Justice & Mercy: Philosophical & Practical

God's attributes are not parts of Him, they are each the whole of Him. He is all His attributes at all times. He is one, thus His attributes are one. We speak of them individually, but we err when we extract one without reference to the others. For instance, God is just and He is merciful. He does not choose to be merciful in one situation and just in another, He is equally just and merciful in every situation. To us we might see His response as more of an action of justice rather than mercy, but in reality it is just as merciful as it is just. This is why King David, when given a choice between being punished by being given to His enemies or being punished by God, he chose God for he knew that God's punishment would be exactly right, good, and merciful.

In the same way, our actions ought to be that which lines up with His goodness. Therefore, when our mercy does not include justice or our justice is not constrained by mercy then we are not in line with what is good. God is also love. Love is not unrestrained mercy. In fact, justice and mercy are not at odds with each other or with love. Perfect love is perfectly just and merciful at the same time for God is all of these attributes eternally. They all are anchored together in Him as one.

Any of these attributes lived out apart from the rest would be harmful and not a true representation of the attribute. Love without justice is not real love. Justice without mercy is not really just. Mercy without justice is not really being merciful. True love is not just a balance of justice and mercy, but is a full composite of both for the two cannot be rightly separated.

People who are recipients of constant mercy devoid of justice are not helped, but hindered from attaining personal responsibility. They cannot mature into the people they ought to be if they are saved from every just consequence of their choices.

People ought to be allowed the freedom to be irresponsible, but at the same time it is good to not remove the consequences of the actions. In Danny Silk's book, Loving Your Kids on Purpose, he explains that we all have choices. He encourages parents to give their children the freedom to make those choices while they are in the safety of the parent's home so that their lessons are learned early in life and do not become perpetual problems into adulthood. A child forgets her lunch at home, and Mom does not drive it to her, for she would now experience a lesson in consequences as she decides how to acquire lunch for herself due to her forgetfulness. The action was both one of mercy and one of justice. It was just for the child to not have the lunch she forgot, and merciful for the mom to provide her the opportunity to learn this lesson.

Today's society has elevated tolerance as a virtue and personal irresponsibility as a public problem rather than a private one. This nation was founded to be a place where people are free to make their way in the world with their property and life protected by the enforcement of laws enacted for this purpose. However, it was never intended to be a place where the poor and unhealthy are enjoined from being thus. It was never to be a place where the those who are responsible are forced to surrender their hard earned goods to those who are not. Today freedom has been encroached upon to aid the whole by requiring the few to not only be responsible for themselves, but for those who are irresponsible as well.

In a world where personal irresponsibility is protected by a removal of due consequences, people are apt to become more irresponsible rather than less. It is human nature not to take care of oneself when someone is willing and able to do it for you. Why would a child learn to tie his shoe if mom and dad never stop doing it for him? Why would a child learn to feed herself, if mom never expects them to do it and does it for her? Why would someone who knows how to fish, choose to fish when fish are abundantly handed to him?

I once had a professor who said, if he had enough money in his estate to enable his children to never have to work again, he would bequeath it all to charity rather than to his children. He said he did not want to create lazy children by giving them what it ought to take hard work to acquire.

I used to struggle to understand why the Bible says that if someone in a community is not working they ought not to be able to eat the food. The same Bible says to give to the poor. Then I realized that the “poor” being spoken of are not those who choose not to work or who squander their earnings, but those who are physically incapable of providing for themselves. The “poor” were not those who didn't have money because they were not working, but those who couldn't work and thus justly needed provision. Still this was a voluntary giving out of love and compassion and not a giving out of compulsion of a national law. One is giving, the other is legalized stealing.

While it is good to be a cheerful giver, it is not good to produce ravenous takers. Giving when there is genuine need will produce the fruit of a grateful receiver. Becoming a provider of a person who is able to provide for themselves creates an unhealthy dependency the sucks the life out of the relationship making one the master and the other the slave regardless of the best of intentions. This steals the integrity of the person receiving such aid and makes them feel lousy and unable to be productive keeping them in bondage. The way of freedom is the way of responsibility and the way of irresponsible people experiencing their consequences. This way the consequences act as a motivator to correct ones course.

If we are to live according to justice and mercy there must be a justice and mercy by which we conform. If there is no supreme Justice then there is no injustice. In closing, consider the following popular quote by C.S. Lewis from Mere Christianity.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless -I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.

John Locke's Theistic Foundation

Before I leave the subject of John Locke’s political philosophy I must address the foundation for his philosophy. Many consider him a man of the Enlightenment who was fully secular in thinking. These same people and writers of history text books claim him to be a Deist; one who believes God created the world and left it to its own devices having no interest in it or its inhabitant’s current existence. Most do not want to entertain another view on this as he was highly influential in the forming of the American Republic. Still many are simply not knowledgeable concerning the actual underpinnings of his philosophy and have accepted popular thought on the subject.

Locke’s Second Treatise of Government was instrumental and encapsulated into the formation of the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution. In fact, a signer of the Declaration of the Independence, Richard Henry Lee is quoted as saying that that the Declaration itself was “copied from Locke's Treatise on Government.” Joseph Carrig, Ph.D. who specializes in American political theory and government and is well versed in John Locke wrote in the introduction to the Barnes and Nobel Library edition. He writes emphatically, “The Second Treatise should be read by the citizens of any liberal democracy as a reminder of the principles upon which their government is based and the reason for which they believe it is preferable to any other.” John Locke refers to Scripture 157 times in this work. In his previous work the First Treatise he cites Scripture over a thousand times! He also frequently cites theologian Richard Hooker in his Second Treatise. To quote Locke from the Second Treatise:

• “[T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God.”
• “[L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.”
• “[B]ut this I am sure, they [the governing authorities] owe subjection to the laws of God and Nature. Nobody, no power can exempt them from the obligations of the eternal law.”
• “Men being the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker.”

To summarize the Second Treatise, Locke’s political philosophy is simply that God with His moral/natural law, known by reason, is sovereign over government and over man. And that man sets up a government to protect his freedom to life and liberty which is jointly termed property. The government’s job is to protect this property by means in which the people under that government give their consent. Moreover, consent can only be given for those things that a person can rightfully give up to the government by their power of personal choice. Because God is sovereign over man, man cannot consent to a tyrant or dictatorship. For no man can rule man absolutely. Thus all tyranny and dictatorships are usurpations of the inalienable rights of man.

Locke addresses what it means for those who forfeit their rights by breaking the laws of nature and entering into what he terms a state of war with a person or people. He opines that those who enter this state of war are subject then to the enforcement of the law put in place by consent of the governed which could lead to their imprisonment and loss of freedom. Even still, he argues that they must be treated fairly and justly and that their punishment cannot carry over to their family and future generations. He also elaborates on what constitutes a just war between nations and what the parameters ought to be for the conquered nation that adheres to their value as fellow humans with respect to their rights and liberties.

Locke eloquently illustrates the ideals of a government by the people and for the people under the sovereignty of an infinitely wise God who made us as free people with respect to our fallen nature and need for limited government.

Loving the Poor

According to the U.S. Census Bureau one in eight people are deemed to be in poverty, which is about 35 million people. Despite that 46% of these people own their own home, 76% have air conditioning and most own their own car, have television, cell phones, and typically have food and water, let’s accept the impoverished in America as being one in eight people.

That’s a rather large problem. I think the amount of people on welfare is much smaller than these figures, but I haven’t been able to ascertain the accurate data on that yet. The question that is often debated is how can the poor be helped and whose responsibility is it to give them aid.

Some think it is the government’s job to provide that aid and are comfortable with a form of socialistic welfare to the poor. Others think it is a job of faith based organizations to provide this care to the people in their community. The former often creates an unhealthy dependency on the government tantamount to an entitlement mentality of those who receive these benefits. The latter perspective can create the same sort of dependency and entitlement just directed towards faith based institutions instead of the government.

