There’s a debate raging in evangelical Christianity. One
side of the debate is led by Tim Keller, author of the book Generous Justice. To
oversimplify greatly, Keller suggests Christians should be engaged in social
justice. On the other side is a group led by several evangelical luminaries,
with perhaps John MacArthur as the leader. This group has published The Statement on Social Justice
& the Gospel. I don’t intend to critique Keller’s book, I haven’t even
read it. Neither do I intend to express an opinion on the wisdom of issuing “Statements”
like MacArthur’s. I’m agnostic on that, although I have read much of the
statement and agree with all that I read. Rather, I want to take issue with
Keller’s use of the term “justice.”
In explaining his ideas, Keller cites Jesus’ parable of The Good Samaritan. Keller describes the Samaritan in Jesus’ parable as doing “acts of justice.” I think Keller’s using the word “justice” in this way is confusing and counter-productive. I think Keller is confusing “justice” with “grace” or “mercy.” I think by taking acts of grace, mercy, or charity and calling that “justice,” Keller demeans the concepts of grace and mercy and diminishes the Christian obligation.
These words have long-accepted meanings. Plato’s definition of justice, “giving every man his due,” still is widely accepted. And as we all know from Sunday school, “grace” is giving someone something good that they don’t deserve, while “mercy” is withholding something bad that they do deserve. In the Bible, justice, grace, and mercy frequently go hand-in-hand. For example, in the Deluge, God delivered justice to humankind, while Noah and his family received grace and mercy. Sodom and Gomorrah received justice at God’s hand while Lot and his daughters got grace and mercy. As Christians, we understand that God’s justice was poured out on Jesus on the cross, while we, His people, get grace and mercy.
When Keller uses the term “justice” to describe good things that one person does for another, I think what he’s really describing is “grace” or maybe even “mercy.” Did the Good Samaritan owe the man who fell among thieves the help that he delivered? Was that justice? Or was he extending grace or mercy? Oh, Jesus was teaching a moral obligation to help people like the man who fell among thieves, to be sure, but I think Keller’s chosen example illustrates grace, not justice.
This isn’t just semantics, for when we describe the Christian obligation to help those in need as “justice,” we strip the parties involved in the acts of kindness of a proper response to the situation. My obligation as a Christian is to go beyond mere “justice,” giving people what they deserve. I am to extend grace and mercy. I understand why Keller uses the wrong word, he’s politicizing the idea. In America, we have a long tradition of the government not requiring its citizens to do good. We must do justice, but we need not extend charity. The charitable obligation is enforced, if at all, only privately, not by the state. So to justify compelled charity (an oxymoron, I know), we instead call it “social justice.” The state can compel us to do justice, to pay what we owe. But this verbal sleight of hand deprives those doing the good of the opportunity to extend genuine Christian charity. After all, if it’s owed, then the benefit is merely paying what is due, not giving out of Christian charity.
Many probably would suggest that “justice” is the correct word to use here because in many social circumstances some people have been systematically disadvantaged and therefore are owed something from the rest. Perhaps. My problem, though, with Keller’s use of the term, especially in conjunction with teachings such as Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan is that frequently people are in trouble because they deserve to be in trouble. They’ve made bad, often wicked, choices, and they are suffering the consequences of those choices. Social “justice” would not reach that person, and yet I believe Christian charity should. Using the term “justice” instead of “grace,” “mercy,” or “charity” tends to cramp the true Christian obligation and deprive the believer of the opportunity to voluntarily sacrifice for the good of others.
Just as troubling, calling charity “social justice” deprives the person helped of the opportunity for gratitude. What was the proper response of the man attacked by thieves to the Good Samaritan who helped him? Well, if the Samaritan were only doing justice, only delivering what the man was owed, then his response might be “What took you so long?” But if the help extended by the Good Samaritan is seen as grace, mercy, or charity, then the proper response is gratitude, and that proper response will edify both helper and helped. And if you don’t think calling charity “justice” can inculcate a spirit of entitlement and ingratitude, then I respectfully suggest that you are not paying attention to what is going on in our society today.
