It seems to me, Nick, that your approach conflates what Christians and the church should do with what government should do. I'm not saying that government should not do justice (that's it's main task) but I'm not so sure government should be in the mercy business, as should be Christians and churches (and all people for that matter).
I think it is fantastic that your congregation takes in refugees -- mine has too in the past. But I don't think that perspective says anything about what government should do or not to, it haven't the differentiated job of doing justice. Consider, for example, Christ's instruction to turn the other cheek. If government does that, society has chaos and government has not done its differentiated job.
Calvin Sem Professor Matt Tuininga has written a great book on Calvin's Two Kingdom theories. It does, I think, a good job (because Calvin did) of differentiating the task of government from the task of the Church (or Christians). These are important distinctions I believe (which didn't exist for Israel, which makes it difficult if not wrong to copy pithy statements (e.g., "welcome the stranger") from the OT to form government policy conclusions.
Another good book on this is Jim Skillen's "The Scattered Voice." I think the key for us in thinking about these questions is to discern the differentiated task of government. If we don't do that, we project the scriptural mandates to the Church and Christians as mandates for government, with the result being, frankly, injustice.
So when you say, "I do know that holding the line on immigration because we must preserve our own country is not Bible-based," I'm not so sure you aren't failing to discern the differentiated task of government. Would you say that a government may go to war to "preserve our own country"? I would. Indeed, I would say that defense of its citizens from outside force is a core responsibility of a government, even if the mandate for the Church and Christians (in their differentiated tasks) might be to "turn the other cheek" or to "love their enemy." Again, if we don't differentiate properly, the result will be injustice.
Nick. As to Calvin's political thought, check out Matt Tuininga's recently published book, "Calvin's Political Theology and the Public Engagement of the Church: Christ's Two Kingdoms."
I believe Matt is a current professor of moral theology at Calvin sem.
There is much about which you and I would agree. I'm not a libertarian, although I think libertarians often make valid points. Where I depart from them is when they get so infatuated with the idea of "the less the government the better" that they find themselves opposing any government.
Where you and I fundamentally differ perhaps is as to exactly how much "doing mercy" as opposed to "doing justice" is the government's task, as well as how much government should be a controlling entity in society in general.
I'm a pretty big fan of Teddy Roosevelt, BTW, but then that was back in the days where the governmental footprint was much, much smaller than it is today. That is, the pendulum was in a distinctly different place. Teddy's cousin, Franklin, began a move that pushed that pendulum to the other side of what I would consider to the the "sweet center," but I'll admit Franklin was dealing with anomalous conditions. The problem was there was insufficient swing back toward the center -- in some respects -- after the dissipation of the anomalous conditions.
Still not all needed swinging back. I favor a national "federal reserve" banking system, even if many libertarians would disagree with that. I favor an "economic safety net" but not expanded to the point where that net entraps recipients into dependency. Thus I favor work requirements (with appropriate nuance) for government assistance -- as well as other restrictions designed to avoid dependency. That's a justice issue in my mind, but providing a "liveable minimum wage" is not a political perspective that ultimately is helpful to anyone (but that's an economics discussion as well).
I also perhaps depart from your perspective as to a nation's purported duty to show love (if by that you mean mercy) to citizens of foreign nations. I think that is better and more responsibly done by the citizenry providing mercy (as opposed to their government). My perspective in that regard would create great opportunity for the church (institutional and organic) and indeed, the church is working in that area now.
For me, distinguishing between justice and mercy is required to formulate a biblically consistent view of the task of government, which is where I find myself departing from the "social justice" crowd. I think they conflate the two, and assume that government should implement their idea of what mercy should be dispensed, usually on someone else's expense of course given that government has the power to tax (a component of the power of the sword).
That Scripture, examined in context and as a whole, does not condemn what we today might call the rights of "self-defense" or "defense of others" (legal concepts having their basis, as US law does, in the worldview of Christianity) is not an automatic conclusion drawn by Christians these days, even CRC ones, even if it once was.
