Justified violence is the name of the game. It seems to be how our world envisions itself. Whether it's gangsters in the movies or justifications by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we thrive on the moral ambiguities of violence that seems necessary, even as we're concerned about limiting that violence.
Kendra and I began watching the Showtime television drama Dexter last night. In it, Dexter is a serial killer who justifies his killings because he only preys on those he deems to be morally corrupt, such as sexual predators and others who prey on the weak.
I've yet to hear Christianity invoked as Dexter's justification, but I can see it coming. It's roots have been laid, even as early as this first episode.
Why do we do that? What makes the Crusades, or violence against gays, or African-Americans, or Muslims, or pretty much anyone different from us, a possibility, grounding as we do those violences in Jesus?
Some even make this application to Jesus' own death. Jesus' culture, after all, was a culture in which blood was used to purify one of sinfulness. The sacrifice of life, was a common practice in ancient Judaism. So it's understandable when this same model is applied to Jesus' death.
It's the same logic Dexter uses.
Yes, many argue, it's tragic that Jesus died, but it was necessary. It was for a greater cause. He died so that we could live.
Yes, it's horrible that you kill, Dexter, according to his dad, but sometimes it's the only good that can come for society preyed on by such monsters.
Bin Laden's death was gruesome but necessary. It keeps him from killing countless more.
Just like McVeigh.
We love to justify our violence.
Plenty of people talk about the life and ministry of Jesus being counter-cultural. But generally, we only apply that to our contemporary culture. But his life was counter to the culture of his own day and his own religion of Judaism. Jewish religion called for redemptive violence in the form of sacrifice. Even Paul, who came from a similar Roman culture of redemptive violence, attempts to overlay this historical value of blood atonement over the death of the Messiah. But there are inconsistencies we simply can't ignore.
Namely: Jesus was forgiving sin while he was alive. If it takes his death to forgive sin, what do we do with that?
And, of course, even if there's some answer to that, what's the difference between forgiving one sin and forgiving many? Is death somehow a matter of volume forgiveness? Does something change when sins are bundled?
We all fall short. We all need grace. Jesus is that grace. And he was that grace from the very start. Jesus never justifies violence. While he's alive, he forgives. While on the cross and dying, he forgives. Having been raised, he forgives. He acts and he preaches: Jesus rejects violence. There's simply no reason -- no need, no justification -- for spilling blood.
Call me a peace fundamentalist if you like, but Dexter's theology isn't Jesus' theology. Those who attempt to justify bloodshed had best look elsewhere. If we take Jesus seriously, it's blasphemy to lay violence at God's feet.
Because -- here's the thing -- violence never redeems.
Only love redeems. And love that requires blood, that requires violence, isn't the love of Jesus. If there's a string attached -- even if it's shedding blood -- it's not divine love. There's no such thing a conditional love. Love can have no asterisks or footnotes. There's no caveat or fine print. Love is whole, complete and absolute. Or it's not. (That's 1 Corinthians 13 in a nutshell.)
Justified violence may be culturally acceptable. It may work for Dexter. It may even, in some contexts, seem biblical. But it's not Christ-like. Not by a long shot.