What if Hitler really believed in Jesus?

A common objection to the unconditional forgiveness offered in the gospel is that it is unjust. When public figures who have been embroiled in scandal and criminals caught in their crimes alike conveniently "find Jesus" we can't help but be skeptical.

Thirty years after Vietnam invaded Cambodia and toppled the Khmer Rouge, a totalitarian communist government that had slaughtered some 1.7 million of its own people, the Kingdom of Cambodia, backed by the United Nations, has begun a War Tribunal to prosecute surviving leaders of the Khmer Rouge.

The first defendant in these tribunals is Kaing Guek Eav, also known as Duch. He was the leader of Tuol Sleng prison in Phnom Penh. It is estimated that somewhere between 14,000-17,000 men, women, and children were tortured and killed under his rule. I visited Tuol Sleng last August (2008), and the mere thought of that place still brings a sickening feeling to the bottom of my gut.

The evidence is stacked against Duch. In fact, he has supplied most of the evidence himself. He has admitted his guilt. He has provided (and is providing) additional evidence about the atrocities perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge. He has expressed remorse for his crimes, even apologizing directly to the victims who suffered under his leadership. And he has been a professing believer of Jesus since 1995.

As tempting as it would be to question his profession of faith, I want to take this for granted here. Given that he genuinely believes in Jesus, what would justice and forgiveness look like in his trial? Can there be forgiveness for a person who has committed such heinous crimes against humanity?

As I read this news I thought of one of my favorite movies, "O Brother, Where Art Thou?". In the course of escaping a chain gang, Pete and Delmar came upon a congregation of new converts who were being baptized in a river, and they impulsively joined them. As they drove away from the scene in their stolen car, the two "forgiven" bandits began arguing the merits of their baptism with their skeptical friend, Ulysses. The dialogue goes like this:

Pete: The Preacher said it absolved us.

Ulysses: For him, not for the law. I'm surprised at you, Pete, I gave you credit for more brains than Delmar.

Delmar: But they was witnesses that seen us redeemed.

Ulysses: That's not the issue Delmar. Even if that did put you square with the Lord, the State of
Mississippi's a little more hard-nosed.

Ulysses is arguing for two separate forms of justice and forgiveness: "the Lord's" and "the State of Mississippi's". Forgiveness by the Lord does not necessarily lead to being absolved by the State. Likewise, condemnation by the State does not necessarily lead to condemnation by the Lord.

This seems to be the clear teaching of the Bible as well. The gospel extends unconditional forgiveness and reconciliation with God through faith in Jesus Christ. Here justice is vindicated by the cruel condemnation of Jesus on the cross for the crimes against God committed by the sinner:

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death." (Romans 8:1-2)

Yet at the same time, the Bible extends a different form of justice executed by civil authority, which is based on good conduct (not faith in Jesus):

"For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13:3-4)

These two forms of justice do not contradict one another because, although both come from God, they are administered in two very different kingdoms: the former from the Divine Kingdom (that lasts forever); and the latter from the Civil Kingdom (that does not last forever).

There is great power in this Biblical message of the two forms of justice and forgiveness administered in the civil and Divine realms. Here, there is safety and justice for a civil society, yet also redemption for the most hardened of criminals.

Ulysses Everett McGill said, "the State of Mississippi's a little more hard-nosed" but he had it backwards. Is it harder to receive absolution from a human tribunal with a finite knowledge of evidence that proves your guilt, or from God who has infinite knowledge of evidence that proves your guilt? Is it harder to receive forgiveness from a fellow flawed human being(s) administering flawed human laws, or from the perfect God who created and rules the universe?

The Bible extends the greater mercy under more strenuous standards of justice. That is the wonder of the cross. In a world where all sorts of crimes are perpetrated by people against one another, there is a place of true healing for both victims and guilty perpetrators in the cross. Only the cross can give a guilty human being the strength of character to willingly accept the full judgment of the law for his/her crimes out of love for society, country, and the good of the human race. Only the cross can give victims the strength of character to willingly forgive those who have hurt them.

I am not sure where the trial of Duch will lead. But I am praying for such healing in the Kingdom of Cambodia.