Revenge Is a Dish Best Not Served At All

The whole concept of revenge is great for drama. It serves as the backbone for some of the best formulaic action movies a'la hero's partner gets killed by villain, leaving the hero go rogue to avenge aforementioned partner's death. And who can forget Ricardo Montalban's awesome line in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan when he taunts Admiral Kirk as he sits on the bridge of the crippled Enterprise?: Do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish that is best served cold? ... It is very cold in space.

Let's face it. The pursuit of vengeance feels good. Visualizing it feels good. The buildup towards something that theoretically should somehow eliminate the anger, pain and angst over the original offense seems cathartic. Who doesn't fantasize about revenge? Everyone wants to stick it to the former employer who laid you off, the ex-best friend who suddenly found you uncool or the ex-girlfriend who ran away with an Olympic gymnast. In a fallen world which has at times fallen on top of us, we're tempted to make things "right" with revenge. Part of this comes from a warped belief that this is our own proactive way of "balancing out the universe".

Of course, this fails to account our very poor ability to calculate that balance. In an episode of "The Simpsons" titled "The Great Money Caper", Homer and Bart delve deeper and deeper into con artistry using this logic, first with Bart pretending to be indigent:

Bart:  People.  I guess they thought I was a charity case.
Homer: Really?  Hey, maybe we could do that again!  Can you look even more pathetic?
       [Bart messes up his face and whimpers]
       Oh-ho, that's beautiful!  We could make a fortune!
Bart:  But wouldn't that make us con artists?
Homer: Well, yeah, but ... God conned *me* out of 6,500 bucks in car repairs.
Bart:  So ... in a way, we'd just be balancing out the universe.
Homer: There you go!  We'd be stealing from people we know!  It's just like the seasons!

But Homer and Bart find it difficult to stop:

Bart:  Why are we still grifting?  The car's paid for; doesn't that balance out the universe?
Homer: In a way, but I also remembered some other stuff, like my bike that was stolen in third grade.  Plus the baldness.
Bart:  Okay, I'm sold.

From a Christian worldview, even those who are the most aggrieved have no standing in a self-adjudicated effort to "balance out the universe". In fact, the Bible teaches us that our cosmic standing is so wretched given our rebellion against God that we are compelled to not take up vengeance with our own hands. Jesus' parable of the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18:21-35 essentially tells us that each one of us has tallied a massive debt before God because of our sin and rebellion, and credibility and real justice dictates that in light of the grand forgiveness extended to us, we must forgive the (by comparison) paltry debts that we've tallied against each other.

Even on a practical level, I've rarely heard people say that they're really enjoyed getting back at someone that has somehow wounded them in the past. And even in situations where the person has been "successful" in getting revenge, I seriously question if their souls are any less troubled than they were before. Or put another way, what does it say about someone who somehow gleefully feels made whole in the pain or misfortune of another? Isn't that just a adult form of destroying somebody's sandcastle after they've destroyed yours, or "If I can't be happy, then you can't be happy either"?

I'm not talking justice here, where there's level-headed correction or penance without the poison of vindictiveness in the hopes that the culprit (and others, by example) will turn to righteousness and away from future wrongdoing . This is about a desire to make people who have wronged you suffer in the hopes that this will  provide balm for your wounded soul. I get the fact that the line sometimes gets fuzzy in practice, such as in the controversy where one widower of a 9/11 victim vocally spoke out against capital punishment for the accused, his conviction in part due to his desire to be consistent in his principles that capital punishment is morally wrong.

While the legitimacy of capital punishment is a related but separate issue, I can't help but extend him credit on the consistency of his principles. And given that he's proposing an ending which would be more merciful for those who killed his wife (despite the clamor of detractors who believe the solution is to take the  accused and "cut these bastards up into little pieces and burn them" or "hang them up-side-down and slit their throats while they are slowly burning"), I'd guess he's done some pretty good soul searching on seeking justice instead of personal vengeance.