Justice Is as Justice Does?
A Conversation between Friends
Josh: Ok, Jeff, I hear you talk a lot about social justice, but what do you actually mean when you say that? It sounds really grand and, to be honest, maybe a bit self-important. But I’m unclear as to what this concept entails; it seems kind of vague.
Jeff: Yeah, it can be vague. Many who use the phrase don’t tend to define it. Instead, some will mention a list of issues – like racism, gender discrimination, classism, etc. But that’s not a definition. Still, any definition should be broad, if not vague. Therefore, Christopher Wright has written about mishpat (“justice”) in the “broadest terms” as actions undertaken to set things write – like they will be in heaven.
Josh: All right, but how is that any different from love? When I think of interpersonal relationships, shouldn’t love be what is primary? What is so significant about justice?
Jeff: In Luke 11:42, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for neglecting “the justice and the love of God.” The two are certainly related, but not identical. It seems that justice places certain demands on us pertaining to others in our society. But if I’ve heard you correctly, Josh, your question makes it sound like you think of justice merely as a subcategory of love.
Josh: Yeah, I guess that is where I was coming from. But I see your point – both love and justice do have social implications. I do care about these values; and I am sincere when I pray for God's kingdom – with all of the justice and love that it brings – to come on earth. But I guess I’m wondering what that looks like for me here and now. What am I supposed to be doing? I can’t save the world, and it irritates me when people like Bono preach at me as if I am to blame for the world’s problems because I’m not doing enough.
Jeff: Ugh, I hear you. Vocal, Bono-quoting Christians who wear their commitment to end poverty on their sleeve are often dismissed as “liberals,” or “guilt-trippers.” I should be more careful. But my instinct is that here at Trinity, we should, at least, be preparing ourselves to engage a world fraught with injustice. Let me ask you this: do you think that when you graduate you’ll be ready to lead your church – whether you’re in the suburbs or the city – to address urban poverty?
Josh: Not really. Back in undergrad when I was living in Knoxville, I used to talk with homeless people quite often in a given week; but it seems like since I’ve moved to the suburbs, I’ve forgotten how to interact with poor people, let alone lead a congregation to minister to them. I know that God has a heart for the poor, and I care too; but there’s only so much time, and my main priority must be preaching the gospel and addressing spiritual poverty.
Jeff: I’m certainly not asking you to “neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables.” What I am seeking is that we become ready to comfort the Chicago mothers who lost their children in the drive-by shootings this summer. How is “Christ died for sinners,” Good News to them? Frankly, one of my annoyances is the way that people forget that sin isn’t just a private matter between “me and God”; it affects every part of society. So, how could the complicated injustices be solved simply by preaching good theology?
Josh: Point taken. Evangelism and practical deeds of compassion and justice are linked; and I haven’t forgotten James’ warning about a dead faith that says, “Keep warm and well fed,” and then does nothing about someone’s physical needs. But my concern comes from looking at church history. I remember with sadness how the social gospel replaced the message of the cross and how acts of justice and mercy supplanted an emphasis on saving faith. Even today, I have noticed how my friends can get really excited about “being agents of social justice” and then lose their passion for Christ and him crucified.
Jeff: I’ve got friends who’ve gone that way, too. I’ll be up front. I don’t have a good answer. But John Stott’s quote haunts me: “Evangelical Christians during this century have tended to be in the rearguard, instead of in the vanguard, of social reformers.” That’s us. And I think we need to talk about these things.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
what do you guys think the Biblical differentiation is between economic justice (often meant as economic equality) versus justice from oppression/injury/etc?
casey, i'm not sure how to use all the economic jargon. Obviously, economic inequality (e.g. rich/poor gap) is SOMETIMES the result of oppression and injustice. But, I think people jump pretty quickly from Acts 2 to redistribution. To me, that's a descriptive/prescriptive error.
A friend once told me that he thought communism was most biblical. I think he admired the 'equality' it's supposed to engender. But one of my mentors, who worked behind the Iron Curtain reminds me that "some people are more 'equal' than others" in communist systems.
