I'll start it out: Is the typical definition of Justice really the definition we should be using when we describe God as "Just"?
8 comments:
Anonymous
said...
By "typical definition of justice" do you mean like we think of in our legal system in the U.S.? Or do you mean an "eye for an eye" type of justice? I guess what I mean to say is, "Josh, can you elaborate?" :)
For example: how do you think a "Just God" is typically described and how do you think that description is off the mark?
I think that definition is what needs to be discussed. Everyone says "God is just". As I understand that, it means we would all get punched in the face all the time for what we do everyday, but if you are really good, you would have a good life. But, those things aren't correct. I think my real problem is that it is easy to see that God is mercyful and Mercy and Justice don't really work together.
There's a sign outside a church near my office that says, "god is faithful and just in all things". I always see it on my way to visit my clients who are inmates at the detention center, and it always bothers me. On the one hand, yes, sure. On the other hand, it is very hard to square with the pathetic lives and hopeless situations of most of the families I work with. I always wonder how they would react if they saw that sign...
Sorry - this is Jess....I've always had a problem with that phrase as well, "God is just." Not to be funny, but God is just what? It doesn't make sense - really I guess it should be more like "God is just and in your life." Meaning that lessons are taught in each of our lives through a God that is compassionate and fair, giving you challenges that God already knows you can conquer.
Yeah, I don't know. To me, this gets into the "free will" area a lot. Because how can God enforce justice (punishing those who do evil, rewarding those who do good) while still allowing for free will? This is where it breaks down for me: it would work as long as our individual actions never affected the lives of others. Then, it would be quite easy to have "justice." But, as it is, when people act on authority of their own free will and commit acts of evil, they ineveitably harm others who are good-doers. This results in plenty of good-doers with suffering in their lives. But God can hardly make others immune to an individual's actions because then we wouldn't be in relationship with one another.
Maybe "just" means that we humans will never act in a vacuum. Maybe it only means that God will always ensure a reaction. Your actions will affect something. In that case, "justice" would simply have no good or bad conotation. It would just be the condition of reaction to each other in relationship. That would be God establishing that we are all inter-connected. That each of our actions affect one another. Maybe the judgement of what effects are good vs. bad and what action is warranted is a different issue.
That sounds more like Karma. Justice always seems to me to have a definition of "good judgement" I think we could easily say that God has "good judgement" but it also implies a penalty or reward for action. I think my real though about this turns on the definition of the crusifixtion of Christ. I have heard it said many times that because of God's just nature Christ had to be sacrificed for our sins. But, how does sacrificing Chirst for our sins create justice? I might as well beat my own child for the kid across the street's behavior. It seems to me that God is saying, "Look, if I was a human I would do anything to get you to come to me, even sacrificing my own life." That's mercy, not justice. It is almost as if God sent Christ as a metaphore for how he interacts with us. It has to be a metaphore because we are not capable of understanding the enirety of God. Now I'm rambling off subject.....
But God is also love. Justice and mercy always go hand in hand. Because God is just, He must punish. But God always tempers his anger at sin with mercy. Its the whole reason he sent His Son to earth. Christ came to earth as an example for us to follow and a demonstration of what God requires because God is holy and rightous. Mere humans are unable to live up to God's standard. Because of Christ's death, God offers us justification. Justification is the result of God's mercy whereby God declares us innocent and set right with God so we can have unfettered relationship with a holy God himself.
I just read this from an interview with Archishop Tutu:
I think when people speak of justice they almost always have one kind of justice in mind ...
Retributive?
Retributive justice, yes. The purpose is punitive, setting out to punish the miscreant. But even on the basis of retributive justice, what we set out to do, didn't exclude it completely.
When a perpetrator applied for amnesty, it almost always was the case that the application had to be in open court, had to be public. Imagine what it meant when someone who had kept his identity as member of the death squad under wraps to say in full glare that "I unleashed the kind of thing that I did". In some cases, it was the first time that even wives got to know what their husbands were up to. Quite a few even got divorced.
So I would say that even just in terms of retributive justice, the process did not mean letting off the perpetrator. There was the public shame and embarrassment. But having said that, it is crucial to say that the process was based on restorative justice, where the fundamental purpose is healing. When an offence has caused a breach in relationship, retributive justice clobbers the perpetrator. In fact, it leaves out of the victim completely. In our process, the victims were given the opportunity of telling their story. I was surprised by how potent telling one's story can be as therapy. We found that telling your story about what happened to a forum that was sympathetic was a form of rehabilitation.
