Reason, Justice and Mercy
 |
| The Prophet Isaiah Writes About the Birth of Jesus Christ |
In the first chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, God calls to the people of Israel
Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. (Isa 1:16-20)
There are many things that I love about these verses. Among them is the invitation "Come now, and let us reason together." It is not unlike a parent sitting down to talk things over with a struggling teenager. "Let's think about this. Let's look at the situation and discuss the options, how things really work and what we can do about it." And I love the word reason. Although the type of reasoning presented is different from what we usually mean when we use the term reasonable, one of the things that I love about the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is that I find it to be the most reasonable set of thoughts, doctrines, principles, practices, concepts and philosophies ever presented.
I know that's a pretty bold statement but I stand by it. I can't always articulate well those doctrines, principles and practices, but my failings don't undercut their strength and correctness, although some people may use my inability as an excuse to ignore what I'm trying to say. Interestingly, that is one of the habits that people have and a technique often employed by those who don't want to reason about something they don't like and would prefer that everyone simply ignore it. They will try to find any "reason", any excuse -- justified or not, correct or not -- to disregard the subject they don't like or the person presenting it. Attacking the messenger is one approach to that. Mocking the messenger or the message is another approach. The logic seems to be that if something can be mocked, doing so automatically proves it to be untrue, uninteresting or unworthy of time and consideration. But truth is regularly mocked and it doesn't make it untrue. Another approach is to label what we don’t like as something that should be hated or ignored. Politics, especially recent politics, does this regularly and in many different ways.1 Sometimes people know they are doing this and do it to confuse or manipulate other people. Sometimes people may not be aware they are groping for an excuse to disregard what they find challenging or uncomfortable.
But let's get back to actual reasoning. I have often found when someone is arguing that a proposal or postulate is unreasonable, that a core principle has been overlooked, which, when considered, makes the postulation perfectly reasonable. That principle might have been left out of the original postulation or it may have been overlooked in the assessment. Of course, this is not always the case. Sometimes the proposal is actually unreasonable -- it doesn't ultimately hold up to scrutiny, logic, experience, or testing. And so Paul the Apostle pointed encouraged the early Christians to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thes. 5:21)2 Or as Joseph Smith pointed out:
The things of God are of deep import, and time, and experience, and carful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind, O man! if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity -- thou must commune with God. How much more dignified and noble are the thoughts of God, than the vain imaginations of the human heart.3
To dig into one example of things that can be reasoned upon, consider an instance that occurred in ancient America shortly before Jesus’ birth. The people had been turning their hearts away from God for some time and a general anti-Christ philosophy had taken root. One individual who was anti-Christ argued that “it is not reasonable that such a being as a Christ should come. “ (Helaman 16:18) This is often argued today, too, saying that it is manifestly unfair that an innocent person should be punished for the crimes of another. The argument invites a discussion on Justice. But justice doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It has a counterpart, a complement, that changes its calculus. This is Mercy, which invites a discussion on how the situation is changed if an innocent party voluntarily takes the burden demanded by justice. He may even do so after agreeing with the guilty party on a different approach to addressing the offense demanding justice.
Justice is often discussed as the application of law against the guilty - the punishment side of the argument. It is much more than that. Justice also demands that innocence not be punished or harmed, and that guilt must exact a punishment. If innocence is harmed a commensurate restitution must be made, and punishment of guilt must be commensurate with the severity of the crime and the capacity of the perpetrator to both understand and control his actions. Justice is maintenance of the law and of equity, fairness, and impartiality. It is an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth if an eye or a tooth is taken, but it also presses for them not to be taken in the first place.4
Mercy on the other hand provides a mitigating measure on the just punishment due an individual for any crime, sin or transgression and it is one of the most holy attributes that an intelligent being can have. Anyone who is keenly aware of his own guilt over any issue, when shown mercy will feel some measure of relief, and hopefully gratitude toward his benefactor. But — and this will not be a popular statement — but it must be noted that mercy is, by its nature, inequitable, unfair, and partial. If someone is wronged, and shows forgiveness to the wrongdoer, refuses to press charges, cancels a debt, or otherwise shows mercy, it is not "fair" or "equitable" to the one who forgives. But this inequity and unfairness is acceptable because the forgiver chose for himself to bear that inequity. It was not forced on him. He was not compelled by force or circumstance. It became fair to allow this unfairness because personal moral agency was applied. But what about someone that was collaterally harmed? Even if they also choose to forgive, they can still be out in material, meaningful ways and the general sense of fairness appears offended by the mercy toward the offender. Or perhaps more difficult, what if that collateral victim does not choose to show mercy, but demands justice. They are within their rights to do so, and it is appropriate for them to do so, and in doing so they do not subsequently offend concepts of justice in any way. In other words mercy cannot rob justice. (see Alma 42:25) If both laws are to be administered , mercy and justice, how are they to be balanced? What is the means or approach of satisfying both?
The best explanation I have ever encountered on this subject was a parable given by Boyd K. Packer (1924-2015), an Apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
There once was a man who wanted something very much. It seemed more important than anything else in his life. In order for him to have his desire, he incurred a great debt.
He had been warned about going into that much debt, and particularly about his creditor. But it seemed so important for him to do what he wanted to do and to have what he wanted right now. He was sure he could pay for it later.
So he signed a contract. He would pay it off some time along the way. He didn't worry too much about it, for the due date seemed such a long time away. He had what he wanted now, and that was what seemed important.