I want to hasten to clarify that I am not criticizing Tim Keller generally. I am sure that I agree with eighty per cent of what he says and teaches. And I think his emphasis on the charitable obligation of evangelical Christianity is much needed – we’ve been leaving such important work to the Roman Catholic Church for far too long. But I think that attempts to politicize the gospel, both on the left and on the right, end up in the ditch, and that is where I fear Keller’s ministerial commitment to social “justice” is headed.
In explaining his ideas, Keller cites Jesus’ parable of The Good Samaritan. Keller describes the Samaritan in Jesus’ parable as doing “acts of justice.” I think Keller’s using the word “justice” in this way is confusing and counter-productive. I think Keller is confusing “justice” with “grace” or “mercy.” I think by taking acts of grace, mercy, or charity and calling that “justice,” Keller demeans the concepts of grace and mercy and diminishes the Christian obligation.
These words have long-accepted meanings. Plato’s definition of justice, “giving every man his due,” still is widely accepted. And as we all know from Sunday school, “grace” is giving someone something good that they don’t deserve, while “mercy” is withholding something bad that they do deserve. In the Bible, justice, grace, and mercy frequently go hand-in-hand. For example, in the Deluge, God delivered justice to humankind, while Noah and his family received grace and mercy. Sodom and Gomorrah received justice at God’s hand while Lot and his daughters got grace and mercy. As Christians, we understand that God’s justice was poured out on Jesus on the cross, while we, His people, get grace and mercy.
When Keller uses the term “justice” to describe good things that one person does for another, I think what he’s really describing is “grace” or maybe even “mercy.” Did the Good Samaritan owe the man who fell among thieves the help that he delivered? Was that justice? Or was he extending grace or mercy? Oh, Jesus was teaching a moral obligation to help people like the man who fell among thieves, to be sure, but I think Keller’s chosen example illustrates grace, not justice.
This isn’t just semantics, for when we describe the Christian obligation to help those in need as “justice,” we strip the parties involved in the acts of kindness of a proper response to the situation. My obligation as a Christian is to go beyond mere “justice,” giving people what they deserve. I am to extend grace and mercy. I understand why Keller uses the wrong word, he’s politicizing the idea. In America, we have a long tradition of the government not requiring its citizens to do good. We must do justice, but we need not extend charity. The charitable obligation is enforced, if at all, only privately, not by the state. So to justify compelled charity (an oxymoron, I know), we instead call it “social justice.” The state can compel us to do justice, to pay what we owe. But this verbal sleight of hand deprives those doing the good of the opportunity to extend genuine Christian charity. After all, if it’s owed, then the benefit is merely paying what is due, not giving out of Christian charity.
Many probably would suggest that “justice” is the correct word to use here because in many social circumstances some people have been systematically disadvantaged and therefore are owed something from the rest. Perhaps. My problem, though, with Keller’s use of the term, especially in conjunction with teachings such as Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan is that frequently people are in trouble because they deserve to be in trouble. They’ve made bad, often wicked, choices, and they are suffering the consequences of those choices. Social “justice” would not reach that person, and yet I believe Christian charity should. Using the term “justice” instead of “grace,” “mercy,” or “charity” tends to cramp the true Christian obligation and deprive the believer of the opportunity to voluntarily sacrifice for the good of others.
Just as troubling, calling charity “social justice” deprives the person helped of the opportunity for gratitude. What was the proper response of the man attacked by thieves to the Good Samaritan who helped him? Well, if the Samaritan were only doing justice, only delivering what the man was owed, then his response might be “What took you so long?” But if the help extended by the Good Samaritan is seen as grace, mercy, or charity, then the proper response is gratitude, and that proper response will edify both helper and helped. And if you don’t think calling charity “justice” can inculcate a spirit of entitlement and ingratitude, then I respectfully suggest that you are not paying attention to what is going on in our society today.
I want to hasten to clarify that I am not criticizing Tim Keller generally. I am sure that I agree with eighty per cent of what he says and teaches. And I think his emphasis on the charitable obligation of evangelical Christianity is much needed – we’ve been leaving such important work to the Roman Catholic Church for far too long. But I think that attempts to politicize the gospel, both on the left and on the right, end up in the ditch, and that is where I fear Keller’s ministerial commitment to social “justice” is headed.
No comments:
Post a Comment