Righteous Retribution?

You wanna know what cracks my knuckles? The difficulty in trying to hold with one hand Christ's example of how Christians ought to act and trying to hold with the other hand the seemingly natural retributive impulses humans have in response to injustice. In other words, what Heynes (the victim?) does in response to Gale (undoubtedly in the wrong) is somewhat difficult and problematic for the Christian to justify in light of Christ's example in the Apostle Peter's teachings.

Part I

I do not think, necessarily so, that the “breaking of the neck” (or ankle, or whatever) is the appropriate response for anyone, no matter how much evil was done to Heynes. Why? Simply because Christ taught us otherwise. Now, before you jump up and say, "Aha! Got you there! So are we supposed to let people walk all over us?" allow me to say, no, I do not believe we ought to let people walk all over us. But what was it, exactly, that Christ taught us concerning these kinds of situations? Well, we could examine his teachings and find what my colleague, Aronne, was so apt to point out, that we ought to turn the other cheek, give the extra cloak, walk the extra mile. So what, then, Gale is just in treating Heynes in that way? Certainly not! Christ never taught that being struck on the cheek, being robbed of a cloak, being forced to walk a mile was just in anyway on the part of the one who inflicts such injustices. But in order to understand this, we must examine a sort of higher teaching, the example that Christ left behind for us to follow.

1 Peter 2:17-25 says, "Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls" (NASB).

Part II

I find here that we are commanded to “honor all people,” without limitation. After this statement, Peter launches into a discussion concerning masters and servants. Servants are admonished to be submissive to their masters, “not only... to those who are good and gentle,” the kind persons worthy of service, “but also to those who are unreasonable,” the unkind persons unworthy of service. Why? Peter reasons by saying, “For this finds favor….” This thing is commendable before God. How? Peter continues, “…if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly.” And again, “…if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.” So essentially, the one who finds favor with God, is the one who bears up under injustice in a patient and forgiving manner. And it is for this very reason that we are Christians (literally, "little Christs"). This is our purpose, “For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps….” Dare we forget as Christians, that we, too, were the very persons who treated Christ much the same way that Gale treated Heynes (is that really too much of a stretch?)? “…and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.” We are the cause of those wounds. And yet, as Christ suffered unjustly at our hands, and he did so without sin: “WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering [unjustly], He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously.” Wow. Can we just stop for a minute and examine closely that last statement. Christ trusted the just and righteous God of the universe with his unjust inflictions! If there were anyone in the history of the world who deserved to break someone’s neck for unjust treatment it would be Christ! He alone was blameless, and capable of acting with righteous retribution. We see, however, that when He was treated unjustly, He did not retaliate in anyway. But instead, He humbly gives up his right to carry out retribution and gives it to God, trusting that God will bring about justice. Now, I have not even come close to sufficiently unpacking the meaning of this section of Scripture, but suffice it to say that this is the example that we ought to follow.

Part III

How should one respond in a situation like Heynes’? Well, I am not of the camp that we as Christians can be treated like dirt, but I am neither a part of any sort of camp that utilizes any form of wrongdoing in its act of retribution. I do believe certain individuals have the right and moral obligation to carry out retribution (see Romans 13), and one cannot overlook the fact that there is a method for it, not simply a sort of free-for-all get to "give it" anyway I want. Ultimately, it must be done in a blameless way. 1 Peter 2:12 says, “Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation.” No matter what we are accused of, however untrue or unjust, our obligation as Christians is to maintain moral excellence in all of our actions. Why? So that it points them to God. That’s one reason why Christ left us an example. We exemplify Christ, and in so doing, we point others to Him. So then, can we inflict retribution on those who have wronged us? I believe that I have to conclude yes—so long as it is within the bounds of being blameless in every step of the way, and so long as it is within the bounds of civil law (we are, after all, in subjection to the authorities, who hold the right to carry out retribution; see Romans 13). If there is even the slightest hint of sin or evil in such said retribution, then we have become violators of God’s law. We in essence become no better than the one who inflicted damage on us in the first place. In certain cases, certain types of retribution are required. But all of this, I have very high reservations for! Why? Consider Matthew 18:21-35. What of this parable of the unmerciful servant? Can we really demand retribution from another, when we ourselves are guilty of the same sins? James 2:13 says, “For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.” Can we really claim retribution when we ourselves deserve it? So it seems then, that rather than seeking to dole out retribution, we ought to give away mercy, for mercy triumphs over judgment! Christ did not come to die for us, so that we could lord our “rights” over others and demand payment for what others owe us! Did He not die to show mercy to all—ourselves included—that we might show mercy to others as well? O how this tears at my heart, for I can say this—perhaps even believe it—but it matters naught unless I am able to live it!

“To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.” —1 Peter 3:8-9 (NASB)

You cannot misinterpret this last verse. No matter how hard you may try.