What constitutes justice? Dennis Prager wrote a piece a few days ago called The Left Hates Inequality, Not Injustice. As you might have gathered, it is not written from a liberal perspective. I think he makes some valid points, but as a Christian, I think his analysis is incomplete. Prager writes,
To understand any political ideology, one must understand what most animates it. For the Left, it is hatred of inequality. As noted in a previous column, the Left hates inequality even more than it hates evil. Or perhaps more accurately, for the Left, inequality is the ultimate evil.
He begins by noting the ideology driving many Democrats during the Alito hearings.
Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy: "Average Americans have had a hard time getting a fair shake in his [Alito's] courtroom."
And
Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl: "The neutral approach, that of the judge just applying the law, is very often inadequate to ensure social progress . . ."
He recounts an experience he had with a former California Supreme Court Judge.
Some years ago in Idaho, I moderated a panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. One of the panelists was a former California Supreme Court justice, a liberal. He noted in his remarks that he saw the primary purpose of a judge as the righting of society's economic and other social inequalities.
In response, I noted that, with all due respect, that is not the purpose of a judge. The purpose of a court proceeding is to render a just verdict; if he wanted to end inequality, the judge had entered the wrong profession. He should have been a politician, a social activist, a clergyman or a radio talk show host. But not a judge.
As is true of most the Left's values, this ideal of favoring the little guy in a courtroom runs directly counter to a basic Judeo-Christian value. Exodus 23:3 expressly prohibits it: "Do not favor the poor man in his grievance."
(Actually I think Leviticus 19:15 says it better: “You shall not render an unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great: with justice you shall judge your neighbor.”)
These government officials aren’t the only ones operating under this mindset. Last month I wrote a piece about Jim Wallis’ book, God’s Politics (God’s Politics: Why Jim Wallis Doesn’t Get it Either), where I noted his summation of the Jubilee Code.
“…which was a direct reference to the Jubilee Year in the Hebrew Scriptures where, periodically, the debts of the poor were cancelled, slaves were set free, and land was redistributed for the sake of equity.” (Emphasis mine.)
I won’t recapitulate my point-by-point critique here except to say he is wrong on all three counts. The Jubilee Code effectively abolished unsecured debt, and it forbids slavery. The land was not “redistributed” but rather reclaimed by the rightful owner at the end of a lease agreement. Redistribution is a concept inappropriately read back into the passage. It is a concept that has more common with Marx than Moses.
While I agree with Prager’s assessment of the Left, I believe he has left half the story unsaid. Prager is quoting scripture, so I will quote some as well.
“However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, …” Deuteronomy 15:4
“Do not say to yourself, "My power and the might of my own hand have gotten me this wealth." But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, so that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your ancestors, as he is doing today.” Deuteronomy 8:17-18
Too many on the political Right identify justice with economic liberty and property rights. The Right often seems to believe that if they have played by the rules, they have a right to their wealth, and no one else has a claim on it. Both Left and Right define economic justice by material outcomes for individuals. The Left believes individuals have a “right” to take wealth from others in the name of justice, and the Right believes individuals have a “right” to keep wealth from others in the name of justice. Neither of these is economic justice in the biblical sense.
A biblical view of justice must be based on shalom, meaning peace, prosperity, health, and right relationships. Shalom begins with first acknowledging that all that exists is God’s, and we are but stewards. We have no absolute claim to wealth, whether our wealth or someone else’s. It is about being in right relationship with the true owner of our possessions and valuing the owner’s priorities.
Furthermore, there are two contradictory principles at work. First, there is the clear establishment of the concept of private property in the Bible. Second, there is a clear mandate to eliminate poverty and hunger from the community. However, these two principles only contradict when we approach them through a lens of an Enlightenment view of individual rights. The contradiction fades when we come at them through the lens of the right relationships and community articulated in shalom.
Over the next several days, I expect to do several posts relating to the ideas of eschatology and shalom, with an eye to what they mean for the mission of the Church and issues like economic justice. The next month will be a bit crazy for me, and posts on other topics may be interspersed, but I feel compelled to begin writing some reflections on this topic.
Comments