This article should be posted on the Do Justice site.
I don't like bumper sticker theology either, that is, drawing simplistic truths from out of context "proof texts." But then there is the opposite problem too, refusing to extract any truth at all from scripture (except that we "must all love each other," ironically an example of simplistic proof texting).
Take the year of jubilee. Some want to simplistically apply that to 21st century politics (maybe theonomists, or opposite that some social justice fans). Others ignore it as the OT (just not applicable anymore). I think the principle in the year of jubilee should inform us (whether as to how we do government or personal living), but not be a particular formula.
I think this article hits the sweet spot of interpreting OT rather well. It extracts a generalized principle (self-defense and defense of others is allowed, good and proper), without getting too specific (e.g., that we should adopt Persian law or that we may arm ourselves only with swords and spears but not guns).
I do understand why some would fail to see the principle translation of the Esther story to the 2nd Amendment, but if they do, I think it is because they don't (or won't) understand the argument dominantly made by 2nd Amendment fans. Other than using guns for extracurriculars like hunting or sport (which many also abhor), 2nd Amendment fans want the right to have guns to defend themselves and (usually more important to them) their families. If we assume the latter motivation, Esther provides an pretty spot on scriptural principle for extraction.
Of course, if you assume 2nd Amendment fans are bullies or tough guys that like to swagger by their armament display ...... well, Esther doesn't help at all, and doesn't seem to apply to today.
I don't own a gun, never have. But my sense of the many people who do -- that sense gained from my living with them -- is that they don't want guns to be bullies or show swagger. In fact, I find gun owners to be, statistically speaking, a group that has perhaps an extra dose of feeling responsible to live with personal integrity and to be responsible, including to others.
I can understand Christians who take the position that they ought not avail themselves of any kind of "self defense" right (or permission).
The tougher case is "defense of others." If your home was burglarized and the invaders were inclined to kill your wife and four kids, would those who say "no thank you" to self defense choose to decline their power to kill the invaders if that was the only way to keep their family alive? I doubt it. Nor should they.
Keep in mind too that if if a psychopath kills me, just cuz he can, and I don't resist, I've allowed him to kill my wife's husband, my children's father, and my grandchildren's grandpa (saying nothing about other relationships). It may be easy to say "I'm willing to die," but it's not nearly as easy to allow a husband, father, grandfather, etc, die -- so that I can be noble in literally turning my cheek.
Frankly, I think "turn the other cheek" is as problematic to interpret literally as the Esther story, perhaps more so. Esther was a real story about something that actually happened in a real world context while turn the other cheek a short wisdom like statement. Hmmm. Kind of like Peter having the sword in the Garden in the first place.
In real life, I might choose not to kill in self defense. I have defended a client against a murder prosecution where my client shot and killed his crazed attacker. I and my family have been threatened by someone who ordered a contract killing in Mexico (of my client, failed). I've thought about this in the real. And when I have, deciding to die myself wasn't so problematic, but then there was my family, my children's father, my wife's husband. Sorry but I would defend them, especially from evil people, as I would their husband and father (even if that's me). That's an easy decision for me.
I don't own a gun, but I do have a baseball bat in my bedroom closet (my 34 inch Carl Yastremski model Louisville Slugger from my college days). I have it there for the same reason I might have a gun in the bedroom. I'm sure some gun owners might think my method is deficient but the point is I have it there to defend my family. And yes, I could kill with that bat -- no question.
I don't think an article about Esther and self-defense is about guns per se but about the right to defend (one's self or others) with force, even lethal force in extreme and uncommon circumstances. It is in fact about whether I should have my "Yaz" in my bedroom closet.
Put another way, the appropriate and meaningful discussion we might have is not about "gun culture" (as our Banner editor suggests in his recent submission) but about Christians and the use of force, whether via a gun, a 34" baseball bat, or just arms and a fist -- or even via proxies like police and soldiers.
