Rest in Glory, Desmond Tutu

 

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."

"Because we are human beings who have been given, extraordinarily, by this God we worship the gift of freedom. And God has such a deep reverence for that gift, that God who— alone I usually say he has the perfect right to be a totalitarian, had much rather see us go freely to hell than compel us to go to heaven. God takes seriously the gift that God has given us. And we make choices. And the God, who in an omnipotent God, in many ways becomes impotent, because God has given us the gift to choose. And God hopes that there will be those who agitate against slavery, that we will have people who will fight against racism, injustice, oppression, wherever."

"Once a Zambian and a South African, it is said, were talking. The Zambian then boasted about their Minister of Naval Affairs. The South African asked, “But you have no navy, no access to the sea. How then can you have a Minister of Naval Affairs?” The Zambian retorted, “Well, in South Africa you have a Minister of Justice, don’t you?”"

"When will we learn that human beings are of infinite value because they have been created in the image of God, and that it is a blasphemy to treat them as if they were less than this and to do so ultimately recoils on those who do this? In dehumanizing others, they are themselves dehumanized. Perhaps oppression dehumanizes the oppressor as much as, if not more than, the oppressed. They need each other to become truly free, to become human. We can be human only in fellowship, in community, in koinonia, in peace.

Let us work to be peacemakers, those given a wonderful share in Our Lord’s ministry of reconciliation. If we want peace, so we have been told, let us work for justice. Let us beat our swords into ploughshares.

God calls us to be fellow workers with Him, so that we can extend His Kingdom of Shalom, of justice, of goodness, of compassion, of caring, of sharing, of laughter, joy and reconciliation, so that the kingdoms of this world will become the Kingdom of our God and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever. Amen."

"Just Us" or Justice?

 

Stan at the Birds of the Air blog put up a post today about his understanding of Justice. As is often the case, his argument raises so many questions that I'd love to see answered, and yet, he never answers questions. So, here are some of the questions/concerns I have about what he's written, for what they're worth.

Stan... "as is so much the case these days -- words are shifting -- "justice" is shifting. Part of that is displayed in that simple first definition above, where "fair and reasonable" becomes purely "What I consider fair and reasonable.""

It is not currently defined as "WHAT I consider fair and reasonable..." It has always been what the culture at large considers fair and reasonable. Nothing is shifting there.

Stan... "Instantly it becomes contrary and meaningless because too many of us would define "fair and reasonable" in a way that is neither."

Like, for instance, saying that a human who has committed 1000 typical "sins" (no murder, rape, arson, grand larceny, etc... more of the gossiping, slander, lying, etc sorts of sins) "deserves" to be punished for an eternity of torture/torment... that is most certainly not in any rational way far or reasonable... and yet it's what conservatives routinely teach. So, insofar as you're talking about traditional abuse of the word Justice by conservative Christians, yes, it does become meaningless.

Do you understand why?

At the same time, I suspect that what is Just is not that difficult for the vast majority of us. We recognize that for a ruler/nation to punish someone for a lifetime for relatively minor crimes would be a travesty of justice. We recognize murder, rape, arson, abuse of innocents, assault, etc... to be offenses against justice. It's generally and broadly speaking, just not that difficult for most rational adults.

Admittedly, when it comes down to specifics, it can be trickier... what IS a just punishment for murder? Capitol punishment? Life in prison? Possible parole for good behavior? What if the murder was a woman killing her abusive husband? Same punishment or do the circumstances make a difference?

The details can be tricky and disputable and, to be completely clear, there are NO perfect answers. We don't have a perfect court or word from God that spells out the specifics of all the potentialities of what to do when someone harms another. But, nonetheless, generally speaking, it's not that difficult.

Stan (referring to a death penalty for eating the fruit in the garden in the Creation story)... "God thought so. We wouldn't. "

Stan thinks God thought so. But that's Stan's opinion and it's not a given and not proven.

IF the story is a mythic telling of Creation as it appears to be at face value, then we aren't obligated to treat that "punishment" as a literal suggestion that God thinks eating fruit deserves a death penalty, which is irrational on the face of it. And unjust as the word is defined.

Stan... "God considered adultery worthy of death (Lev 20:10); we don't."

Just to be clear: YOU, Stan, don't consider adultery (or talking back to your parents) to be worthy of death, do you? No answer forthcoming, I'm sure.

Stan... "Perhaps you see, now, why simply "that which corresponds that what is right" is something of an unhelpful definition for "justice" when we are so deficient at knowing what is right."

Ah, and it comes down to this. YOU are suggesting that we are "so deficient at knowing what is right..." but you haven't proven this. It's an unsupported hunch on your part. God has not said this. Reason does not demand it. It's what you and your human tradition believes.

Do you recognize how this is correct?

Stan... "His infinite perfections, infinite greatness, and infinite worth are violated when we take it upon ourselves to circumvent Him."

Ah, but what of those who never once decide to "take it upon ourselves to circumvent God..."? The atheist and agnostic, for instance, who don't believe the evidence supports a God are specifically NOT ever, not even one time, trying to circumvent God. They just don't believe in God, so they would have no reason to choose to circumvent God.

