This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1Ealhmund
Coming off of post 387 on another thread:
>387 It could be that Christianity recognizes that fact and isn't as preoccupied with the past and trying to pursue the chimera of "justice."
I was bummed by this line in your post, in that it reflected a cynicism I'd not picked up in your other comments on various threads. But, I thought about it a bit, read a bit, re-read your post, and now I'm not sure how to take it.
What does the Lord require of you? To do justice, to love kindness (mercy), and walk humbly with your God.
On the surface, your comment seems to reject the first of these. However, first of all, doing justice is not the same as pursuing justice, so I'm not sure your comment rejects the scripture I paraphrased.
Secondly, I've been pondering the struggle we seem to be having in the US today regarding justice. The conservatives seem to define justice as, at least, ensuring wrong is not done again, but, preferrably, punishing the wrongdoer if at all possible. This often is accomplished in ways that result in innocents losing out. For example, the push to remove any possible non-citizens from the voting roles in Florida, even if it might mean some citizens lose the ability to vote for some months. On the other hand, the progressives (liberal is now a bad word), seem to define justice as making sure no one is refused what is rightfully theirs, even if it means some might get away with something that they have no right to. Thus, they reject stringent measures to eliminate voter fraud because it tends to eliminate some legitimate votes/voters, even if it means some non-citizens might slip through and vote.
This is a long way to get to my point - when you refer to the "chimera of justice", what is justice, and why do you see it as a chimera?
Os.
>387 It could be that Christianity recognizes that fact and isn't as preoccupied with the past and trying to pursue the chimera of "justice."
I was bummed by this line in your post, in that it reflected a cynicism I'd not picked up in your other comments on various threads. But, I thought about it a bit, read a bit, re-read your post, and now I'm not sure how to take it.
What does the Lord require of you? To do justice, to love kindness (mercy), and walk humbly with your God.
On the surface, your comment seems to reject the first of these. However, first of all, doing justice is not the same as pursuing justice, so I'm not sure your comment rejects the scripture I paraphrased.
Secondly, I've been pondering the struggle we seem to be having in the US today regarding justice. The conservatives seem to define justice as, at least, ensuring wrong is not done again, but, preferrably, punishing the wrongdoer if at all possible. This often is accomplished in ways that result in innocents losing out. For example, the push to remove any possible non-citizens from the voting roles in Florida, even if it might mean some citizens lose the ability to vote for some months. On the other hand, the progressives (liberal is now a bad word), seem to define justice as making sure no one is refused what is rightfully theirs, even if it means some might get away with something that they have no right to. Thus, they reject stringent measures to eliminate voter fraud because it tends to eliminate some legitimate votes/voters, even if it means some non-citizens might slip through and vote.
This is a long way to get to my point - when you refer to the "chimera of justice", what is justice, and why do you see it as a chimera?
Os.
2richardbsmith
I am not sure if someone can comment here, who has not been following the original referenced topic.
Micah 6.8 is a classic scripture though.
How should someone read "To do justice." To our modern ears, at least to my ear, justice sounds like making sure that the oppressed receive fairness.
But I think the Hebrew word has a different sense of justice: to judge properly - to apply the penalty for the crime based on the judgement of guilt or innocence.
This is though countered with to love mercy.
I take the two together - apply justice with mercy.
Micah 6.8 is a classic scripture though.
How should someone read "To do justice." To our modern ears, at least to my ear, justice sounds like making sure that the oppressed receive fairness.
But I think the Hebrew word has a different sense of justice: to judge properly - to apply the penalty for the crime based on the judgement of guilt or innocence.
This is though countered with to love mercy.
I take the two together - apply justice with mercy.
3John5918
I do a lot of reading, writing and speaking around this topic. Justice has a lot of different facets. In popular usage it too often refers only to one.
First there is the difference between retributive and restorative justice. Retributive justice assumes that a crime has been committed. A perpetrator is identified, tried and, if found guilty, punished. The main actor is usually the state; both victim and perpetrator play minor roles. This is the form most people in the western world seem to think of when they speak of justice. Restorative justice assumes that something has gone wrong. It seeks to right the wrong, to repair the damage, to bring healing to broken relationships, to do the most good for the most people involved. Both victim and perpetrator are at the centre of the process. While it may involve trial and punishment, these are less central than in retributive justice. Restorative justice appears to dominate in many traditional cultures. In practice the two forms are not necessarily opposed to each other, but are part of a spectrum.
Then there are things like distributive justice, economic justice and social justice. These are involved with human and civil rights; as Os says, "making sure no one is refused what is rightfully theirs".
One's lived experience often shapes one's view of justice. In relatively affluent and stable western societies, where individualism and private property are dominant themes, retributive justice often seems very attractive. In situations of transition and instability, and in more communal cultures, restorative justice fits the bill. Distributive, economic and social justice often seem more attractive to those who are disadvantaged than to those who already have all they need. The higher level rights (freedom of speech and assembly, for example) seem more important to those who are materially well off; food, water and shelter may seem more important to those who aren't.
The Lord's Resistance Army provides an excellent example of two different ways of viewing justice. Joseph Kony was indicted by the International Criminal Court (and many would argue that it was this indictment which derailed the Juba peace process). The international community, with a model of retributive justice, is adamant that Kony must stand trial for the horrendous crimes which he has undoubtedly committed. The people on the ground (the victims) and the regional governments, with both pragmatism and a model of restorative justice, want peace and the justice which comes with peace. Simply putting someone in prison will not serve that form of justice.
First there is the difference between retributive and restorative justice. Retributive justice assumes that a crime has been committed. A perpetrator is identified, tried and, if found guilty, punished. The main actor is usually the state; both victim and perpetrator play minor roles. This is the form most people in the western world seem to think of when they speak of justice. Restorative justice assumes that something has gone wrong. It seeks to right the wrong, to repair the damage, to bring healing to broken relationships, to do the most good for the most people involved. Both victim and perpetrator are at the centre of the process. While it may involve trial and punishment, these are less central than in retributive justice. Restorative justice appears to dominate in many traditional cultures. In practice the two forms are not necessarily opposed to each other, but are part of a spectrum.
Then there are things like distributive justice, economic justice and social justice. These are involved with human and civil rights; as Os says, "making sure no one is refused what is rightfully theirs".
One's lived experience often shapes one's view of justice. In relatively affluent and stable western societies, where individualism and private property are dominant themes, retributive justice often seems very attractive. In situations of transition and instability, and in more communal cultures, restorative justice fits the bill. Distributive, economic and social justice often seem more attractive to those who are disadvantaged than to those who already have all they need. The higher level rights (freedom of speech and assembly, for example) seem more important to those who are materially well off; food, water and shelter may seem more important to those who aren't.
The Lord's Resistance Army provides an excellent example of two different ways of viewing justice. Joseph Kony was indicted by the International Criminal Court (and many would argue that it was this indictment which derailed the Juba peace process). The international community, with a model of retributive justice, is adamant that Kony must stand trial for the horrendous crimes which he has undoubtedly committed. The people on the ground (the victims) and the regional governments, with both pragmatism and a model of restorative justice, want peace and the justice which comes with peace. Simply putting someone in prison will not serve that form of justice.
5lawecon
~3
There is a tendency to stretch particular "good terms" so that they become synonymous with just "good." I am sorry, but I think you are doing that with "justice."
"Justice," classically, meant simply applying the law correctly to a given case. It was not meant to be some abstract philosophic system of "true justice," and it was not meant to be either retributive or restorative. It was certainly not meant to be equivalent to finding social "peace."
Indeed, the notion of some broad retributive justice is very modern and rather peculiar. Classically, retribution was the domain of G-d, not of men. True, when one acted in such a way as to break a human law that could not provide a complete remedy - in cases of murder, loss of a limb or loss of an organ by the victim, etc. there was some sense of "retribution." But the retribution was simply because monetary compensation would not fully compensate. The retribution was not to compensate "society" or "the state," it simply existed when society and the justice system stepped aside. Thus, in early days, the person convicted of such a crime was simply declared "out law" (outside the law and the remedies of the law) and the problem "took care of itself." In later days, courts shied away from finding guilt for such crimes and found lesser offenses for which the remedy would be recompense, not "corporal punishment."
