his or her life to be killed to save someone else’s life.  But then it is not so much the actual killing I celebrate but the act of selfless love that was involved in it.  So, for example, I celebrate the cross of Jesus Christ as the Son of God’s selfless sacrifice for us, but I don’t celebrate the act of the executioners.  I realize that’s a fine distinction.  Some will no doubt call it a distinction without a difference, but it makes sense to me.  Even Jesus prayed for his executioners’ forgiveness, so he must not have thought their act was a good thing in every sense.

Now, having said all of that, the theologian in me kicks in and I have to say something that is not obvious but may be necessary: that there is really only one ultimate ethical norm and that is love.  Since perfect justice is normed by love, it is not really a separate ethical norm.  Love is God’s nature.  Scripture says (in 1 John) “God is love.”  It does not say “God is justice.”  Justice, then, is always at best some manifestation of love.  I conclude that restorative justice is love in action in the social realm whereas retributive justice is a necessary evil because of the fallenness of the world.  Christians should always aim at restorative justice because of Jesus.  When they have to participate in retributive justice (e.g., in the violent defense of a weak neighbor under attack), assuming that is every the case, repentance rather than celebration is called for because of the “new law” Jesus delivered of indiscriminate, selfless love that includes non-resistance.

Where I find myself caught is between Niebuhr, who argued that Christians must not always avoid compromise of the law of love (because that would require withdrawal from society) and Yoder who argued that Christians ought always to keep the law of love even if it means a certain withdrawal from society (not geographic or physical withdrawal but social non-engagement).  Yoder seems right ideally while Niebuhr seems right realistically.  So far, anyway, the only way I can see to mediate this difference is to advocate and practice repentance when involved in doing the lesser of two evils to avoid withdrawal from social responsibility.

The case study is, of course, Bonhoeffer.  Bonhoeffer himself, apparently, did not think killing Hitler was a righteous thing to do.  He saw it more as a necessary evil and was conflicted about it.  I cannot imagine him celebrating Hitler’s death if the conspiracy had been successful.  I can only imagine him repenting while at the same time experiencing a certain satisfaction that a terrible evil had been removed.

Uncategorized

Previous Post



May 3, 2011

Should Christians celebrate death?

Next Post



May 7, 2011 The Kingdom of God as critical principle


Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010




TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

In Revelation, what is the correct sequence of events in the End Times?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Dragon cast to earth, beast rises from sea, false prophet rises from earth, mark of the beast given False prophet rises, dragon cast to earth, beast rises from sea, mark of the beast given Mark of the beast given, dragon cast to earth, beast rises, false prophet rises Beast rises from sea, dragon cast to earth, mark of the beast given, false prophet rises

Related posts from Roger E. Olson

Family

The Abolition of Man: Chapter 3: The Abolition...

Roger E. Olson

Family

She Survived Her Execution. Should the State Try...

Roger E. Olson

Family

The Abolition of Man Part 2: Chapter 2:...

Roger E. Olson

Family

Ambiguity without Ambivalence in Faith

Roger E. Olson

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Evangelical

The British Museum-- Part Two

I was strolling through the top floor of the brand new Parthenon...

What Does Gêvâh Mean For Kimberley Guifoyle &...

This week, a lot of the news is focused on Kimberly Guilfoyle....

INNER CIRCLE: Profound Mystery (Of Christ In All...

Ephesians 5:31-32 “For this reason, a man will leave his father and...

Do Not Rejoice When Your Enemy Falls: The...

Turning an execution into a public spectacle is a disturbing expression of...

'The Chosen' S6 Trailer: The Passion Gets Very...

Not many watching 'The Chosen' worry about spoilers, but just because they...

The purpose-driven labor priest

A labor activist reads Rick Warren and it gets me wondering about...

view all Evangelical blogs

Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.

Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube