It's a good struggle, man. And a hard one. Yet, in the end, it was God's choice of life for humanity over His desire for justice.

(Course, maybe that means we should work all the more fervently for justice in this world, when it isn't trumped by the call for life... b/c otherwise God might regret His decision to grant us "amnesty" if we were just to take advantage of it...sorry, slightly unrelated rant.)

Here, as I think Volf would say, the conflict between grace and justice are supervened by the call for reconciliation and restoration, which is ultimately the goal, right?

Josh, I would totally agree with Volf's statement. If we can truly work for reconciliation and restoration, we would be in an incredible place. But amnesty does not necessarily preclude reconciliation or restoration. It may just end the violence to children.

As Christians, working always for the mission of reconciliation, can we rest in the fact that maybe saving lives is the at-present better option? With prayer and supplication for future reconciliation? If we knew no reconciliation could be had, would we still want to grant Kony amnesty?

As for justice not trumped by the call for life - excellent point...but I think we should still be shooting for social reconciliation over social justice. Volf talks in an article that shooting for justice inevitably breeds injustice. We then mush shoot for social reconciliation, which must subsume justice in the process.

I guess how I conceived it (at least at the moment where I wrote my last response) is that both justice and mercy, (to use these terms broadly) are often how we conceive the nature of God...traditionally this is what the Bible points to, particularly in the Old Testament among the life of covenant Israel...but also this can be seen among the various religions of the world (although I think that Christians put more of a focus on the loving, merciful nature of God than other religions.) It remains that justice "appears" to be an attribute of God...by "appears" I refer to those moments where the so-called "wrath of God" becomes more apparent... but you see, we tend to think of these things (justice and mercy) as opposing ideas. Israel, when it became hyper-focused upon the law, seemed to miss something about the nature of God that Jesus wanted to highlight. And Paul, addressing the Roman church that believed that grace trumped all courses of action that the Christian chose to undertake, responded to the call to sin, "so that grace may increase...(by saying) By no means!"

So, my thought is, by virtue of examining Jesus' understanding of the Kingdom of God, and by a close examination of Paul and the kind of Gospel he sought to promote, as well as glancing back at the nature of God as reflected through the Pentateuch and the Prophets... that reconciliation is the overarching theme that unites the ideas of justice and mercy back together, in the way that God had always intended. When I say "supervenes," I don't mean "replace"... I mean that we often as human beings interpret the actions of God in black-and-white terms, noting an apparent paradox in the character of God... when in reality there is a unifying theme that runs throughout the story of God with humanity, that being the concern for humanity and creation's restoration. Your citation of Volf at the end of your last comment points to this, I think.

So... when we work for justice, or for mercy... we work for the purposes of God, yet we should bear in mind the bigger picture that has been revealed to us in Christ.

Yet as humans we must live in the messiness of not always being able to discern the proper course of action to take, and whether or not it will look more like "justice" or "mercy." So as far as the appropriate course of action to take with Kony, we must take into account the overarching priniciple of ultimate reconciliation (which includes the provision and sustenance of life), even though the proper course of action to take may not be so crystal clear.

Another note... even though we must "step back" as Christians when we examine our world, viewing it through the lenses of the Kingdom... this does NOT give us allowance to disengage ourselves from the present reality. Therefore, we cannot only look at the actions we take towards, e.g. Kony, as far as how they relate to reconciliation in the far distant future... we must plunge into the current reality and seek restoration in the present as well.

Again, this is all quite messy, and I wish I had an answer. But my hunch is, along with you, Kevin, that amnesty is the better option. Far better to bring "mercy" to the people of north Uganda by giving them a chance at a normal life again (which is "just") than to insist upon the "just" punishment of an insane man who has brought hellish "injustice" to so many (not calling it "injustice" to water it down from what it is, as horrific acts of violence, terrorism, rape, manipulation, and murder)... for as Volf said, it is the violence of God towards death and sin, in Christ, that takes the swords out of our hands, ultimately, and into the hands of God, who will act out his divine retribution towards injustice and sin, to pave the way for reconciliation to truly take place.

Well said...where is the Volf quote found?

I actually heard him say something quite similar in person, at the Emergent Conversation in Feb. (I paraphrased it, to be sure.)

The thought that God exercises violence over violence itself is a persistent thread through E & E's final chapter, too... noting the bottom paragraph of p.293 in particular. In Volf's thought, the cross is the ultimate act of violence against the violent injustice of the world.

I feel that granting Kony amnesty is that same as saying that his brutal actions are okay... as long as he has collateral, or something we want. That is just sick. People get away with anything now days, because we are fearful of what they do to us.
If you state that it is okay to pardon this man for hurting and killing innocent children, you are even worse than he is, because you support his inhumane actions, and you are a coward to stand up for what is right. Tell me something, what if it was your child?
"Being a good person is standing up for what is right, no matter what it costs you!"

Thanks Nikki, I will happily disagree with you. If it means letting people live, I will happily not be a good person. I will happily live for injustice because frankly less children are going to die if Kony stops. What if it were my child...certainly I would hate the man, but frankly my sense of justice appeased is not worth any more lives. By giving somebody amnesty nobody says that the brutal actions are okay, they in fact say that they are not and are doing whatever they can do speedily to stop them. If they really were saying that it was ok, they would not bother offering the guy amnesty. They would be inactive, period. Your rhetoric does not work, with "now days" comments, because people were getting away with things decades, centuries and millenia ago. There is no fear stopping somebody from obtaining justice with Kony, rather it is care and compassion for Kony's victims that are moving the Ugandan gov't to grant some sort of carrot and get Kony out of the woods. If it means children are to live, let Kony live.

Besides, how long do you think he will actually be granted amnesty? If he isn't assassinated by somebody from Northern Uganda first, the International Community will catch him just like they did Charles Taylor and make him stand trial for war crimes. It really is only a matter of time before Kony receives "justice".