Which is why OSJ should have published this article on their Do Justice site. :-)
I'm with you on your wish for a certain kind of society Keith, and where I grew up (NW Iowa) it was -- probably is still -- much more like that. Greater population density tends to degrade society I think, for a variety of reasons (anonymity being a big one). Too, my occupation results in my seeing "things in society" that others not in my occupation don't.
But still, notice that all communities have police, our proxies, who carry guns that can kill no less. And we probably all vote to fund police forces. Granted, where folks feel less "secure," and doubt that police could arrive within a moment's notice (also more the case in cities vs towns), the more they will -- and should in my view -- think about their own ability to defend. No, this doesn't mean we should obsess about weapons. (Hey, in my case it only means a baseball bat). But it is true that if I still lived in NW Iowa, my "Yaz" (bat) might be in the attic and not in bedroom closet, even if it is true that on the east side of Salem, Oregon, it should be in my bedroom closet.
What a delightful and constructive article Dan. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
Far too often, often we (adults) give insufficient thought to the words we throw around glibly, without taking the time to thoughtfully work through the meaning of the word (and/or what the word should mean). And "justice" is certainly one of those words -- especially these days. Indeed, the attempt to morph the meaning of the word (and concept) of justice is probably the primary cause of the intense political division we are seeing in the society around us today.
I've read Nick Wolterstorff's books (three of them actually) on the topic of justice and found them unhelpful, at least for discerning the meaning of the word "justice."
Wolterstorff would like to define the word "shalom" instead of the word "justice," or said another way, to conflate the two. Of course, that's all part of the "social justice" movement, which I'd suggest Wolterstorff very much appreciates, while I don't too much.
Certainly, it is the case that the definition of "rendering to each his due" needs a lot of flesh put on the bones, but I think this article does a good job of beginning to do just that by distinguishing between the words "justice" and "equality." Indeed, that distinction does get to the essence of our current society's real and large disagreement.
I've always disagreed with that pithy description of justice, Terry.
In my mind, "doing justice" (public or otherwise) does not give the appearance of, nor is it, "love."
Your pithy definition describes respect, fairness, strict obedience perhaps, but not love.
Micah 6:8 tells us to DO JUSTICE and also to LOVE MERCY. I don't think we see love unless both are done. Merely doing the former (justice) is like "doing good to your friends -- so what, do not the heathen do as much?"
To exhibit love, one must also do mercy, because one loves mercy.
And this is where some of the harmful conflation has happened, including in the Christian community. We've stopped talking about mercy (charity) and have pushed the definitional content of the word mercy into justice.
Result: we increasingly live in a society where mercy is demanded (since it is now justice and justice should be required) and where mercy cannot be given out of love (since one must give it out of obligation). Of course, this change has manifested itself politically more than in other ways, but in other ways as well.
I'm actually just distinguishing between justice and mercy Mark. Doing justice is our obligation. We aren't given a choice. Its a demand. Do justice. On the other hand, we are required only to love (not do) mercy. Certainly, if we love mercy we will do it , even if not always (no one is omniscient), but one must do justice even if one is not inclined to do it. One doesn't exhibit love mercy by obeying a requirement (even if disobeying it may exhibit hate).
I suppose I come from my own life's experience, as an attorney for about 39 years now. When the court (or government generally) is acting, it rightfully demands, obligates, it citizenry to do justice and if a citizen doesn't, government calls into account (or should). And although a citizen doing as required is certainly not unloving, it isn't necessarily loving. Love is, mercy is, when we give of ourselves without obligation, absent duty. The greatest of these is love, not justice. And we have an example to look at for that of course.
If all of mercy becomes justice, it won't be mercy anymore. It won't be giving but mere obedience to a requirement.
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
It seems to me, Nick, that your approach conflates what Christians and the church should do with what government should do. I'm not saying that government should not do justice (that's it's main task) but I'm not so sure government should be in the mercy business, as should be Christians and churches (and all people for that matter).
