I would offer that your #4 falls into my #3. If government specifically targets the freedom of churches, or tries to impose taxes on them, an overwhelming majority of members would support efforts to oppose those government actions.
To clarify my #3...I'm not saying the denomination MUST support any policy that a vast majority of members support. I'm just saying that any social/political/economic issue supported by the denomination MUST meet one of the 3 criteria (preferably #1 or #2...#3 would only apply in rare cases like the things you mentioned where government is infringing on the specific rights, or trying to exercise control over them).
Nick, thanks for contributing this thought-provoking blog to the discussion.
If I could summarize:
- You interpret Scripture and the teachings of Jesus to favor open borders and the dissolution of nation-states, and replacing them with a one-world government.
- You are also in favor of CRC employees being allowed to use denominational resources for political advocacy.
- Presumably this is because you want the CRC as a denomination to push for the immigration policies you read in Scripture (no more borders, and one-world government).
- That's why you oppose Overtures 13 and 14...because you want CRC employees to continue pushing for open borders.
By "objective" I don't mean commonly-held. And I certainly don't base it on human standards. I totally agree with you that our standards are found in Scripture and God's law.
By "objective" I mean clear & definitive.
We can objectively know what we deserve by examining God's law and assessing cause & resulting effect. Choices & resulting consequences. Actions & resulting outcomes.
The modern definition of "justice" ignores these things, making "justice" completely subjective.
Things can kiss without conflating. In this case, you are actually conflating the words "kiss" and "conflate."
8 - )
Obviously there are other values and virtues that make justice better. Peace would be one them. Also grace, mercy, charity, and love. But you are tossing all of those virtues into a big pot and calling it "justice" stew. Every time you add one more virtue to "justice," you diminish both justice and the thing you have conflated with it.
Ice cream and root beer go great together. But root beer is not ice cream. They are 2 distinct things.
Mark, aren't you leaping from "love and justice SHOULD go together" to "love and justice MUST go together."
I intentionally spoke of defining in my article because it seems that people are getting very good at mashing concepts together, but not so good at defining them.
"Love" is something distinct, is it not? Likewise, "Justice" is something distinct, is it not?
It seems very obvious to me WHY so many people want to expand "justice" into an all-encompassing mish-mash of good vibes. Because if they can accomplish this, they can slap the label "justice" or "injustice" on anything they want to. Then they can compel their neighbors to support their "just" cause.
Eric, thank you for providing a deep Scriptural context to this discussion.
I have used this example to explain the difference between a good and bad definition of justice. Imagine that you go on a sky-diving trip. At 20,000 feet, you decide that the laws of physics don't apply to you, and you jump out without a parachute. Naturally, you plummet to your death. Has justice been done? Using the bad definitions of justice such as "Achieving shalom" or "Restoring creation to God's intended purpose" or "Making things right," you would have to say that a grave INJUSTICE has been done. You're dead! Your wife is now a widow. Your children will grow up without their father. Your friends have lost a loved one. Nothing good came of you falling to your death. Certainly nothing was "made right" or "restored" to the way God originally wanted it. There is no shalom. Just the opposite.
But...using a good definition of justice (one where we actually attempt to impart a useful meaning to the word), we would say that justice HAS been done. You got what you deserve. The laws of nature and of nature's God dictate that if a 180 pound human jumps out of a plane at 20,000 feet without a parachute, that person is going to die. Choice = consequence. Behavior = result. That is justice.
By the way, the person using a bad definition of justice would probably say there was a systemic injustice present, and would call for greater regulation of the sky-diving industry.
But are those things woven intimately together because they are the same thing? Can we use "mercy", "justice", and "righteousness" interchangeably? Are we egalitarian linguists now?
Or is it true that each of these have distinct meanings, even if they are complementary of one another?
Eric is correct. To tie it to the example, the police officer would pay the penalty of the driving violation himself, on behalf of the guilty motorist. Thus fulfilling the just requirements of the law, and extending MERCY that the motorist does not DESERVE.
So we can plainly see that "justice" and "mercy" are two distinct things. Justice being something we deserve; mercy being something we do not deserve.
"...that means that even our best understandings of justice, let alone our application of the same in our affairs will always have the twist of self-serving."
All the more reason our denominational employees should use caution when declaring that they KNOW that climate change is happening, and that it is an issue of "justice," and that they furthermore KNOW the correct course of action to take, eh?
Or that they KNOW that a thousand page tax & budget bill is also an "injustice," because they KNOW it will have a detrimental effect on the poor?
Not only are they using the wrong definition of "justice," they are claiming certainty where they clearly cannot have it.
I did not miss your point, Roger. It's just that you and I have a completely different understanding of Scripture. I read Scripture and see that justice WAS met in the divine sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Not justice from my perspective (God knows I do not want Him to render justice to ME...for I do not want to get what I deserve from God). But rather, justice from His perspective was done.
Thus this definition of "justice" SUCCEEDS: "People getting what they deserve, whether good or bad." Thank God I do not receive justice from Him, but rather mercy.
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
Thanks for your input, Doug!
I would offer that your #4 falls into my #3. If government specifically targets the freedom of churches, or tries to impose taxes on them, an overwhelming majority of members would support efforts to oppose those government actions.
