Finally, part 5 of my series on the Truth, Justice, and Pluralism. My final proposition is simply this:
A robust public justice is not fully possible without the Church's faithful work in the world.
We, particularly as legal academics, lawyers, and judges, have a calling in the area of public justice to speak against corruption, to proclaim the truth to those in power, to come to the aid of the oppressed, and to call truth true and lies false. Our call is to live within the system without being of the system-- or hiding behind it, as many of us are prone to do.
Scripture connects justice closely to righteousness, and without a virtuous Church leavening society, public justice is hamstrung. Righteousness undergirds all justice, and to the extent that a society or culture lacks virtue, public justice suffers.
Witness, for example, the shift in the ground for public justice in the United States: as we have moved to bifurcate morality and law, as we have rejected virtue in public life, as we have moved toward consumerism, hedonism, and individualism as ultimate "goods," justice has shifted more and more toward social engineering by the politically powerful. The rule of law gives way to the rule of judicial will. If "justice" is simply enacting the "will of the people," it is not justice, it is power politics.
Because we look to God’s justice in Christ as the model for civil justice, we push our institutions in that direction. Yet it is particularly the Church that can recognize that reformation and redemption are needed across the created order, not only in law and legal institutions. Jesus is King over all of life and creation. So we also teach, proclaim, and give—in every human institution:
We instruct our children
We are faithful to husbands and wives
We care for the sick
We proclaim the truth about oppression and tyranny and justice and peace to the world and to the state
We feed the hungry, we visit the prisoner
We do justice and act mercifully
We forgive as we are forgiven
The active Church in the world encourages public justice and supports and emboldens a just state.
Showing posts with label social justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social justice. Show all posts
Jun 4, 2013
Aug 7, 2011
Weekend Wanderings
In case your Google reader is backed up, here are some links to get your week started:
Peter Leithart, Torah and Social Justice over at On the Square at First Things. A thoughtful piece on one of my favorite (and least favorite) topics, "social" justice. HT to Professor Pryor at PryorThoughts.
Jordan Ballor, Which Church? Whose Justice? at the Acton Institute PowerBlog.
Another terrible Ninth Circuit decision. The court holds that public university administrators may apply non-discrimination policies to student religious groups that discriminate on the basis of religion, even while allowing other student groups to restrict membership to those who hold particular beliefs. Any group, in other words, may exclude from leadership or membership anyone who does not subscribe to the group's ideology-- unless the group is a religious group, formed on the basis of "ideology." There is a clear split in the circuits now on this question, so it may be ripe for Supreme Court review. (Here is Steve Shiffrin at MOJ describing the issue).
J. Mark Bertrand, Pattern of Wounds. Bertrand's second installment in the Roland March series is getting great press, and deservedly so. If you like crime fiction, thrillers, cop stuff, noir fiction, mysteries, or any good read, pick up his first March novel, Back on Murder, then move on to Pattern of Wounds. Great stories, compelling characters, and wonderful dialogue. Add Bertrand's rich, but subtly-woven themes surrounding man's search for understanding in the face of the real evil and suffering-- and good-- in the world, and you have the complete package. Have a listen to the Books & Culture podcast and read Lars Walker's recent review of Back on Murder.
Mar 31, 2011
Lawyers, Despair, and the Rule of Law: "Democratizing Political Murder"
I sometimes talk here and on campus about the tendency of the current generation of students to despair of justice in light of the human failings in our system. My word to them is that despair is rooted in the deadly sin of sloth-- the sin of "considering a worthwhile good"-- here, justice under the rule of law-- "not worth pursuing." In a country like ours, where the rule of law does for the most part reign (albeit imperfectly), Christians must pursue justice through faithful action and vigilant reform both from within the system and outside of it.
But what of those millions who live in places ruled not by law, but by raw power? What of lawyers who find themselves in systems where justice is never done? What happens when an entire nation lives in despair of justice?
In this amazing piece in the April New Yorker, David Grann masterfully unfolds a fascinating story of political corruption and the search for justice in Guatemala. At the heart of the story are two lawyers seeking justice. One, an upstanding citizen in a private law firm, is gunned down in the midst of his despair of finding the truth. The other, a world-renowned prosecutor, sifts throgh the "counterfeit realities" pitched by the contending political and criminal powers-- and by the murdered man himself-- to reveal the strange truth, and perhaps ultimately build a foundation for justice.
