is justice above god or is god just?
I went to community worship this morning and I must admit to being somewhat put out of joint by some of the things the speaker/preacher said. The whole thing had the opposite effect than what was no doubt intended–I was moved in the wrong direction and I was left a little grumpy by the whole experience. Anyhow, he was making a point of saying that the Isaian passages of hope are set in the context of the enormous exilic suffering of Israel. To make the point he referred to an experience of him visiting the Gaza strip. And in the process of decribing what he experienced there, he painted what I believe to be a very biased, and highly emotionally charged, tourist’s view of the Israeli-Paletianian conflict. Biased, because in that context, and without any balancing views or statements to frame the issues, it was bound to lead most people who were there to a classicly anti-semetic default sentiment of…”those bloody Jews, etc…” I am not even sure that the speaker was aware of it, but that does not excuse him in my book.
I must admit that as a Jew I am somewhat senstive to these issues. Who could blame us? Its not that we have not copped it just for being Jews through the centuries–and mostly at the hands of the church! To submit to anything that smacks of anti-semetism, even if unintended (and especially in a church) is very , very, hard for a Jew to take. But two things struck me this morning.
- That there we were, in church, worshipping the God of Israel through Israel’s Messiah, and we had failed somehow to honor Israel and what she has historically stood for. In fact all we were left with is a diminished view of this people! Just about all the things worthy in Christianity has been either adopted and adapted from Israel (monotheism, Messiah, the covenants, sacraments, etc.) So the horrible irony is that there we were standing on the shoulders of the hard won insights of the Jewish people and we were led (I believe) by the speaker to conclusions that undermined the very ground we were standing on!! This is not to say that we should approve of all that national Israel does in the name of political expediency, but at least we can honor the complexity of the situation by conditioning the comments with some sort of balancing statement rather than making cheap emotional points to help illustrate a sermon! This is particularly important in the light of church history. No! any critique of Israel must be done from within a covenantal view of God and history and should be tinged with Martin Luther King’s covenantal understanding of prophecy that goes something like this–that we would wish to change, we must first love. All I can say is shame, shame!
How odd of God to choose the Jews
But odder still…
Are those that choose the Jewish God
And scorn and hate the Jews.
- This leads me to my second point…I was left wondering again about the subtle distinction between an Idea of Justice and the God of justice (note the capitals.) This again (another irony) shows the fundamental difference between Hebraic and Hellenistic thinking. I suspect that most Christians in Western traditions of philosophy and the church operate more from something of an autonomous view of Justice. In this view Justice is a thing-in-and-of-itself. It is an autonomous, impersonal, principle which in a sense even God himself is subject to. And this might seem right to us at first because God cannot be anything but just, but the end result of thinking this way is to make Justice a higher principle than God. And in that very process Justice turns out to be nothing more than an idol…a god of our own making. This is unacceptable to the Hebraic concept of God. What we see in the Scriptures is that justice takes its reference from God himself and is what he says it is, and not something external to him–in other words it is deeply personal, thoroughly covenantal, and sometimes violates our own sense of what justice should be. But experinced from our side of the bargain (and we cannot experience it from any other place) tit will mean that sometimes we get offended at some of the events or experiences in the Bible (and history) that seem to imply that God himself violates what we consider just.
To illustrate my point, I found myself thinking what would the speaker this morning think if he was visiting Canaan at the same time when the Israelites were carrying out God’s clearcut command to take the land and destroy its inhabitants at the same time?? I believe that he could well be forced to conclude that God was unjust and that ‘those bloody Jews were up to their bloody tricks again!’ because he would thereby be assessing God by something extrinsic to him–namely an idea of Justice.And believe me, I don’t say any of this lightly–it is a truly difficult thing to comprehend and integrate a historical view of revelation into living faith because it profoundly shapes our view of God. But that’s precisely my point. It seems to me that God is profoundly just in a way we cannot possiblly comprehend using a philsophical principle– a mere Idea of Justice. In the Bible an act of justice/righteousness can at the same time and in the same act be an act of judgment as well (e.g. the Exodus.) But the prophets demonstrate exactly the same understanding: they not only proclaim God’s justice to the nation/s, but also proclaim judgement to them as well. In fact these often turn out to be two sides of the very same coin. We love the prophets for their view of social justice, but dislike the passages that speak of the ruin of nations. Seems a bit of a sham view of Revelation to me and it seems that when we do this, it is an autonmous principle operating again–in the end we will decide on what is just and what is not. We fail to take Revelation as a whole, given in and through the conrete, historical, and thoroughly ambiguous experiences, of history. All in all, a biblical view of history, God, and covenant, is hard to reconcile with a pure “Principle of Justice.” No, to be true to a Biblical teachings on what is just we must conclude that it is God that must qualify our idea of justice and not the other way around. This is what we can call ‘covenantal justice’ because God acts in accordance with his own nature and will, and according to his covenatal commitments and this changes things at a very deep level. God is just, but this is not the same as saying Justice is God.
