Wednesday, March 26, 2008

The Beginning of Justice

My brother and I were having a very engaging conversation at church this past Easter Sunday. He is currently reading Jesus for President by Shane Claiborn. Obviously a very political book. I love Shane. I don't like Shane.

We were talking about some of the politics, pacifism and social ideals of Shane and I challenged Bryan to study Justice and what it means throughout the OT and into the NT. I have not done a topical study of the Bible in a long time and am very excited to begin the process. I will try to not only include all the texts I find and how I see them laying out, but other articles or sermons that I think are relevant to the subject.

So that brings us to the beginning of this blog. We will be posting our thoughts on tough issues. This started about the former information, but you are willing to email me things to post on this blog. Or just link them in a comment and then I can post them. We want to engage the heart and the mind and the feet to follow more closely after Jesus.


The Deviant said...

The Deviant one would love to contribute to the dialogue.

Deviant Ivan said...

Before we can engage in an in-depth conversation about the right theories or applications of justice, we first need to figure out what justice is. So what is justice? This concept and topic has been historically very contriversial. There has always been different forms of definitions for justice falling between the polarization of the idea of retribution (ie. punishment/reward) and the idea of restoration (ie. equalization/rehabilitation). Conservative interpretations have always leaned towards the former, whereas more activist, or liberal, interpretations have leaned towards the latter. The two perspectives, however, have one thing in common- the goal of justice, which consists of three inseperable and interdependent principles: one, righteousness; two, equality; and three, order. Righteousness, or doing what is right, is what justice is directed at; this requires that equality be established in a world is inevitably communal and social; the result of accomplishing equality by the means of righteousness is order, which in turn has to be maintained by equality and righteousness. The question (or questions) is, if the goals of both positions of justice have the same goal and if perhaps both positions may be plausible, which position best defines justice? also, which position would actually display justice? and which position is most biblical when it comes to its application?

Bryan Feil said...

nice comment 'the deviant one' i think that my little mind can only wrap around the concept of justice as acting on something that is out of line and not in compliance w/ either "society" or the "bible" which can be either polar opposites or one in some situations. to me, it would seem that mixture of both seems fitting, punishment and rehabilitation. although it doesn't always end up w/ any of both. take that for what its worth