Restoration is not, of course, completely unlike retribution just because it is not peace. If you couldn't "make whole the victim" by paying money or goods, because you didn't have the money or goods, you could find yourself indentured for a term of years. But the indenture was not "punishment," it was restoration through "sweat equity."
In this, like in many topics, we seem to have had our thought processes corrupted by Greek Philosophy. "Justice" and a "justice system" that is empowered to "find" or "determine" justice is a requirement of every stable society, but it is no more than that.
There is a tendency to stretch particular "good terms" so that they become synonymous with just "good." I am sorry, but I think you are doing that with "justice."
"Justice," classically, meant simply applying the law correctly to a given case. It was not meant to be some abstract philosophic system of "true justice," and it was not meant to be either retributive or restorative. It was certainly not meant to be equivalent to finding social "peace."
Indeed, the notion of some broad retributive justice is very modern and rather peculiar. Classically, retribution was the domain of G-d, not of men. True, when one acted in such a way as to break a human law that could not provide a complete remedy - in cases of murder, loss of a limb or loss of an organ by the victim, etc. there was some sense of "retribution." But the retribution was simply because monetary compensation would not fully compensate. The retribution was not to compensate "society" or "the state," it simply existed when society and the justice system stepped aside. Thus, in early days, the person convicted of such a crime was simply declared "out law" (outside the law and the remedies of the law) and the problem "took care of itself." In later days, courts shied away from finding guilt for such crimes and found lesser offenses for which the remedy would be recompense, not "corporal punishment."
Restoration is not, of course, completely unlike retribution just because it is not peace. If you couldn't "make whole the victim" by paying money or goods, because you didn't have the money or goods, you could find yourself indentured for a term of years. But the indenture was not "punishment," it was restoration through "sweat equity."
In this, like in many topics, we seem to have had our thought processes corrupted by Greek Philosophy. "Justice" and a "justice system" that is empowered to "find" or "determine" justice is a requirement of every stable society, but it is no more than that.
6John5918
>5 lawecon: I think we've had conversations before where you disagree with usage of a term which doesn't fit your own preferred and limited definition of it. There is a huge amount of literature about justice in the broader sense, and it is a matter of daily concern to people in transitional societies, just to give one example. I don't think it helps much in real life to limit the discussion to a particular "classical" concept when people all over the world are exploring the wider, modern (but I would suggest not "peculiar") idea because it has a very real impact on their lives.
Edited to add: I'm not looking at it through the eyes of a lawyer, incidentally, but through the eyes of a justice and peace activist engaging with communities for whom it is a matter of concern. Catholic Social Teaching also has a lot to say on the topic. I recognise that we will have different points of entry, but that doesn't make one right or wrong or... peculiar.
Edited to add: I'm not looking at it through the eyes of a lawyer, incidentally, but through the eyes of a justice and peace activist engaging with communities for whom it is a matter of concern. Catholic Social Teaching also has a lot to say on the topic. I recognise that we will have different points of entry, but that doesn't make one right or wrong or... peculiar.
7Ealhmund
>2 richardbsmith:
It seems that, if you take it that the first and the second requirement must go together, so must the third - apply justice with mercy in your walk with God.
Os.
It seems that, if you take it that the first and the second requirement must go together, so must the third - apply justice with mercy in your walk with God.
Os.
8richardbsmith
I think there is no doubt of the need for the third part - the application of justice with mercy is to be done humbly with the walk with God.
9Ealhmund
>5 lawecon:
I have no quarrel with your view of 'classic' justice (though I'd want to spend a bit more time in the first 5 books of the OT before I'd agree to it in total). However, if the Bible truly contains 'wisdom' literature, it will provide insight and guidance to the modern world in need of justice much as our fireman friend has outlined in post 4. Yes, it's important to understand the cultural context in which the words were first written down, but then one must look and see to what degree that cultural context still applies and discern if there is still truth to be gleaned from the text in today's context.
Justice seems like the ideal concept to make the transition from the culture in which Micah was written (and the Torah on which Micah's idea of justice was founded) to a broader application in today's culture. Women wearing hats before they can pray or prophesy seems like a concept that doesn't/shouldn't make the transition. Loving, healthy, monogamous same-sex relationships may be, but much prayerful study and discussion remains to be done on this for the Church as a whole. The challenge is to be as honest as possible in seeing what should and what should not be 'modernized' from scripture.