So anyhow, that’s my rant for the week. I suppose the good thing is that somehow what I experienced as negative has forced me to reflect anew on the nature of God and his activities in this world and to conclude, that in spite of what history seems to indicate (and we Jews are fully aware at what life can dish out), that God is good!
Comments
21 Responses to “is justice above god or is god just?”
Leave a Reply
The Books
Affiliates
Recent Blog Entries
Recent Comments
-
the reason for god
- Amanda said: Wow, looks like an... the last thing to convert…is the wallet
- Richard Clarke said: The version I heard had...
- Andrew Park said: Money on a different...
- Andrew said: Relates directly to...
- Dan Lowe said: You know, if this was a...
- Amanda said: hehe, it's funny because...
- Lucy J said: Kinda reminds me of a...
- Eric said: The story goes that... the role of theology in faith
- Ed Magee said: thanks Janet, intersting...
- Janet said: "Are people looking for...
hi alan,
very interesting points… and challenging! i find the way you point out the intrinsically hebraic points of our faith quite thought provoking - i think it is probably impossible to understand god without this viewpoint. i think we westerners sometimes think that we came with the idea of christianity ourselves - rather than getting to know the god of abraham and jacob and moses who long predate our own ideas…
(ps - with this quote from above, were you pondering too much on your previous apple computers post! (your freudian slip in capitals):
“…thoroughly covenantal, and sometimes violates our own sense of what justice should be. But experinced from our side of the bargain (and we cannot experience it from any other place) TIT will mean that sometimes we get offended at some of the events or experiences in the Bible (and history)…”)
Hehehehe
That is funny. I will have to leave it there now.
Thanks for the comment.
Alan,
I couldn’t agree with you more……..and I’m not even Jewish!
Along with the distorted concept of justice most hold is the equally distorted notion of the justice of God being administered by evil men. Traditional thought has only those truly relationally committed to God through faith as being fit to administer the negative consequences of lawbreaking. Righteousness should deal with unrighteousness in this world.
Yet, the Scripture tells us that He has ordained the realm of evil to administer His judgment upon evildoers in this world.
To many this makes no sense at all. We seem to forget that His ways and thoughts are higher than ours.
Great post!
…thank you! I’m going for a walk here in Denver and will be thinking about these words from the depths of all our God is making of you. Again…thank you, Alan!!
That was funny Deebs/Alan…
How amazing it is that Western Gentiles would worship a Jew. Well said Alan! I am sorry you had that experience. Thanks for sharing and ranting but judgment of God is not too trendy to speak of even from the most influential Western Evangelical leaders…Joel Olsteen refuses to preach it, Billy Graham confesses Jews and Muslims do not necessilary Jesus (and I assume this implies do not come under the same justice/judgment of humanity) - not to mention JS Spong thinking…
I reckon the issue of God and justice is one of the most challenging for those who are exploring Christianity, because of a subscription (I think) to a notion of justice being something distinct from God that God himself must follow. Biblical events do not make sense from this (eg the flood, the laws requiring stoning for misdemeanors that in our context seem nonsensical) perspective any more than the issues that plague us now. The book of Job makes the point fabulously that God in his justice is beyond the ramblings and perceptions of his creation. Job’s friends did a stirling job of applying a legalistic and human centred approach to Job’s suffering. Job himself felt confident that his suffering was not about justice (as in something he deserved). God joins in and reminds Job, er who he is. The issue of whether Job was treated fairly no longer was a concern. What I do find heartening about it though is that in spite of all that he said, Job was pronounced right before God. So it is ok in the right posture before God, to ponder these things before him.
