Jus post bellum justice provides us with two criteria: holding aggressors responsible (punishment) and providing some form of restoration to victims (restitution). The reality of our time suggests a very limited justice.

We shouldn’t redraw existing borders carelessly. But when trying to hold a state together becomes more disruptive to international order than allowing it to break apart, when one group mistreats another within a state, when a government loses the ability and authority to govern, the sensible course is to let that state dissolve.

The choice is not between open borders or Birkenau. The choice which lies before us is whether or not we will make a government which reflects the divine justice for which government exists. 

Most Christians, including most evangelicals, have been falling over themselves to denounce Jeff Sessions. But the way this immigration debate is carried out too often mirrors the political debate.

With Duterte, many felt heaven’s justice had come, wielding (symbolically and literally) the sword entrusted to government against evildoers. And despite international criticism, the Filipino people widely approve of the Duterte way. When offered the choice between vigilante justice and no justice at all, a downtrodden people will choose the former every time.

As history reminds us, the security payoffs of a “Fortress America” approach are ephemeral and fleeting. Both the national interest and international security suffer when America turns inward.

At any and every corner of personal and social life, the primary threat to human flourishing is the disordering of the human soul and social relations into self-centered, prideful, tribal, or sentimental factions. Chaos is a cancer that manifests itself within the soul of the individual and social relations when order disintegrates.