What About Justice? Addendum on The Use of Force

I was asked a few valid questions by Christian friends that need to be addressed in this addendum. What about a justified use of force. A just war? What if, "an eye for an eye...", is absolute perfect justice and anything less mercy (or possibly injustice) and anything more an injustice? What about the death penalty? What about protection of your family and property from an intruder? 

I need to be clear here. I was in no way saying roll over and play dead in my last post. That is just stupid. I was not saying that Christians or others should make themselves targets or victims by doing nothing. I was not saying that using force to protect one’s self or others wellbeing is wrong. 

The idea of justice always come with the caveat or a footnote of needing to use force. That is essentially the questions / objections being raised to my previous non-violent post. To impose one’s will on another to correct a wrong or balance or injustice. Although it is always preferable to avoid that scenario….it is not always possible. Therefore, it becomes necessary to discuss the use of force to institute justice. 

In short: Jus Ad Bellum or the ‘Right to War’. It is a set of criteria that are to be reviewed or premeditated before engaging in conflict. Jus Ad Bellum is used in order to determine whether entering into conflict is advisable or even ethically permissible. Justice always raises the specter of force. As Christians we should most often opt for the 'Principle of Last Resort' that stipulates that all non-violent options must first be exhausted before the use of force can be justified to create communal justice or communal equilibrium.

Violence and force….? I was saying in my last post that it is not the optimal means to an end. It should be used as last recourse or defense, not the first action or in offense unless circumstances show that offensive force is justified or even needed. The Bible gives law and teaching to prevent sin, not encourage it. But we live in a fallen world and need to live with the consequences of that. One of my favorite sayings is that we’re Christians we’re not doormats. Yes, we’re to turn the other cheek and forgive the trespass…but sometimes that just isn’t possible. Sometimes the only thing to prevent evil from completely taking over is for good men to act…sometimes forcefully. Sometimes violently.

So…how to incorporate the whole Jesus 'turn the other cheek' thing? Even the sanctuary cities in Deuteronomy and lex talionis' 'eye for an eye' was an attempt in the Old Testament to limit damage or stop escalation of violence, not promote it. The Bible is not saying the use of force is forbidden. It's just not the optimal path. The action isn’t what should be focused on in this instance. It is the intent behind the actions. You should absolutely protect your family, even if it means/meant going to war to stop Hitler or Stalin. Hence the need of military and paramilitary forces. To stop external AND internal aggessors. 

We also need to consider that, sometimes, in order to love and protect those we love or our neighbor we need to use force to stop potential threats to them. When I say that justice will never be never be gained at the point of a sword, I mean it in an offensive manner...not defensive manner. Unfortunately, sometimes people are just crazy and need to be restrained from evil forcefully including a termination if necessary.

When conflict is unavoidable it is best to stay tightly aligned to Biblical ideologically. Violence, conflict or war should be avoided but not to the cost of comprising the Gospel or Scripture or careless loss of life that can be purposefully avoided. Stated frankly it is not always a sin to escalate the use of force to protect the innocent, weak or feeble (widows, orphans, handicap). It is expected that good Christians will protect these. If conflict is necessary the conflict must be as limited as possible to achieve stability and neutralize the evil. Again, in the context of justice we should seek to balance...not avenge. 

Second, the conflict needs to be waged for just cause, on account of some wrong that the attacked have committed. Lastly and probably most importantly, as with the last post on justice the combatants must have the right intent of the heart. That is namely to promote good and to stop an evil as defined in Scripture. As with everything else in the Bible, God is isn’t always interested in the actions or words themselves but rather…the intent of those actions.

A just conflict can be offensive and is often necessary in the context of self-defense against an entity or person(s) that has a history of escalating violence against another. If a known hostile entity has a history of malfeasance, offensive force is justified to put an end to the threat that entity poses.

Along similar lines, injustice should never be tolerated so as to avoid further conflict. In other words, not stopping an evil person like Hitler because it might be save lives in the immediate future is never a justification for not stopping him. We need only look at the example of Neville Chamberlain known for his appeasement of Hitler by signing the Munich Agreement in 1938 which only made World War II longer and more deadly. If deadly force is justified to self-defend it should only be used to the extent it is necessary. 

If the conflict is unjust those that win it under unjust premises have no right to rule over another. There is no justice served. If the conflict is just those that win it under just premises have every right to rule as their cause was just. This still leads back to the original intent of my last post. Who is the judge of whether a cause is just?

God. Get right with God and much of this can or could've been avoided. Be wrong with God and chaos and destruction ensue.