Disappointed to hear the anti-sematic flavour Alan…
Alan,
Good points all around. For sure, the Biblical view of Jewishness is that Christians are joining this people and not co-opting them. When will we grasp that all the glory of the nations will be gathered to God’s mount Zion in the New Jerusalem? What are these images if they are not that the Gospel truly fulfills God’s vision for his people — the center from which the gathering of all mankind extends? What is this darkness in human hearts that finds security in the exclusion of others?
I also disagree with the view of justice above God. That is one reason I have such a problem with C.S. Lewis’ theology in Chronicles of Narnia and elsewhere — where Aslan seems to be under justice as it talks of the cosmic law that binds him. We talked on the video call for the Forgotten Ways course about Lewis’ works, but the reason I do not enjoy him has to do with much of his philosophy being too compatible and not confrontational enough with modernist Western thinking.
Yesterday I was listening to the Speaking of Faith podcast about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. In the broadcast Charles Villa-Vicencio, a theologian on the commission, said that to speak of truth and justice outside of relationship on the nationalistic and societal levels is very dangerous. Only in the context of relationships do we discover the humanity in victums and aggressors and find real reconciliation. I think even within ourselves, justice is very violent if not encounter in a relationship with a just God (think of the expression “beating myself up over it”). My question then is, what has righteousness and justice to do with anything outside of relationship? I can only conclude nothing. Then the cross must be personalized. It can be no seat of propitiation sealed off in the Holy of Holies. It must be the dying-place of a friend, a way of life, a proof of my lover’s love.
…wow, Soulster…thanx! Extra thought provoking.
i think jesus straightened it all out on the cross… that’s the paradox of christianity - we accept christ and are dealt with unustly, that is, we are spared the death we rightly deserve. and amongst the many things in the OT we find hard to digest, there are definitely signs of the God who always the same. things such as the year of jubilee, the commandments on how to treat widows and orphans and the alien…
we see in our world the results of mankind thinking he can decide what is just… when jesus teaches about forgiveness and highlights that we should leave the judging to him is it not for our own good, cos we screw it up?
justice and righteousness do mean nothing outside relationship but only the relationship between us and god because he defines righteousness, justice, mercy, forgiveness…
we don’t really even get a say in what’s just!
True Deebs, and the cross itself is a very complex example of covenantal justice at work. The principle of Justice would never allow an innocent man to be able to take the punishment of the guilty. The cross violates our normal notions of justice. I would say rather, that it redefines it in a specific way.
Interestingly, Paul and the Hebrews writer usually provide the center of the Christian interpretation of the cross, and that in a construct of habeas corpus, social contract, and conservative/minimalist political philosophy that we read back into his legal language. I recommend rereading the cross in terms of the seventeen interpretive statments Jesus made about it to his followers [http://blog.thetruthtree.com/?p=11]. In his words, the cross is about Christus Victor, proving love, and a pattern for living. Only once does he refer to OT rite, and then not the rites of sin removal, but of fellowship. This defines justice for the Christian as something responsive, responsible, courageous, heroic, underserved, and relational. It totally transcends the punative concerns of justice which are so central in an individualistic society where justice is simply a means to prevent trespass onto the rights of members of the public (devoid of both God and community). In this case, the cross could only be about a God who has had his rights violated. Such a picture can contain nothing of the sense of longing, community, and sacrificial missional action of God’s justice.
Alan,
I’m sorry that inferred antisemitism (even unknowingly) still gets propagated and that you had to hear it. But you are doing right and turning junk like that into great calls back to God Himself. Excellent post and excellent comments.
I have never thought about this idea of God and Justice directly, but yes, it does resonate so true. Amos in particular, full of God’s justice, centers on Amos 5:8
, simply who is God. He isn’t the fuzzy bunny of good feelings. Rather He is the LORD! He has the power to declare the definition of justice and to enforce it or bestow grace as He sees fit. WE have no say in the matter except to seek the Lord. We have to know (not simply know about) God before we can seek justice.
This really is a renewing of the mind. How does this idea of applying our idea of justice (a virtue) to/above God work with other virtues? (Love, mercy, grace, truth, etc)
Mmmm, interesting question Cam. I think the same must apply to all the ‘virtues’. But I think the only qualification is that the Bible does say that God is Love. And I think it says the same about Truth. In other words Hhe is the origin and wellspring of all love and truth. but again, he gets to define it, so I suppose it is never extrinsic to him. CS? What do you think?