I know the above will not sit well with those that are more literal about scripture, but, as I've said many times, just as God reveals different things in scripture as I grow in my journey, I believe He reveals different things to a culture and to His Church as they grow in spiritual maturity. Adam and Eve had very simply rules at first. By the time of the Exodus, the people needed quite a bit more. The law given in Exodus and Leviticus was added to and expanded in Deuteronomy. Jesus clarified and modified what was understood about the law by the priests of his day. I also believe Paul was growing in his spiritual maturity as he wrote his letters, and changes in his understanding seem apparent from letter to letter.
So, I would hope that the Church is able to build upon the OT concept of justice to address the needs of the poor and the meek in today's world, consistent with the referenced jewel from Micah.
Os.
ETA
parenthetical in the first sentence.
I have no quarrel with your view of 'classic' justice (though I'd want to spend a bit more time in the first 5 books of the OT before I'd agree to it in total). However, if the Bible truly contains 'wisdom' literature, it will provide insight and guidance to the modern world in need of justice much as our fireman friend has outlined in post 4. Yes, it's important to understand the cultural context in which the words were first written down, but then one must look and see to what degree that cultural context still applies and discern if there is still truth to be gleaned from the text in today's context.
Justice seems like the ideal concept to make the transition from the culture in which Micah was written (and the Torah on which Micah's idea of justice was founded) to a broader application in today's culture. Women wearing hats before they can pray or prophesy seems like a concept that doesn't/shouldn't make the transition. Loving, healthy, monogamous same-sex relationships may be, but much prayerful study and discussion remains to be done on this for the Church as a whole. The challenge is to be as honest as possible in seeing what should and what should not be 'modernized' from scripture.
I know the above will not sit well with those that are more literal about scripture, but, as I've said many times, just as God reveals different things in scripture as I grow in my journey, I believe He reveals different things to a culture and to His Church as they grow in spiritual maturity. Adam and Eve had very simply rules at first. By the time of the Exodus, the people needed quite a bit more. The law given in Exodus and Leviticus was added to and expanded in Deuteronomy. Jesus clarified and modified what was understood about the law by the priests of his day. I also believe Paul was growing in his spiritual maturity as he wrote his letters, and changes in his understanding seem apparent from letter to letter.
So, I would hope that the Church is able to build upon the OT concept of justice to address the needs of the poor and the meek in today's world, consistent with the referenced jewel from Micah.
Os.
ETA
parenthetical in the first sentence.
10jburlinson
> 5. "Justice," classically, meant simply applying the law correctly to a given case.
"Applying the law correctly" presupposes that some entity, either individual or corporate, is in a position to understand all aspects and ramifications of a given event with sufficient exactitude and detail to render an accurate and adequate judgment on that event. Given our multifarious world (see
The meaning of the butterfly -- Why pop culture loves the 'butterfly effect,' and gets it totally wrong), that is impossible.
So, before we can even get to questions of retribution or restoration, we can't even get a satisfactory understanding of the situation at hand. So our attempts at "justice," however defined, die on the vine.
"Applying the law correctly" presupposes that some entity, either individual or corporate, is in a position to understand all aspects and ramifications of a given event with sufficient exactitude and detail to render an accurate and adequate judgment on that event. Given our multifarious world (see
The meaning of the butterfly -- Why pop culture loves the 'butterfly effect,' and gets it totally wrong), that is impossible.
So, before we can even get to questions of retribution or restoration, we can't even get a satisfactory understanding of the situation at hand. So our attempts at "justice," however defined, die on the vine.
11John5918
>10 jburlinson: So our attempts at "justice," however defined, die on the vine
Only if "classically" defined. I think there are plenty of opportunities for a community to discern justice in real and practical terms.
Only if "classically" defined. I think there are plenty of opportunities for a community to discern justice in real and practical terms.
12John5918
Incidentally, in Catholic circles at least, justice is usually discussed with peace - "Justice and Peace" - as the two are closely linked. As we come to the 100th anniversary of the ground-breaking encyclical Pacem in Terris, there has been a seminar in Rome on the subject - see http://cpn.nd.edu/news/31275-catholic-leaders-convene-in-rome-on-peacebuilding-i...