I think it is fantastic that your congregation takes in refugees -- mine has too in the past. But I don't think that perspective says anything about what government should do or not to, it haven't the differentiated job of doing justice. Consider, for example, Christ's instruction to turn the other cheek. If government does that, society has chaos and government has not done its differentiated job.
Calvin Sem Professor Matt Tuininga has written a great book on Calvin's Two Kingdom theories. It does, I think, a good job (because Calvin did) of differentiating the task of government from the task of the Church (or Christians). These are important distinctions I believe (which didn't exist for Israel, which makes it difficult if not wrong to copy pithy statements (e.g., "welcome the stranger") from the OT to form government policy conclusions.
Another good book on this is Jim Skillen's "The Scattered Voice." I think the key for us in thinking about these questions is to discern the differentiated task of government. If we don't do that, we project the scriptural mandates to the Church and Christians as mandates for government, with the result being, frankly, injustice.
So when you say, "I do know that holding the line on immigration because we must preserve our own country is not Bible-based," I'm not so sure you aren't failing to discern the differentiated task of government. Would you say that a government may go to war to "preserve our own country"? I would. Indeed, I would say that defense of its citizens from outside force is a core responsibility of a government, even if the mandate for the Church and Christians (in their differentiated tasks) might be to "turn the other cheek" or to "love their enemy." Again, if we don't differentiate properly, the result will be injustice.
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
Nick. As to Calvin's political thought, check out Matt Tuininga's recently published book, "Calvin's Political Theology and the Public Engagement of the Church: Christ's Two Kingdoms."
I believe Matt is a current professor of moral theology at Calvin sem.
There is much about which you and I would agree. I'm not a libertarian, although I think libertarians often make valid points. Where I depart from them is when they get so infatuated with the idea of "the less the government the better" that they find themselves opposing any government.
Where you and I fundamentally differ perhaps is as to exactly how much "doing mercy" as opposed to "doing justice" is the government's task, as well as how much government should be a controlling entity in society in general.
I'm a pretty big fan of Teddy Roosevelt, BTW, but then that was back in the days where the governmental footprint was much, much smaller than it is today. That is, the pendulum was in a distinctly different place. Teddy's cousin, Franklin, began a move that pushed that pendulum to the other side of what I would consider to the the "sweet center," but I'll admit Franklin was dealing with anomalous conditions. The problem was there was insufficient swing back toward the center -- in some respects -- after the dissipation of the anomalous conditions.
Still not all needed swinging back. I favor a national "federal reserve" banking system, even if many libertarians would disagree with that. I favor an "economic safety net" but not expanded to the point where that net entraps recipients into dependency. Thus I favor work requirements (with appropriate nuance) for government assistance -- as well as other restrictions designed to avoid dependency. That's a justice issue in my mind, but providing a "liveable minimum wage" is not a political perspective that ultimately is helpful to anyone (but that's an economics discussion as well).
I also perhaps depart from your perspective as to a nation's purported duty to show love (if by that you mean mercy) to citizens of foreign nations. I think that is better and more responsibly done by the citizenry providing mercy (as opposed to their government). My perspective in that regard would create great opportunity for the church (institutional and organic) and indeed, the church is working in that area now.
For me, distinguishing between justice and mercy is required to formulate a biblically consistent view of the task of government, which is where I find myself departing from the "social justice" crowd. I think they conflate the two, and assume that government should implement their idea of what mercy should be dispensed, usually on someone else's expense of course given that government has the power to tax (a component of the power of the sword).
Posted in: Missional Pastoral Care
And I still can't figure out exactly what the word "missional" means. :-)
Posted in: Esther and the 2nd Amendment
What a delightful article.
That Scripture, examined in context and as a whole, does not condemn what we today might call the rights of "self-defense" or "defense of others" (legal concepts having their basis, as US law does, in the worldview of Christianity) is not an automatic conclusion drawn by Christians these days, even CRC ones, even if it once was.