8 comments:
By "typical definition of justice" do you mean like we think of in our legal system in the U.S.? Or do you mean an "eye for an eye" type of justice? I guess what I mean to say is, "Josh, can you elaborate?" :)
For example: how do you think a "Just God" is typically described and how do you think that description is off the mark?
I think that definition is what needs to be discussed. Everyone says "God is just". As I understand that, it means we would all get punched in the face all the time for what we do everyday, but if you are really good, you would have a good life. But, those things aren't correct.
I think my real problem is that it is easy to see that God is mercyful and Mercy and Justice don't really work together.
There's a sign outside a church near my office that says, "god is faithful and just in all things". I always see it on my way to visit my clients who are inmates at the detention center, and it always bothers me. On the one hand, yes, sure. On the other hand, it is very hard to square with the pathetic lives and hopeless situations of most of the families I work with. I always wonder how they would react if they saw that sign...
Sorry - this is Jess....I've always had a problem with that phrase as well, "God is just." Not to be funny, but God is just what? It doesn't make sense - really I guess it should be more like "God is just and in your life." Meaning that lessons are taught in each of our lives through a God that is compassionate and fair, giving you challenges that God already knows you can conquer.
Yeah, I don't know. To me, this gets into the "free will" area a lot. Because how can God enforce justice (punishing those who do evil, rewarding those who do good) while still allowing for free will? This is where it breaks down for me: it would work as long as our individual actions never affected the lives of others. Then, it would be quite easy to have "justice." But, as it is, when people act on authority of their own free will and commit acts of evil, they ineveitably harm others who are good-doers. This results in plenty of good-doers with suffering in their lives. But God can hardly make others immune to an individual's actions because then we wouldn't be in relationship with one another.
Maybe "just" means that we humans will never act in a vacuum. Maybe it only means that God will always ensure a reaction. Your actions will affect something. In that case, "justice" would simply have no good or bad conotation. It would just be the condition of reaction to each other in relationship. That would be God establishing that we are all inter-connected. That each of our actions affect one another. Maybe the judgement of what effects are good vs. bad and what action is warranted is a different issue.
That sounds more like Karma. Justice always seems to me to have a definition of "good judgement" I think we could easily say that God has "good judgement" but it also implies a penalty or reward for action. I think my real though about this turns on the definition of the crusifixtion of Christ. I have heard it said many times that because of God's just nature Christ had to be sacrificed for our sins. But, how does sacrificing Chirst for our sins create justice? I might as well beat my own child for the kid across the street's behavior. It seems to me that God is saying, "Look, if I was a human I would do anything to get you to come to me, even sacrificing my own life." That's mercy, not justice. It is almost as if God sent Christ as a metaphore for how he interacts with us. It has to be a metaphore because we are not capable of understanding the enirety of God. Now I'm rambling off subject.....
'just' is based on what is right.
'just' is righteous.
God is righteous.
God is just.
But God is also love. Justice and mercy always go hand in hand. Because God is just, He must punish. But God always tempers his anger at sin with mercy. Its the whole reason he sent His Son to earth. Christ came to earth as an example for us to follow and a demonstration of what God requires because God is holy and rightous. Mere humans are unable to live up to God's standard. Because of Christ's death, God offers us justification. Justification is the result of God's mercy whereby God declares us innocent and set right with God so we can have unfettered relationship with a holy God himself.
I just read this from an interview with Archishop Tutu:
I think when people speak of justice they almost always have one kind of justice in mind ...
Retributive?
Retributive justice, yes. The purpose is punitive, setting out to punish the miscreant. But even on the basis of retributive justice, what we set out to do, didn't exclude it completely.
When a perpetrator applied for amnesty, it almost always was the case that the application had to be in open court, had to be public. Imagine what it meant when someone who had kept his identity as member of the death squad under wraps to say in full glare that "I unleashed the kind of thing that I did". In some cases, it was the first time that even wives got to know what their husbands were up to. Quite a few even got divorced.
So I would say that even just in terms of retributive justice, the process did not mean letting off the perpetrator. There was the public shame and embarrassment. But having said that, it is crucial to say that the process was based on restorative justice, where the fundamental purpose is healing. When an offence has caused a breach in relationship, retributive justice clobbers the perpetrator. In fact, it leaves out of the victim completely. In our process, the victims were given the opportunity of telling their story. I was surprised by how potent telling one's story can be as therapy. We found that telling your story about what happened to a forum that was sympathetic was a form of rehabilitation.
Post a Comment