Our Understanding of Justice Needs to Be Expanded
Archetypal/Ectypal Distinction
Francois Turretini (Frances Turretin), the Genevan-Italian Reformed scholastic theologian of the 17th century, summarized an important theological distinction in his Institutio Theologiae Elencticae (Institutes of Elenctic Theology).
Theology, Turretin claims, regards the knowledge of what God has revealed. Yet, in no instance can humanity claim to have full, exhaustive, and complete knowledge about God. Theology must be divided between archetypal theology and ectypal theology. Archetypal theology is the infinite knowledge of God that is known only by God himself and no other. Ectypal theology is all true finite theology patterned off of archetypal theology. Humans, as finite creatures, will always have ectypal theology, but never archetypal theology; we can never comprehensively know everything there is to know about God. Yet, what we know about God is always true.
One of the results of this archetypal/ectypal distinction is that it explains why our understanding of the infinite requires understanding facets of a whole. The love of God in its fullest magnitude is something that we can never fully encompass in its height, width, or depth, but we understand his love as a Father, as a Savior, as a Warrior, as a Comforter, etc. We must be careful not to take one facet of the love of God and ignore the others.
Failure to Understand the Archetypal/Ectypal Distinction in Terms of Justice
One clear example where we can see theological errors occur is in the definition of justice. God’s justice is archetypal while ours is ectypal. Our perception of justice must derive from God’s perfect and holistic justice.
What this means is that we should do our best to understand all of the facets of justice in harmony. Retributive justice and restorative justice go hand in hand in God’s eyes. Justice against evildoers and justice for the oppressed are two sides of the same coin. Justice forensically and justice as a pattern of life are married together.
Unfortunately, much of Western American Christianity has made only one facet of justice definitive of the whole. We have emphasized the retributive, justice against evildoers, and forensic justice at the expense of restorative justice, justice for the oppressed, and justice as a pattern of life. We have made our ectypal theology of justice form the archetype, rather than vice-versa. Furthermore, we have created institutions and systems based upon this one-sided understanding of justice.
Solutions to the Problem
As is often the case when people recognize neglect of one truth for the sake of another, several modern Christians have suggested that we should entirely reject the current Western American understanding of justice wholesale. They appear to argue that retributive justice should be entirely replaced by restorative justice, for example. In fact, they even challenge the penal substitutionary view of the atonement that sees the work of Christ only in terms of retributive justice (i.e. Jesus received the justice we deserved in our place on the cross) and instead offer up other views of the atonement emphasizing restoration and healing.
Yet, the solution is not to reject our current understanding of justice but it is rather to flesh it out and broaden it with what we have neglected. There is actually a danger to only emphasizing a restorative view of justice. If there is no barometer of justice being given back exactly as it has been broken, restorative justice becomes a moving target and perhaps, even fickle. Seeing justice in terms of a pattern of life instead of forensic declaration entirely obliterates the anchoring of Christian identity in sure foundation.
Rather, justice should be seen as both retributive and restorative. God doesn’t want the under-serving or over-serving of justice and he desires the wholeness and restoration of a perpetrator. This may not make sense in our finite minds, but that is what we see throughout Scripture.
Justice should be both forensic declaration and a pattern of life. It is right to be able to say, as the Psalmist says, “Vindicate me according to Your righteousness” (Psalm 35:24) and “Vindicate me according to my righteousness” (Psalm 7:8). There is a sense in which Christians can call upon God to look upon our walk of life for our vindication (cf. Job).
The atonement should be seen as more than but not less than penal substitution. We are given many analogies in Scripture of what the atonement is like. It is like the scapegoat. It is like the passover lamb. It is like a purchase/redemption. It is like a rescue. It is like liberation. It is like healing and wholeness. It is like a ransom. It is like a victory. All of these pictures depict various facets of the atonement that are meant to be seen together. Penal substitution without any other picture of the atonement is gruesome and harsh. Any understanding of the atonement without penal substitution is arbitrary and superfluous.
Applying an Expanded Understanding of Justice
Where the rubber hits the road if we expand our understanding of justice is how it would impact many systems and institutions.
Imagine a criminal justice system that is informed by both retributive and restorative justice.
Imagine Christian discipleship that embraces both justice as declared righteousness and an imparted walk of life.
Imagine a robust understanding of the atonement that prevents professing Christians from using penal substitution as a warrant for violence, abuse, and bloodshed.
These are just a few examples, but the possible applications are extremely broad.