There is a question of whether such dependency is truly giving aid to these people. Of course, it meets their basic needs are met to some degree, but what does it rob them of at the same time? It causes generational dependency on someone else for ones needs to be met. It doesn’t promote freedom from poverty, but dependency to a system of receiving aid from an institution.

Think about it this way. Parents raise their children with the intended result of them being self-sufficient. They are teaching them along the way to learn how to support themselves financially, to be wise with their money. If a parent has not done this they have children who continually return to the nest for shelter, food, and help to pay off their debt, etc.

When people depend on an institution for their aid, it’s like children who never grow up to become self-sufficient generation after generation. I don’t blame the people in this situation; the institutions have a great deal of the responsibility for causing this situation.

People have a diversity of needs that an institution simply cannot meet. My husband and I saw a woman struggling to get her motorized wheel chair fastened onto the back of her car. My husband went to aid her in this task. It was quiet an ordeal. It was so very hot outside, we felt terrible that she has to do that on a regular basis. She said she really needed the motorized scooter, but Medicare said no and gave her a chair that is much more difficult to manage. A person who cares about her could easily see that the scooter would have been a better option for her.

What if caring for those in need was something that Americas did because they loved people? If those who need are one in eight, then that’s seven people per each person in need that can help those people one on one. Picking up extra groceries for a neighbor, helping the disabled do yard work and with house repairs, babysitting a single mother’s children so that they can go to work, etc. How much more love is shown to a person when an individual gives a helping hand, then when an institution mails out a monthly check?

This past week I heard a story a man told about a friend of his who was once a teenager in a group home thinking that life had nothing to offer for he had only experienced hardship. Being cared for by the system wasn’t something he saw as good will, but something that was the result of not being treated well. One day a man visited the group home and gave each teenage boy two hundred dollars. His reason was that God told him to. That teenage boy suddenly realized there was some good in the world and someone cared about him. Today he is the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. One act of kindness changed his life in a way an institutionalized form of care never could.

What if American’s loved their neighbor and got involved helping the poor directly. Of course, many American’s give to charity and volunteer for charities. But how about, one on one looking out for the needs of the poor you come in contact with. If only 2 in 8 did this for the 1 in 8 that would be two people helping to every one in need. Would social security, medicare, disability, and other forms of welfare even be needed anymore?

What would this do for people? Maybe people would be enabled to find their liberty to not be dependent, but experience being loved by those who really do care about them. Maybe their children will grow up to be upstanding citizens in their community and pass on the help to others in need because someone was there to show them they cared. Let us not put off loving our neighbors onto a government institution or even unto a charitable institution faith based or otherwise. Let us give of our own time, money, and love and help those who need helping respecting their individuality and retaining their dignity.

Grassroots Reformation

This past week my husband and I attended a series of meetings regarding the foundation of a new organization. I knew that this new organization would be something of a Christian grass roots movement formed to be more involved in the social issues of our day. I knew that this organization was intent upon not being the next Religious Right which was often known by what it stood against and not by giving solutions to aid the nation. This new movement is to be different in that it seeks to be solution oriented and helpful rather than condemning complainers. These people forming this new movement would be ones who would roll up their sleeves and get involved in helping make this nation be a better place. These people would be ones who would not align with one political party, but serve all irrespective of political affiliation.



However, what I discovered in listening to the plethora of speakers from various walks of life and ministries from across America who converged together to address the national situation of our times, were a people with a grander vision than I had foreseen.



What I heard was the coalescence of something that has been sweeping through the Church already; a new Reformation. What I heard was more about the hearts of Christians showing the love and character of Christ to the world. I heard a call for integrity in the Body of Christ like never before. I heard a call to the Church to be more Christ like. What I did not hear was any lamenting on how messed up this world is and how they need to get their act together. What I did hear was how much the Church needs to lead by loving and kind example and help our neighborhoods, communities, states, and nation by aiding them in the matters that are dear to their hearts.