This article should be posted on the Do Justice site.
;-)
Posted in: Esther and the 2nd Amendment
I don't like bumper sticker theology either, that is, drawing simplistic truths from out of context "proof texts." But then there is the opposite problem too, refusing to extract any truth at all from scripture (except that we "must all love each other," ironically an example of simplistic proof texting).
Take the year of jubilee. Some want to simplistically apply that to 21st century politics (maybe theonomists, or opposite that some social justice fans). Others ignore it as the OT (just not applicable anymore). I think the principle in the year of jubilee should inform us (whether as to how we do government or personal living), but not be a particular formula.
I think this article hits the sweet spot of interpreting OT rather well. It extracts a generalized principle (self-defense and defense of others is allowed, good and proper), without getting too specific (e.g., that we should adopt Persian law or that we may arm ourselves only with swords and spears but not guns).
I do understand why some would fail to see the principle translation of the Esther story to the 2nd Amendment, but if they do, I think it is because they don't (or won't) understand the argument dominantly made by 2nd Amendment fans. Other than using guns for extracurriculars like hunting or sport (which many also abhor), 2nd Amendment fans want the right to have guns to defend themselves and (usually more important to them) their families. If we assume the latter motivation, Esther provides an pretty spot on scriptural principle for extraction.
Of course, if you assume 2nd Amendment fans are bullies or tough guys that like to swagger by their armament display ...... well, Esther doesn't help at all, and doesn't seem to apply to today.
I don't own a gun, never have. But my sense of the many people who do -- that sense gained from my living with them -- is that they don't want guns to be bullies or show swagger. In fact, I find gun owners to be, statistically speaking, a group that has perhaps an extra dose of feeling responsible to live with personal integrity and to be responsible, including to others.
Posted in: Esther and the 2nd Amendment
I can understand Christians who take the position that they ought not avail themselves of any kind of "self defense" right (or permission).
The tougher case is "defense of others." If your home was burglarized and the invaders were inclined to kill your wife and four kids, would those who say "no thank you" to self defense choose to decline their power to kill the invaders if that was the only way to keep their family alive? I doubt it. Nor should they.
Keep in mind too that if if a psychopath kills me, just cuz he can, and I don't resist, I've allowed him to kill my wife's husband, my children's father, and my grandchildren's grandpa (saying nothing about other relationships). It may be easy to say "I'm willing to die," but it's not nearly as easy to allow a husband, father, grandfather, etc, die -- so that I can be noble in literally turning my cheek.
Frankly, I think "turn the other cheek" is as problematic to interpret literally as the Esther story, perhaps more so. Esther was a real story about something that actually happened in a real world context while turn the other cheek a short wisdom like statement. Hmmm. Kind of like Peter having the sword in the Garden in the first place.
In real life, I might choose not to kill in self defense. I have defended a client against a murder prosecution where my client shot and killed his crazed attacker. I and my family have been threatened by someone who ordered a contract killing in Mexico (of my client, failed). I've thought about this in the real. And when I have, deciding to die myself wasn't so problematic, but then there was my family, my children's father, my wife's husband. Sorry but I would defend them, especially from evil people, as I would their husband and father (even if that's me). That's an easy decision for me.
Posted in: Esther and the 2nd Amendment
I don't own a gun, but I do have a baseball bat in my bedroom closet (my 34 inch Carl Yastremski model Louisville Slugger from my college days). I have it there for the same reason I might have a gun in the bedroom. I'm sure some gun owners might think my method is deficient but the point is I have it there to defend my family. And yes, I could kill with that bat -- no question.
I don't think an article about Esther and self-defense is about guns per se but about the right to defend (one's self or others) with force, even lethal force in extreme and uncommon circumstances. It is in fact about whether I should have my "Yaz" in my bedroom closet.
