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).
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.
I'm not sure who's comment you are referring to Kris, but of course "justice isn't the earthly achievement of shalom" -- I'm not sure who has or would say otherwise?
Is "justice ... a condition for shalom"? Certainly, but there are more conditions for shalom than only a state of justice. And the word "justice" does not denote all the elements that are required for shalom, which is one of the reasons we should not conflate the words "justice" and "shalom," nor transfer the definitional content of the word "mercy" into "justice."
I won't offer on characterizing God's justice, but human judges of any particular court are often merely motivated by the obligation of doing their job when they render decisions (justice) in any particular case before them. Certainly, Christians ought to connect their faith (which requires loving God and neighbor) to their job. Thus, a judge who is Christian may well be "motivated by love" when applying the law (and hopefully thereby rendering justice) in cases where they render decisions.
I wouldn't say that judges who do justice out of the motivation of "doing their job" are seeking "revenge," even if they may not be acting out of love, but I'm not sure I'm understanding your post Mark.
Mark: I agree that if one loves, one will do justice (as you say, "I understand justice to be an aspect of love"), but that doesn't mean that if one does not love, one cannot (or at least sometimes will not) do justice. People in the real world often do justice without loving. But yes, people who in fact love do justice. Indeed, they also do mercy (because they "love mercy").
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: 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.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
I'm not sure who's comment you are referring to Kris, but of course "justice isn't the earthly achievement of shalom" -- I'm not sure who has or would say otherwise?
Is "justice ... a condition for shalom"? Certainly, but there are more conditions for shalom than only a state of justice. And the word "justice" does not denote all the elements that are required for shalom, which is one of the reasons we should not conflate the words "justice" and "shalom," nor transfer the definitional content of the word "mercy" into "justice."
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
I won't offer on characterizing God's justice, but human judges of any particular court are often merely motivated by the obligation of doing their job when they render decisions (justice) in any particular case before them. Certainly, Christians ought to connect their faith (which requires loving God and neighbor) to their job. Thus, a judge who is Christian may well be "motivated by love" when applying the law (and hopefully thereby rendering justice) in cases where they render decisions.
I wouldn't say that judges who do justice out of the motivation of "doing their job" are seeking "revenge," even if they may not be acting out of love, but I'm not sure I'm understanding your post Mark.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
What Dan said Mark. I with Dan am just defining words. Of course we should love and so justice, eve, love as we do everything we do.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Mark: I agree that if one loves, one will do justice (as you say, "I understand justice to be an aspect of love"), but that doesn't mean that if one does not love, one cannot (or at least sometimes will not) do justice. People in the real world often do justice without loving. But yes, people who in fact love do justice. Indeed, they also do mercy (because they "love mercy").