The creditor was always somewhere in the back of his mind, and he made token payments now and again, thinking somehow the day of reckoning really would never come.
But as it always does, the day came, and the contract fell due. The debt had not been fully paid. His creditor appeared and demanded payment in full.
Only then did he realize that his creditor not only had the power to repossess all that he owned, but the power to cast him into prison as well.
"I cannot pay you, for I have not the power to do so," he confessed.
"Then," said the creditor, "we will exercise the contract, take your possessions, and you shall go to prison. You agreed to that. It was your choice. You signed the contract, and now it must be enforced."
"Can you not extend the time or forgive the debt?" the debtor begged. "Arrange some way for me to keep what I have and not go to prison. Surely you believe in mercy? Will you not show mercy?"
The creditor replied, "Mercy is always so one-sided. It would serve only you. If I show mercy to you, it will leave me unpaid. It is justice I demand. Do you believe in justice?"
"I believed in justice when I signed the contract," the debtor said. "It was on my side then, for I thought it would protect me. I did not need mercy then, nor think I should need it ever. Justice, I thought, would serve both of us equally as well."
"It is justice that demands that you pay the contract or suffer the penalty," the creditor replied. "That is the law. You have agreed to it and that is the way it must be. Mercy cannot rob justice."
There they were. One meting out justice, the other pleading for mercy. Neither could prevail except at the expense of the other.
"If you do not forgive the debt there will be no mercy," the debtor pleaded.
"If I do, there will be no justice," was the reply.
Both laws, it seemed, could not be served. They are two eternal ideals that appear to contradict one another. Is there no way for justice to be fully served, and mercy also?
There is a way! The law of justice can be fully satisfied and mercy can be fully extended -- but it takes someone else. And so it happened this time.
The debtor had a friend. He came to help. He knew the debtor well. He knew him to be shortsighted. He thought him foolish to have gotten himself into such a predicament. Nevertheless, he wanted to help because he loved him. He stepped between them, faced the creditor, and made this offer.
"I will pay the debt if you will free the debtor from his contract so that he may keep his possessions and not go to prison."
As the creditor was pondering the offer, the mediator added, "You demanded justice. Though he cannot pay you, I will do so. You will have been justly dealt with and can ask no more. It would not be just."
And so the creditor agreed.
The mediator turned then to the debtor. "If I pay your debt, will you accept me as your creditor?"
"Oh yes, yes," cried the debtor. "You save me from prison and show mercy to me."
"Then," said the benefactor, "you will pay the debt to me and I will set the terms. It will not be easy, but it will be possible. I will provide a way. You need not go to prison."
And so it was that the creditor was paid in full. He had been justly dealt with. No contract had been broken. The debtor, in turn, had been extended mercy. Both laws stood fulfilled. Because there was a mediator, justice had claimed its full share, and mercy was fully satisfied.
Each of us lives on a kind of spiritual credit. One day the account will be closed, a settlement demanded. However casually we may view it now, when that day comes and the foreclosure is imminent, we will look around in restless agony for someone, anyone, to help us.
And, by eternal law, mercy cannot be extended save there is one who is both willing and able to assume our debt and pay the price and arrange the terms for our redemption.
Unless there is a mediator, unless we have a friend, the full weight of justice untempered, unsympathetic, must, positively must fall on us. The full recompense for every transgression, however minor or however deep, will be extracted from us to the uttermost farthing.
But know this: Truth, glorious truth, proclaims there is such a Mediator.
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Tim. 2:5)
Through Him mercy can be fully extended to each of us without offending the eternal law of justice.
This truth is the very root of Christian doctrine. You may know much about the gospel as it branches out from there, but if you only know the branches and those branches do not touch that root, if they have been cut free from that truth, there will be no life nor substance nor redemption in them.
The extension of mercy will not be automatic. It will be through covenant with Him. It will be on His terms. His generous terms, which include, as an absolute essential, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins.
All mankind can be protected by the law of justice, and at once each of us individually may be extended the redeeming and healing blessing of mercy.
A knowledge of what I am talking about is of a very practical value. It is very useful and helpful personally; it opens the way for each of us to keep his spiritual accounts paid up.
I encourage you to follow the link and read the entirety of Elder Packer's address.
There are many principles, practices, concepts, doctrines, approaches, and philosophies that can be reasoned upon, but such reasoning can only be done between reasonable people. I encourage people to hold the discussions, but urge them to approach such things in an emotional and intellectual space that allows for respectful discussion, exchange of ideas that may differ from your own, acknowledgment of the other person's rights and humanity, cordial disagreement, and even for personal growth and a change of your own views. This is becoming exceedingly rare these days as people increasingly argue across digital spaces and seem to increasingly think shouting, belittling, coercion and violence are the best way to persuade minds and change hearts or policies they don’t like or agree with. But these approaches almost never “move the needle” and when they do, it’s not truly persuasive. Would that we were more gentle, peaceful, and Christlike in our interactions and discussions, even more reasonable in our reasoning together!
1. Consider how inappropriately and inaccurately ideas and people have been labeled evil, racist, fascist or any of the "phobes". Likewise, labeling ideas as "conspiracy theories" is used as a way to stop people from even considering them, as if there have never been any actual conspiracies, ever, so anything that can be labeled as such is automatically crazy, false and ignorable.
2. I encourage the reader to consider Paul's entire exhortation in 1 Thes. 5:14-22.
3. Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2007), 267.
4. This is essentially what is presented to Israel in Exodus chapters 19 through 23.