Put another way, the appropriate and meaningful discussion we might have is not about "gun culture" (as our Banner editor suggests in his recent submission) but about Christians and the use of force, whether via a gun, a 34" baseball bat, or just arms and a fist -- or even via proxies like police and soldiers.
Which is why OSJ should have published this article on their Do Justice site. :-)
Posted in: Esther and the 2nd Amendment
I'm with you on your wish for a certain kind of society Keith, and where I grew up (NW Iowa) it was -- probably is still -- much more like that. Greater population density tends to degrade society I think, for a variety of reasons (anonymity being a big one). Too, my occupation results in my seeing "things in society" that others not in my occupation don't.
But still, notice that all communities have police, our proxies, who carry guns that can kill no less. And we probably all vote to fund police forces. Granted, where folks feel less "secure," and doubt that police could arrive within a moment's notice (also more the case in cities vs towns), the more they will -- and should in my view -- think about their own ability to defend. No, this doesn't mean we should obsess about weapons. (Hey, in my case it only means a baseball bat). But it is true that if I still lived in NW Iowa, my "Yaz" (bat) might be in the attic and not in bedroom closet, even if it is true that on the east side of Salem, Oregon, it should be in my bedroom closet.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
What a delightful and constructive article Dan. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
Far too often, often we (adults) give insufficient thought to the words we throw around glibly, without taking the time to thoughtfully work through the meaning of the word (and/or what the word should mean). And "justice" is certainly one of those words -- especially these days. Indeed, the attempt to morph the meaning of the word (and concept) of justice is probably the primary cause of the intense political division we are seeing in the society around us today.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
I've read Nick Wolterstorff's books (three of them actually) on the topic of justice and found them unhelpful, at least for discerning the meaning of the word "justice."
Wolterstorff would like to define the word "shalom" instead of the word "justice," or said another way, to conflate the two. Of course, that's all part of the "social justice" movement, which I'd suggest Wolterstorff very much appreciates, while I don't too much.
Certainly, it is the case that the definition of "rendering to each his due" needs a lot of flesh put on the bones, but I think this article does a good job of beginning to do just that by distinguishing between the words "justice" and "equality." Indeed, that distinction does get to the essence of our current society's real and large disagreement.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
I've always disagreed with that pithy description of justice, Terry.
In my mind, "doing justice" (public or otherwise) does not give the appearance of, nor is it, "love."
Your pithy definition describes respect, fairness, strict obedience perhaps, but not love.
Micah 6:8 tells us to DO JUSTICE and also to LOVE MERCY. I don't think we see love unless both are done. Merely doing the former (justice) is like "doing good to your friends -- so what, do not the heathen do as much?"
To exhibit love, one must also do mercy, because one loves mercy.
And this is where some of the harmful conflation has happened, including in the Christian community. We've stopped talking about mercy (charity) and have pushed the definitional content of the word mercy into justice.
Result: we increasingly live in a society where mercy is demanded (since it is now justice and justice should be required) and where mercy cannot be given out of love (since one must give it out of obligation). Of course, this change has manifested itself politically more than in other ways, but in other ways as well.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
I'm actually just distinguishing between justice and mercy Mark. Doing justice is our obligation. We aren't given a choice. Its a demand. Do justice. On the other hand, we are required only to love (not do) mercy. Certainly, if we love mercy we will do it , even if not always (no one is omniscient), but one must do justice even if one is not inclined to do it. One doesn't exhibit love mercy by obeying a requirement (even if disobeying it may exhibit hate).
I suppose I come from my own life's experience, as an attorney for about 39 years now. When the court (or government generally) is acting, it rightfully demands, obligates, it citizenry to do justice and if a citizen doesn't, government calls into account (or should). And although a citizen doing as required is certainly not unloving, it isn't necessarily loving. Love is, mercy is, when we give of ourselves without obligation, absent duty. The greatest of these is love, not justice. And we have an example to look at for that of course.
If all of mercy becomes justice, it won't be mercy anymore. It won't be giving but mere obedience to a requirement.