This fascinating study of justice, despair, and the law is beautfully told and filled with insights on the nature of corruption and the consequences-- for a man and for a country-- of despair.
I'd love to talk more after you read it . . . .
HT: Alan Jacobs on Twitter
But what of those millions who live in places ruled not by law, but by raw power? What of lawyers who find themselves in systems where justice is never done? What happens when an entire nation lives in despair of justice?
In this amazing piece in the April New Yorker, David Grann masterfully unfolds a fascinating story of political corruption and the search for justice in Guatemala. At the heart of the story are two lawyers seeking justice. One, an upstanding citizen in a private law firm, is gunned down in the midst of his despair of finding the truth. The other, a world-renowned prosecutor, sifts throgh the "counterfeit realities" pitched by the contending political and criminal powers-- and by the murdered man himself-- to reveal the strange truth, and perhaps ultimately build a foundation for justice.
This fascinating study of justice, despair, and the law is beautfully told and filled with insights on the nature of corruption and the consequences-- for a man and for a country-- of despair.
I'd love to talk more after you read it . . . .
HT: Alan Jacobs on Twitter
Dec 18, 2009
A Reflection on Advent Politcs and Persecution
At the Center for Public Justice, Dennis Hoover posts a thoughtful and challenging reflection on the "politics" of Advent. He concludes:
His kingdom is not of this world. Yet it is never strictly apolitical, for Christ’s lordship extends to all spheres of life. What Herod understood and feared when he ordered all the baby boys in and around Bethlehem murdered was the inherent political relevance and power of faith. This Advent, let us remember to pray for and stand in solidarity with the persecuted, and reflect on whether we are prepared to submit to Christ’s kingdom even when it is dangerous to do so.
Read the whole thing.
HT to my friend Scott Pryor.
His kingdom is not of this world. Yet it is never strictly apolitical, for Christ’s lordship extends to all spheres of life. What Herod understood and feared when he ordered all the baby boys in and around Bethlehem murdered was the inherent political relevance and power of faith. This Advent, let us remember to pray for and stand in solidarity with the persecuted, and reflect on whether we are prepared to submit to Christ’s kingdom even when it is dangerous to do so.
Read the whole thing.
HT to my friend Scott Pryor.
Sep 5, 2009
'Buck v. Bell, India Style' at Pryor Thoughts
Over at the relatively new (and fine) blog, Pryor Thoughts, my colleague Scott Pryor comments on an Indian case reminiscent of the infamous Buck v. Bell (1927).
Have a look.
BTW, it's nice to be back after a summer teaching in the Regent Law School Summer Program in International Human Rights in Strasbourg. I'll post a debrief and some pics later.
May 28, 2009
Clients, not Causes?
There's an interesting discussion happening around the "reply-all" hubbub at the LA-based Quin Emanuel law firm.
You can read the short version over at the ABA Journal, or follow the discussion at ATL. The gist is that the firm won a federal court trademark case for the Washington Redskins. In response to the firm-wide email from a partner announcing the victory, an associate "replied to all," questioning the morality of the representation in the first place.
One of the more interesting aspects of the discussion is the matter of a young lawyer stepping in to provide a "moral viewpoint" about a particular representation. Most of the discussion focuses on the manner and timing of both the response and the eventual fallout. But I find this statement, from a Quin partner, most provocative:
"We represent clients, not causes." According to the Journal, the partner said that the firm would have been happy to win the case for the opposing party, had it been hired to do so.
The partner is certainly right about "clients, not causes" in a very important sense. Yet that can't be the whole story, the only response: we can't shut down a conversation about the morality of a particular course of action by stating "that's what we were hired to do."
What role should a young associate-- would it be different for a partner?-- take in providing a moral check on a firm's activities? Fun stuff.
We're talking about it over at Cross & Gavel, too.
You can read the short version over at the ABA Journal, or follow the discussion at ATL. The gist is that the firm won a federal court trademark case for the Washington Redskins. In response to the firm-wide email from a partner announcing the victory, an associate "replied to all," questioning the morality of the representation in the first place.