Much was discussed about getting involved in taking care of creation. Also, taking care of the needs of the poor with dignity and respect was high on the agenda. The importance of freedom was also discussed.


Many get fearful that Christians want a theocracy and want to impose religious rule upon people like Constantine procured. However, this is very far from most Christians’ idea of government. We pretty much want the government that was established by the Founders; a nation free from religious persecution and free from an overbearing government. Our ideals are pretty close to that of John Locke or George Washington, not exactly for there is diversity of perspectives, but it’s pretty close I would think. Sure there are some Christians who do in fact what a theocracy of sorts, but I think you’d find them very much in the minority though maybe outspoken at times making it seem like they represent more people than they do.



I would say there are a large number of Christians do not even give much thought to forming opinions regarding government, much less educated opinions. I do not say this to speak ill of them, but only to give some information of the diversity of perspectives.



Once again, the meetings I intended were far more about Reformation of the Church then they were about anything else. The reason I and others want to be involved in social matters and political matters is because we love the world and not because we want to make it more palatable for our own comfort, but so that we can help all people have a higher quality of life and liberty.



There is much more I want to write on this subject as there are many matters in the forefront of most Americans’ minds concerning the direction of this nation. Thus, I will be straying from my normal subject matter to address some of the key issues of our day in the days and weeks hereafter.

Limitations of Governmental Power

John Locke’s “The Second Treatise of Government” is well established to contain the foundational philosophical principals underlining the creation of the American Republic. The passages below are excerpts from this great work written in 1690. Below the passages are my paraphrases of the principals he teaches in this book.

“It cannot be supposed that they should intend, had they a power to do so, to give anyone or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate’s hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them; this were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of Nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man or many in combination. Whereas by supposing they have given up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him [government power] to make a prey of them when he pleases;” John Locke 1690

“For I have truly no property in that which another can by right take from me when he pleases against my consent. Hence it is a mistake to think that the supreme or legislative power of any commonwealth can do what it will, and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily, or take any part of them at pleasure.” John Locke 1690

Each person owns that which in which they rightfully labor to acquire.

That becomes their property.

People institute government to protect their freedom to their life, liberty, and property.

That government instituted by the common agreement of the people to represent such interests does not have the authority to do what no one can give them the authority to do.

I have no rights to the property or life or liberty of another.

I cannot give up rights I do not have to a government who only gains its authority by the consent of the governed.

Thus it is outside of the bounds of my rights to give to the government the authority to take property from others and do with it what they choose even if they deem it necessary for the good of others no matter how well endowed those people are. Therefore the government can never have such a power without usurping the rights of the people they are entrusted to protect.

Such a government that oversteps its bounds in this manner ought not be trusted.

John Locke on Freedom & Law

In 1690 John Locke wrote the Second Treatise of Government in which he philosophizes about the nature of freedom and the necessity of law. What follows is a summary of part of what I have read thus far.




He proposes that the, “law, in it’s true notion is not so much the limitation as the direction of a free and intelligent agent to his proper interest, and prescribes no farther than is for the general good of those under that law.” He elaborates further to say, “the end of the law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.”




Locke argues that true freedom is not that which allows everyman do to whatever he wants to do by whatever means he wants to do it, but rather it is that freedom to not be restrained by the limitations of things that would harm or usurp our free use of our own will.




For instance, a person who needs another to govern them so that they abide by the law that enables them to be free is not truly free to their own proper use of their volition. However, the person who is able to self-govern themselves within the bounds of freedom is truly free to follow his will in a manner that will not harm him or anyone else.




The law then, in its proper use, whether we are speaking of the laws of Nature common to all men, or to the particular laws of a society are to be in place not to bind man, but to free man.




The people of a society have the right of their own freedom to self-govern themselves in a manner that enables their freedom and the freedom of their neighbor. However, it is self-evident that people are not perfect at self-governing, nor are they always desirous to self-govern themselves and thus the society agrees to put into place a structure of governmental authority with a balance of power to enforce the agreed upon law of the land. This is done not to usurp the freedom of the people, but to protect this freedom as a valued asset to the nation.