To clarify my #3...I'm not saying the denomination MUST support any policy that a vast majority of members support. I'm just saying that any social/political/economic issue supported by the denomination MUST meet one of the 3 criteria (preferably #1 or #2...#3 would only apply in rare cases like the things you mentioned where government is infringing on the specific rights, or trying to exercise control over them).
I hope that helps. Thanks!
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
Nick, thanks for contributing this thought-provoking blog to the discussion.
If I could summarize:
- You interpret Scripture and the teachings of Jesus to favor open borders and the dissolution of nation-states, and replacing them with a one-world government.
- You are also in favor of CRC employees being allowed to use denominational resources for political advocacy.
- Presumably this is because you want the CRC as a denomination to push for the immigration policies you read in Scripture (no more borders, and one-world government).
- That's why you oppose Overtures 13 and 14...because you want CRC employees to continue pushing for open borders.
Is that an accurate summary?
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
By "objective" I don't mean commonly-held. And I certainly don't base it on human standards. I totally agree with you that our standards are found in Scripture and God's law.
By "objective" I mean clear & definitive.
We can objectively know what we deserve by examining God's law and assessing cause & resulting effect. Choices & resulting consequences. Actions & resulting outcomes.
The modern definition of "justice" ignores these things, making "justice" completely subjective.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Kris, it's good to hear from you again.
Things can kiss without conflating. In this case, you are actually conflating the words "kiss" and "conflate."
8 - )
Obviously there are other values and virtues that make justice better. Peace would be one them. Also grace, mercy, charity, and love. But you are tossing all of those virtues into a big pot and calling it "justice" stew. Every time you add one more virtue to "justice," you diminish both justice and the thing you have conflated with it.
Ice cream and root beer go great together. But root beer is not ice cream. They are 2 distinct things.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Kris, when God created Adam and Eve in the Garden, was there peace?
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Mark, aren't you leaping from "love and justice SHOULD go together" to "love and justice MUST go together."
I intentionally spoke of defining in my article because it seems that people are getting very good at mashing concepts together, but not so good at defining them.
"Love" is something distinct, is it not? Likewise, "Justice" is something distinct, is it not?
It seems very obvious to me WHY so many people want to expand "justice" into an all-encompassing mish-mash of good vibes. Because if they can accomplish this, they can slap the label "justice" or "injustice" on anything they want to. Then they can compel their neighbors to support their "just" cause.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Eric, thank you for providing a deep Scriptural context to this discussion.
I have used this example to explain the difference between a good and bad definition of justice. Imagine that you go on a sky-diving trip. At 20,000 feet, you decide that the laws of physics don't apply to you, and you jump out without a parachute. Naturally, you plummet to your death. Has justice been done? Using the bad definitions of justice such as "Achieving shalom" or "Restoring creation to God's intended purpose" or "Making things right," you would have to say that a grave INJUSTICE has been done. You're dead! Your wife is now a widow. Your children will grow up without their father. Your friends have lost a loved one. Nothing good came of you falling to your death. Certainly nothing was "made right" or "restored" to the way God originally wanted it. There is no shalom. Just the opposite.
But...using a good definition of justice (one where we actually attempt to impart a useful meaning to the word), we would say that justice HAS been done. You got what you deserve. The laws of nature and of nature's God dictate that if a 180 pound human jumps out of a plane at 20,000 feet without a parachute, that person is going to die. Choice = consequence. Behavior = result. That is justice.
By the way, the person using a bad definition of justice would probably say there was a systemic injustice present, and would call for greater regulation of the sky-diving industry.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
But are those things woven intimately together because they are the same thing? Can we use "mercy", "justice", and "righteousness" interchangeably? Are we egalitarian linguists now?
Or is it true that each of these have distinct meanings, even if they are complementary of one another?
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Eric is correct. To tie it to the example, the police officer would pay the penalty of the driving violation himself, on behalf of the guilty motorist. Thus fulfilling the just requirements of the law, and extending MERCY that the motorist does not DESERVE.
So we can plainly see that "justice" and "mercy" are two distinct things. Justice being something we deserve; mercy being something we do not deserve.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
"...that means that even our best understandings of justice, let alone our application of the same in our affairs will always have the twist of self-serving."
All the more reason our denominational employees should use caution when declaring that they KNOW that climate change is happening, and that it is an issue of "justice," and that they furthermore KNOW the correct course of action to take, eh?
Or that they KNOW that a thousand page tax & budget bill is also an "injustice," because they KNOW it will have a detrimental effect on the poor?
Not only are they using the wrong definition of "justice," they are claiming certainty where they clearly cannot have it.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Ah, but others ARE saying they are the same thing. That was the point of my article.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
I did not miss your point, Roger. It's just that you and I have a completely different understanding of Scripture. I read Scripture and see that justice WAS met in the divine sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Not justice from my perspective (God knows I do not want Him to render justice to ME...for I do not want to get what I deserve from God). But rather, justice from His perspective was done.
Thus this definition of "justice" SUCCEEDS: "People getting what they deserve, whether good or bad." Thank God I do not receive justice from Him, but rather mercy.