I apologize for the absence. Having extended twice the deadline for finishing my manuscript, I couldn’t justify imposing on the kind folks at Wipf and Stock any longer. So, manuscript delivered, I am back.

In this last month, two strikingly similar cases have occupied the news. Hoda Muthana and Shamina Begum, each having travelled to Syria and married ISIS fighters, now want to return with their Syrian-born children to their home countries: Great Britain for Ms. Begum, the United States for Ms. Muthana. Ms. Begum, it appears, indisputably has British citizenship, which may now be revoked by the British Home Office because of her affiliation with ISIS. Ms. Muthana was born in the United States, has been treated as a citizen, and claims American citizenship, although the State Department now contests her citizenship (after issuing her a United States passport) on the grounds that her parents were here as diplomats when she was born.

The arguments against readmitting the two women  center around questions of security (are the two women dangers to their countries) and loyalty (should a country admit someone that aided and abetted the enemy.)  Those supporting readmission tend to focus on mercy. There seems no doubt that the two women now are in a terrible plight, as are hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees, endangered by ISIS supporters in those same camps.

I would like to suggest that these two positions are not mutually exclusive. If, as is so often the case these days, our debate on this issue assumes a justice versus mercy divide, I see no reason why we couldn’t have both. If, in fact, Ms. Begum or Ms. Muthana aided and abetted our enemies, they committed crimes against the laws of Great Britain and the United States, respectively, and should be tried for those crimes. The only way to try them is to readmit them and hear their stories in courts of law. One or both of them may have either legal or equitable defenses. Ms. Muthana went to Syria at 19, Ms. Begum at 15. How soon after they got there did they realize they had made a mistake? Were they terrorists, or brides of terrorists, captives, or slaves? We don’t know. There is only one way to find out.

The two cases also point out something even more troubling about our social and political discourse these days. On the one hand, anyone that admits to past indiscretions (Kevin Hart, Liam Neeson) faces ruin, even if they sincerely regret what they did. On the other hand, this seems to be a swing of the pendulum — and perhaps a brief one — from recent times when all questions of morality were deemed to be personal. It was said not so long ago that we tolerate everything except intolerance. What seems to be lost is that both these attitudes — pure judgment and complete tolerance — eliminate virtues that are central to the Christian worldview: contrition, penitence, forgiveness, redemption, reconciliation, to name just a few. If there is no sin, we have no need for forgiveness. If all our sins are unforgivable, there is no point in being repentant.  What a sorry world that would be.

In other words, there is no true justice without mercy, and no true mercy without justice. They go hand in hand. According to the Baptismal Covenant, we are required to “strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human
being?” All means all. Every means every, not just almost every. Justice and peace means both, not one or the other. Respecting the dignity of these two ladies does not require us to let bygones be bygones. In fact, it denies them the status of independent moral agents that is part of human dignity. But neither does it allow us to treat them as symbols of an evil adversary in order to make a political point.

Bishop N.T. Wright, in a letter to the Times, suggested that the story of the Prodigal Son should inform our view of Ms. Begum’s case.  As usual, Bishop Wright hits the nail on the head. I, however, would go a bit farther. I like to think that the day after the return of the prodigal, the welcome-home party having ended only an hour or so before, his father woke him at 5 in the morning with a cup of coffee, two Excedrin, and a hoe, telling him it was his turn to take the early shift in the fields. We do not respect the dignity of Ms. Begum and Ms. Muthana either by locking our doors to them, or by giving them a “get out of jail free” card. (To be clear, Bishop Wright suggests nothing of the sort.) We should let these ladies in, to face the consequence of their actions, whatever those might be. And may those consequences be both just and merciful.