What prompts your question?
just wondering if anyone else has thought about that. this summer when i preached on what Proverbs has to say about money i wanted to use the word "Justice" for my final point. however in my limited study it seemed to me that the Bible always used the terms for "justice" to refer to right retribution or fair court trials etc and not at all to economic equality. I opted for the terms of "generosity" and "charity" rather than the often used "justice" to communicate the Proverbs verses. just wondering if anyone else has wrestled with this and what they found.
This is a good conversation. I appreciate your points, and think it is definitely worthwhile for reflection. I, too, have limited study, but here are a few of my thoughts. I see “justice” having economic implications. First, I do not think we’ll ever achieve universal economic equality on earth. As it says in Deuteronomy 15:11, “For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore, I command you saying, ‘You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.’” But in spite of the fact that the “poor will never cease to be in the land” Israel was commanded to freely open their hands to those who were “needy and poor.” I think this justice theme carries through Proverbs (Proverbs 14:31; 17:5; 19:17) and into the NT.
Perhaps, however, it comes down to a definition of terms. Because I definitely agree Generosity and Charity are called for, because they are the outworking of following the command to act justly with respect to those in need.
I’ve found the preaching from Amos in chapel to be particularly convicting around this issue of money and possessions. Indeed lack of economic justice was one cause for condemnation. Jeff, Casey, agree? Disagree? Thoughts?
Thanks for joining us Danny. Yes I wholeheartedly agree that “justice” has economic implications and that the theme is an important one that runs all the way through the Bible. My question is all about the definition of terms, as you wondered.
Very randomly, Dr. Cha spoke to my question (without me raising it!) yesterday in Social Exegesis class. He said precisely what I have been concerned about, and I have basically quoted him here:
“I am excited that more and more people are being concerned for “social justice.” However, whenever that word gets used, I get nervous, because I don’t know what they mean. I am not sure if the person using it is unwittingly importing secular idealogies via the word. What do we mean by social justice?! Secular African Americans often mean reparation. Secular Hispanics often mean comprehensive immigration reform. Gays and lesbians often mean something very different. Sometimes the term is used in a very political sense. Sometimes it fuels a sense of victim mentality. How we're using it could be quite different from what Scripture is teaching!”
This is particularly troubling when people read their various idealogies of justice back into Scripture and into what God means when He says “justice” or “do justly.” For example, a word study on Mishpat (which is overwhelmingly the word translated “justice” in the ESV) reveals that it deals with the process of law, litigation, and judgment (especially before judges and in courts). It counters oppression and avoids favoritism in carrying out the law. It has very little semantic overlap with words for “generosity.”
This is why I opted to use the terms “Generosity and Charity” in my sermon to communicate those concepts, rather than the more popular “justice.” Cha called us to use “Shalom” instead of “social justice.”
As far as your comment that “lack of economic justice was one cause for condemnation” in Amos, that would totally depend on your definition (which I am sure is a good one). It seems to me, however, that the nations’ injustices/oppressions were causing economic hardship for others (as in 2:6; 3:10,15; 5:7,11), and that is why they were condemned.
Again, lest I be misunderstood, I believe that God desperately wants us Americans to be much more generous in light of the global situation.
Casey,
First, thanks for integrating what you're learning in class! It makes this blog that much more interesting. Plus, Dr. Cha is a guiding light for many of us on these issues.
Re: word studies, Christopher Wright looks at the hendiadys, 'justice and righteousness.' If I've read him right, justice can have both a narrow and broad sense. When justice refers to, for example, the legal system, we're talking about the narrow sense. But the hendiadys gives us the broad sense and points to "shalom." For that matter, the legal system is meant to produce shalom in the Land.
I agree with Dr. Cha that "shalom" is the preferable word. It carries (for now) less baggage than "social justice." What do you think about "excorporating" the term social justice? That is, can we use it in an explicitly Christian way? Would that be worthwhile?
Regarding Amos, I don't understand your distinction. Are you saying that the nations (esp. Israel) are condemned for the consequences of their actions, but not their fundamental wickedness (which included a lack of economic justice)?
Finally, I think I hear you saying that generosity is not equivalent to justice - especially not in the narrow sense - and I would agree. I guess I would just ask you what “justice for the poor” looked like then and might look like today (Prov 29:7)?
Post a Comment