When people violate the laws of nature or of the society they become enemies of that society and the law is met out to protect those who are governing themselves and the freedom of the violator is temporarily or permanently taken and replaced by external governing.




It is fascinating to read the foundational philosophy behind the formation of the American government and be reminded of the reasons things are set up the way they are in our nation. A remembrance of our roots can help the modern generation value the principals the Founders believed were indispensable to the health of this nation.

The Benefits of Divine Revelation

I was recently asked, what has religion offered to humanity’s knowledge about the world? In clarifying, this question was unpacked to ask how has divine revelation aided our knowledge about the world?

First I must explain that I don’t divide knowledge out to be the result of unaided man versus what is the result of divine revelation for I see the two are inseparable. All knowledge that lines up with truth is attained because God has given us the ability to attain it through a variety of means whether they are received through the scientific process or received through direct revelation. I would say that all true knowledge is either gained indirectly or directly from God.

To illustrate, consider that as a Christian I see God as being the Author, Creator, and Sustainer of life. Thus all truth is God’s truth for He is its author and its source. He wants us to learn the truth about the world because the way of truth is the way of life.

Now to be fair, I am not trying to skirt the question. I can still talk about direct divine revelation as long as it is understood that I don’t see the indirect as being somehow secular or merely human oriented.

As a Christian I see direct revelation from God coming in two mediums; the written word of God known as the Scriptures or the Bible or through God speaking to individuals consistent with the Scriptures. Thus, the individual doesn’t have license to run with something as being God that is in contradiction to the truth of Scriptures. Now the first is an unchanging objective standard of revelation and the second is a subjective relational receiving of God’s revelation, often referred to in many Christian circles and in Scripture as the prophetic.

Therefore to answer this question from the point of view of a Christian I am examining the contributions to human knowledge from the Bible and the contributions from prophetic experiences. Prophetic experiences come through a myriad of ways such as dreams, visions, impressions, feelings, hearing internally that “still small voice,” seeing internally or externally and sometimes angelic visitation or visitation from the Lord Himself.

The Scriptures have provided a wealth of information for many things in this world. John Locke, who supplied much of the foundational philosophy to form the American republic, quoted extensively from the Scriptures in developing his model for government.

William Wilberforce who was instrumental in ending the slave trade in England did so from his moral imperative from Scripture than man ought not to be treated thus as we are called to love one another.

Recently, in the last decade or so, Uganda’s President asked the faith community for their help in curbing the rampant aids epidemic that was infecting around 30-35% of the population. The church leaders explained to President Yoweri Museveni that he needed to campaign a three step program called ABC in response to the aids epidemic. The steps are as follows: Abstain until marriage, Be faithful to one partner, and lastly with the other two being met, Condom use to curb transmission of those already infected. Museveni opened up the media channels to campaign this message to his people. The infection rate dropped from 35% to around 5%. The United Nations took notice and asked Museveni how he accomplished this phenomenal shift in aids in his country. He explained the process to them, they didn’t like the abstinence part so they reversed the ABC’s and began to promote condom use as the first thrust of the campaign in other African countries and the results did not par with Uganda’s results. The President is still working with the United Nations to help them see the value of doing it this way. It is the principals of the Bible that the church leaders in Uganda gave to the President that had an amazing impact on their culture.

John Maxwell is a proliferate author in the business world writing to business executives about leadership principals to aid the growth and health of their companies. His books are found in the business section of major book stores, however, he is a Christian, and his principals of leadership are all Biblically based. His books are also on the shelves of Christian bookstores.

These are just a few of the many examples of how Biblical revelation is aiding the world and not just the church and the private lives of individuals. I am going to pause at this point and not continue on to discuss the subjective revelation through prophetic means because if the former is not received the latter certainly will not be for it is much more subjective in nature. Now, of course, if you don’t accept the Bible as revelation then my examples will not aid your understanding of the aid of direct revelation to the world. At least, maybe, it will give food for thought of the value of the Bible.