I don't typically pay world politics much attention, but the recent release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi - better known as the Lockerbie bomber - by a Scottish judge brings some interesting topics to light. The only pertinent details in my opinion are that he was convicted of mass murder in what seems to be a fair trial, he has terminal prostate cancer, and he is being released to return to his home country of Libya to die in the presence of his family.
I have come across several discussions on various Christian websites which looked at this situation as a great lesson of mercy and grace and how it can be applied today. Indeed, this situation has produced many emotional responses from those who agree as well as those who disagree with the ruling. There may be something to be learned of mercy. The judge who decided to free al-Megrahi spoke of his country's tradition of humanity and argued that the fact that al-Megrahi showed no compassion on his victims and their families was not enough reason to prohibit compassion from being shown to him. Taking the high road and releasing the criminal is supposed to be a gesture of compassion and grace that mirrors what Christ has done for us. And indeed we can learn quite a bit, even from the outrage of those who disagree with the ruling. There was no legal requirement for the release of this man, just as there was no requirement for Christ to die for our sins. Yet compassion prevailed. As we can do nothing to change this present legal situation, we would do well to at least glean from it what we can in regards to mercy.
However, there is a vastly more pertinent issue to be discovered, and it seems to come at a poignant time with regards to the current situation in the Supreme Court of the United States. The major issue here is not whether compassion is good. Jesus told us as His followers to exact no vengeance on our enemies, but to turn the other cheek, offer to walk the extra mile, and give up our cloak (Matthew 5:38-40). Paul wrote that vengeance belongs to the Lord, and showing kindness to our enemies will heap coals on their heads (Romans 12:19-20). Rather, the most imperative issue at hand is whether compassion is in the power of the judicial system at all. Above the Supreme Court, the motto is written "Equal Justice Under Law", in accord with the 14th amendment to the constitution, where we find that no state can "deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the laws". On the eastern facade of the Supreme Court, Justice is represented by a statue holding scales with a blindfold wrapped around her eyes. The implication is that true justice pays no mind to race, socio-economic status, gender, age, or anything else (health?) except the law and the facts of the matter at hand (I recently heard a comedian state that the statue actually represents that the courts weigh whoever has the most money, and they win. Given the increased bureaucracy of our legal system and the subsequent need for good lawyers and rise in legal fees, I wonder whether he is right). This idea of equality in justice pervades God's law (Exodus 23, Leviticus 19).
This is a year in which our president has insisted that empathy was important to him when selecting a justice to serve on the Supreme Court. This is a year in which that nominee agreed and stated that her experience as a minority woman would enable her to do a better job in deciphering the law. Is this good and noble? Is the function of the government to take the moral high road? The heart of the issue is a discussion on the role of government, particularly its courts. Is government in place to punish the guilty and protect the innocent? Or is it there to show empathy and display humanity? Were the words of Jesus and Paul meant specifically for private citizens or for governments to follow as well? And did the New Testament do away with the governmental concepts of an eye for an eye (Deuteronomy 19) and that any man who kills others will be put to death (Genesis 9:6)? Goverment is necessary because of sin and injustice. All are equal as sinners, and all deserve equal treatment in legal matters. If an American government official made a judgement that compassion should be shown, it could only be substantiated by appeal to morals. This would have to be decried by those who have attempted to keep religion out of the government of the United States. We have been told that our government cannot prescribe morality to us; so be it. Just be consistent. If that is the case, our judges should do nothing more and nothing less than carrying out the law as it is written. I can only conclude that to be consistent and true, the judicial system's function is to provide equal rights under the law, and that the only way to do so is to examine the law and the facts of the matter at hand. If justice is not blind, then she is not just.
No discussion of justice and Christian standards can avoid the fact that Christians (namely, Americans) have failed their neighbors in terms of social justice for many years. There exist human trafficking, exploitation of children and poor workers, extreme poverty and hunger, child prostitution, and many more evils to which we have turned a blind eye in order to enjoy our own comforts. This is an entirely different concept than when we discuss our judicial system, although the majority of these issues fall under legal justice as well. It is about personal (and, in terms of the church, corporate) moral responsibility. When Jesus gave the parable of the good Samaritan, He was not talking about governmental philosophy. He was giving specific guidelines to those who wish to be His disciples. We are to treat those around us with the utmost respect and love. Jesus himself told many of His parables to emphasize kindness to the poor. While we can mourn and denounce the exploits of evil people, the injustices of this world are just as much the fault of Christians failing to bring the world under the conquest of the kingdom of God. As Edmund Burke wrote, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." We would do well to remember that true religion is to take care of the widow and the orphan (James 1:27) and thus honor God.
Mercy and grace do not preclude the payment for the offense the law requires. The reason God can be both merciful and just is because He assured that the price of the law was paid. The concept of propitiation is that a broken law requires payment of a penalty and when that penalty is paid, the offender is released. The problem with offering this man mercy is that no one has paid his debt for him. In fact, to release him without the required payment is to make justice unjust and the law subject to the whims of those whose duty is to enforce and uphold it. It also diminishes the value of each life lost in the attack by saying that the whatever this man had already paid was enough. This concept is at the heart of capital punishment. It is not based on revenge, nor is it primarily to be a deterrant, but instead to make a statement about the value of a human life. In the Bible, human life is the most precious thing on earth, and to purposely take a life is a crime that requires the greatest of penalties -- the loss of one's own precious life. I wonder if the families of the victims haven't felt that this judge's action has devalued the lives of their loved ones lost in this attack.
ReplyDelete