If they do something wrong, it's never an intentional affront to God. At all. So, by that measure (the one you're suggesting there), atheists can do no wrong, it would seem. Does that make sense?

Also, what of all those who DO love God and disagree with conservatives about how best to follow God. We support the idea of aiding refugees and immigrants, of abolishing the death penalty, of supporting a woman's right to choose, of supporting women's rights in general, of supporting LGBTQ rights... ALL in an effort to honor God and follow God's ways. There is zero intention on our part to "circumvent God," even though conservatives disagree with us on these points. But we're not beholden to conservatives, are we? ...but to God, as best we understand God.

In that case, do you agree there is no intent to circumvent God... but instead, just the opposite?

Stan... "If we understand sin like it is described in Scripture -- a violation of God's glory, an assault on God's holiness, treason against the Most High -- then lots of things change. Death for sin becomes reasonable."

1. First of all, "scripture" LITERALLY never describes sin in those terms... not that I can think of. Those are human interpretations of Scripture, but literally NOT scripture. Just as a starting point, do you recognize that?

(Briefly, in the Bible, there are two terms translated "sin..." The most common one, I'm told, is one that speaks of missing the mark - imperfection. Attempting to hit the target but falling short. That makes sense. We all recognize how we humans do that. The second, less-common in the Bible word is the notion of intentionally transgressing a law, going beyond boundaries that were set... neither of those ideas are comparable to "cosmic treason" or "an assault on God's holiness." Those are Stan's - and others' - reading into the Bible something that is literally not there.)

2. Even so, death does not "become reasonable..." IF we are imperfect humans and we make mistakes and choose wrong and do something God doesn't want us to do... HOW does eternal punishment for being imperfect make rational, just sense?

It doesn't.

Stan... "Christians who believe that Christ redeemed us by His blood (Rom 3:25; Rom 5:9; Rev 1:5) are backwards, ignorant, and, basically, just as evil as this god they believe in. Or, as I started to explain, they believe in a different form of "what is right" and it is not consistent with Scripture, history, or Christian doctrine."

That IS what much of conservative evangelical history teaches, but it is ONLY what you all think Scripture teaches, it's not God's Word. It's your opinion of God's Word, which many of us think is wrong for precisely the reasons you cite here... You're relying upon your own interpretations which are, on the face of it, unjust and unholy and irrational... which is, itself, an indication that you've misunderstood and misinterpreted. Do you recognize that distinction?

Stan, seriously, there is just so much wrong, unbiblical, irrational and unjust in what you're saying here. It really would help your case if you could answer the huge questions about the huge holes in your argument.

And if you can't answer them (and you almost certainly can't), then maybe it would be time to humble yourself a bit and take a step back, take a breath, open your eyes and ears to a fresh word from God... a Word that isn't so crazily irrational and unjust and unholy.

Stan... "Thus, the penalty for failing to meet that all-encompassing glory must be equal to the size of the failure. That's what corresponds to what is right."

???

Says who? And to be clear, I'm NOT disagreeing with God. I'm saying DID GOD REALLY SAY THAT precisely because I know the Bible and God did NOT say that. Any of that.

The Bible teaches of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God.
The Bible teaches of a God that wants ALL to be saved.
The Bible teaches of a God who has a table open to all, who saves by Grace, not by irrational fury.
The Bible teaches of a God who is patient and forgiving, who knows us better than we know ourselves and who loves us, just the same. BECAUSE God knows us perfectly.

It's an unhealthy, irrational and unjust human understanding of the Bible. A perversion of both God's great and glorious grace and God's justice.

Think about it: We have flawed, imperfect humans who sometimes make deliberate wrong choices, but more often than not, we make mistakes... We THINK it's right to oppose gay marriage, for instance, or we THINK it's right to support immigrants... and it turns out we're mistaken. Our point was to honor God and do the right thing. We're more often that not, I suspect, making errors from a place of trying to do the right thing.

Consider: What if STAN and his human traditions were wrong all along in their opposition and oppression of gay people? They didn't even realize they WERE oppressing gay people and causing harm (we conservatives have been, after all, but I know I didn't realize it at the time and no doubt, you don't realize it now)... but what if they were wrong? What if you were wrong?

Do you think that you, a human created as an imperfect human "deserves" to be punished "equal to the size of God's glory..."? How is that rational? Moral? Just? Biblical?

MAYBE, if we were perfect gods and everything we did, we did knowingly to cause evil... MAYBE then that would make sense. But imperfect humans being imperfect "deserve" a punishment as big as an almighty God??

You paint a rather petty and mean-spirited picture of a god who is irrational and unjust, by biblical standards.

Do you understand why or do I need to explain it to you? (That's a serious question, not meant to be insulting.)

More questions to Stan that will go unanswered by him or by conservatives, in general. At least, that has been my experience. I hope one day to find the conservative willing to wade into this and actually answer questions directly and rationally. I'm confident they exist... I just can't prove it, yet.