One of the more interesting aspects of the discussion is the matter of a young lawyer stepping in to provide a "moral viewpoint" about a particular representation. Most of the discussion focuses on the manner and timing of both the response and the eventual fallout. But I find this statement, from a Quin partner, most provocative:
"We represent clients, not causes." According to the Journal, the partner said that the firm would have been happy to win the case for the opposing party, had it been hired to do so.
The partner is certainly right about "clients, not causes" in a very important sense. Yet that can't be the whole story, the only response: we can't shut down a conversation about the morality of a particular course of action by stating "that's what we were hired to do."
What role should a young associate-- would it be different for a partner?-- take in providing a moral check on a firm's activities? Fun stuff.
We're talking about it over at Cross & Gavel, too.
May 7, 2008
Mulling Over 'Social Justice'
Over at The Immanent Frame, Loyola sociology prof Rebecca Sager has an interesting post regarding a "progressive evangelical movement" centered on "social justice." Thanks to Professor Michael Perry's Mirror of Justice post, I was drawn to the article by this quote:
To the extent that social justice involves compassion for the poor and needy, a recognition that there are haves and have nots in the world and in this country, a desire to clothe the naked, an attempt to feed the hungry, and the provision of equal treatment to all under the law, count me in. To the extent that social justice means that the state, the church, the individual, and the family all have exactly the same responsibilties to do these things, count me out.
I am hesitant to embrace the social justice movement because, more often than not, "social justice" does for justice what the "social gospel" did for the gospel: it denatures it. If "justice" means mercy, compassion, and charity, then what is mercy, compassion, or charity? And if the state is fully competent to show compassion, mercy, and charity, then what of restitution and retribution? And what is left of just desert?
The usurpation by the state of the ministry of the church is a problem. Of course, it is not the fault of the government that the church has failed to be compassionate, merciful, and loving, but the response of the church should be to become more compassionate, merciful, and loving, not to further abandon its obligations and then encourage the state-- a notoriously ineffecient and imprudent lover-- to take up the slack.
If "social justice" means that justice is state charity, compassion, mercy, hospitality, care, and kindness to all, then justice just means "everything nice."
I could be wrong about the statist tenor of the social justice movement, and I need to think some more about it. Again, count me as a fan of both justice and the desired ends of "social justice" (compassion for the poor, equal treatment of all, the end of racism, for example). Social Justice, though, seems today to be a term of art that connotes the decline of real justice (administered by the state) and of true mercy and charity (administered by the church, families, and individuals).
“How can you be a Christian and not care about issues like poverty and health care?”Exactly! I couldn't agree more. I would also ask, though:
"How can you be a Christian and fail to recognize that the state is incompetent as the primary vehicle for compassion, love, and mercy in this world?"In other words, have Christians abandoned belief in the mission of the church?
To the extent that social justice involves compassion for the poor and needy, a recognition that there are haves and have nots in the world and in this country, a desire to clothe the naked, an attempt to feed the hungry, and the provision of equal treatment to all under the law, count me in. To the extent that social justice means that the state, the church, the individual, and the family all have exactly the same responsibilties to do these things, count me out.
I am hesitant to embrace the social justice movement because, more often than not, "social justice" does for justice what the "social gospel" did for the gospel: it denatures it. If "justice" means mercy, compassion, and charity, then what is mercy, compassion, or charity? And if the state is fully competent to show compassion, mercy, and charity, then what of restitution and retribution? And what is left of just desert?
The usurpation by the state of the ministry of the church is a problem. Of course, it is not the fault of the government that the church has failed to be compassionate, merciful, and loving, but the response of the church should be to become more compassionate, merciful, and loving, not to further abandon its obligations and then encourage the state-- a notoriously ineffecient and imprudent lover-- to take up the slack.
If "social justice" means that justice is state charity, compassion, mercy, hospitality, care, and kindness to all, then justice just means "everything nice."
I could be wrong about the statist tenor of the social justice movement, and I need to think some more about it. Again, count me as a fan of both justice and the desired ends of "social justice" (compassion for the poor, equal treatment of all, the end of racism, for example). Social Justice, though, seems today to be a term of art that connotes the decline of real justice (administered by the state) and of true mercy and charity (administered by the church, families, and individuals).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)