May 29, 2002

Does Bible allow 'retributive justice' for 9-11 attacks?

"Do scriptural injunctions warn against 'retributive justice' against the Sept. 11 attackers, and allow only 'restorative justice' to induce the terrorists to return to the ways of peace?"

The question is the eighth in a series of essays on the Sept. 11 attacks in Straight Answers to Moral Confusion in National Crisis by the Institute on Religion and Democracy. The series authored by Alan F.H. Wisdom focuses on the role of America's churches in response to the attacks.

Conservative church leaders have not joined this particular debate, which the churches' liberal ranks raised, Wisdom notes.

Wisdom notes that statements from "oldline" denominational leaders fasten upon verses that command forgiveness and love toward enemies as ruling against any acts of force to prevent or deter the Sept. 11 attackers from further violence.

Episcopal Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold wrote "Many are speaking of revenge" and notes particularly, "Our President has vowed to hunt down and punish those who are responsible for these depraved and wicked acts." Yet he disagrees strongly with President Bush's "war on terror."

Griswold concludes "I am not immune to emotions of rage and revenge, but I know that acting on them only perpetuates the very violence I pray will be dissipated and overcome."

Just how the violence of the terrorists will be dissipated and overcome he does not propose, except perhaps for his prayers.

The United Methodist Board of Church and Society states, "As we join people around the world in our resolve to bring terrorists to justice, we understand that war is not an appropriate means of responding to criminal acts against humanity."

If not war against terrorists, then what action is needed?

United Methodist Board of Global Ministries official Harmon Wray rejects any idea of punishment, calling it "akin to retaliation." Instead of war against terrorism he calls for "restorative justice... in a court or law with due process."

Wisdom comments, "Wray did not explain how the presence of Osama bin Laden and his associates might be assured on such an occasion. Nor did he suggest any further action if they refused to repent."

I might add, without speaking lightly of the power of prayer, that more forthright action than calling on God's vengeance seems to be in order for the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Wisdom adds, "If military force is effective in stopping terrorists, then the President may use it justly -- even if the personal anger he may feel toward the terrorists may not be fully righteous."

Wisdom also notes, "The oft-quoted verse, 'Vengeance is mine, says the Lord,' does not say that vengeance is always unholy... Nor does the verse rule out all human acts of vengeance."

He adds that "retributive justice," which is so widely condemned by liberal church leaders, "invokes the recurring biblical principle that persons should, on the whole, 'reap what they sow'" as stated in Galatians 6:7-8 and Hosea 10:12-13.

"Sometimes the reaping occurs by God's providence operating without any conscious human cooperation. Sometimes it involves a willing human agent that acts to reward the good and punish the evil," Wisdom says.

Wisdom concludes "It would not be unjust if U.S. forces were able to bring down upon the al-Qaeda terrorists some measure of the violence that they inflicted upon U.S. citizens. These actions would be even more justifiable if they also served to prevent future terrorist attacks."

I might add one more thought. I am quite sure that Osama would prefer that we merely pray for vengeance, rather than send our armed forces out to find him and administer it. Osama certainly put "legs" on his prayers, and we should do so also.