Alan - something about this makes me a little uncomfortable. Yes, ideas of ultimate Love and or Justice can become idols - but then so can our ideas about God. She is bigger than any of our pictures of Her. We necessarily carry a “picture” of who/how God is in our heads, but we humbly let that picture be re-drawn time and time again as we grow in faith. If we don’t - we’ve fashioned ourselves an idol. We need these ultimate ethical ideas of Love and Justice and Truth - but to say that one God combines / embodies these ultimate ideas (as we do) gives us a mind-bending challenge about how great God is. We realise that ultimate Truth and Justice and Love are characteristics of the same person - God - and that revolutionises our understanding of them (and underlines the impossibility of us drawing any final picture of God in our lifetimes).
So if something comes along that challenges our ideas about these ultimate ethics or our picture of God, we should allow any/all of them to be influenced… after all - that something might be God.
When God is represented as taking an action that appears to contravene one of these ultimate ethics - eg. instructing the Israelites to invade Canaan and destroy its inhabitants was not an especially loving thing to do, in my opinion - then I can either allow that to change what I think about Love (sometimes annihilating a nation can be a loving act), or I can change what I think about God (God is not Love). Alternatively, I can say that what has been presented is a picture of God, incomplete, maybe a little inaccurate in places, but still a picture of God.
Stephen, I totally agree that we can make ideas of God into gods and that we must constantly work out and test our conceptions up against waht the Scriptures say who God is. No disagreement here on that. What I am saying that Christianity, like Judaism, is bound to a distinctly historical revelation of who God is. This means it must be discerned from the complexities (and the significant ambiguities) of history and not from some pre-set idea of who we think God should be. That would make us the ultimate source of religious insight and authority and not God. Our ideas of God should be discerned from the Revelation about God in Scripture, nature, and history.
I have found, in my own case, that something along these lines:
usually means I will allow other humans to define God for me — pop culture’s Universal Principle, Greek/Christian conceptions of an immutable signularity, the philosopher’s absolute morality as God (though deflated by the Euthyphro Dilemma), Spinoza’s God, etc. What I am looking for is a God who defines himself.
If we understand interpersonal communication, this muct occur in real proximity and be identifiable as God speaking, apart from the “white noise” (or, I guess I’m saying that special revelation is the only reliable way to know God, though I do not limit such revelation to the text). This is what it would mean for the Kingdom of God to break into my reality, and it is not compatible with fuzzy language about a general purpose of the universe itself or spiritual imaginings and mythologizing about the experience of life in general.
Agreed that special revelation (the Bible) is the primary source of our understanding of God. but the Bible itself attests to some form of revelation in nature and history. All must be discerned in light of the Bible. It is the authoratative text for all matters of life and faith.
When us non-semitic people are saying “those bloody Jews” we have forgotten one bloody Jew in particular?
When us non-??? people are saying “those bloody ??? ” we have forgotten one bloody Jew in particular?
Alan it sucks that we live in a world full of crap, where people are full of fear and loathing… and it’s particularly sad when a gathered community is inflicted with the limitations of it’s leader. Sadly, not all who have leadership opportunity are yet perfected. I’m blessed and challenged by your example of using the impetus as motivation to reflect on the nature of God, and use the situation for the greater glory.
In the words of a greater Celt;
“May those who love us, love us.
And those who don’t love us,
May God turn their hearts;
And if He doesn’t turn their hearts,
May He turn their ankles,
So we will know them by their limping.”
A Celtic Son
right on CS! that’s one worth remembering…
i think this whole idea affects the basics of christian faith - earlier this week our little community were having a discussion framed around how we can believe in a god who lets people suffer and die and ultimately go to hell… the conversation came to how could god let a massive portion of the earths population end in destruction - some took the view that this doesn’t seem just or loving and therefore jesus died for everyone so everyone must go to heaven.
the problem i had with this is that it is letting us define what god should and shouldn’t do based on our terms and limited understanding. when we start to prescribe what god should be doing/should have done/should do in our opinion without basing it in his word our faith means nothing (that’s how i saw it anyway).
in the same way, i think this is where faith plays a big part of its role - there are some things that god has done and will do, that to me don’t seem just/right/loving… but i must have faith that HE IS just and loving etc… and look at the big picture of god’s redemption story throughout the bible…
All I can say.. Great. Well I’ll say a little bit more, it very true. I think we need to understand Justice and Judgement as two, inseperable things. We must understand that like them, God judges us too. We must be wise, we must not speak by our own deductions but must pray for wisdom.
Peace people
We love you