Jonah as Satire

Thalia Theatre Poster

Jonah has become for me one of those books that get better the more I revisit it.  I was set on a new course, however, when I heard Brian Zahnd point out that this book, while containing a serious message, was blatantly comedic.  The more I consider the idea the more I see he is right and I would continue the notion by comparing it with the humor found in Yiddish theatre (or vice versa).  So, if Jonah as that kind of production has not been done yet someone should get on that.

Nevertheless, Yiddish humor is characterized by its unique use of irony, satire, wordplay and its direct aim at the affluent and religious authorities as-well-as at itself. This is especially true in the wake of Haskala (Jewish Enlightenment) and its schism with Zionists.[1] Now I must say that the artists which emerged from Haskala, unlike the prophets, did little to energize the community toward God’s vision of hope, but like most artists they were certainly not void of vision in which to rightly critique their dominant culture (something to keep in mind while reading Jonah).

A Word about Prophets

However, to preface Jonah as a prophetic voice, I want to say something about the prophets.  Prophets have been seen as a kind of Godly fortune-tellers of future events, but foreknowledge, while it was present, was not the defining aspect of their task.  It did reveal God’s concern and investment for creation’s future (often by what was happening in the present), but it was only part to a much larger sum.  What was central was the prophets redirecting the community back toward the covenant responsibility and covenant hope.  This was much of the prophetic message from pre to post exilic time-periods. 

Additionally, while I think many readers are thrown off by the blending of poetry and apocalyptic imagery within the prophet’s literary makeup, they too are artists employing these elements to convey a two-fold message that aims to critique and energize.  They critiqued the dominant reality which was (as Walter Brueggemann termed) the “Royal Consciousness”.[2]  This royal-consciousness is a reoccurring theme throughout the Bible, but it gained renewed life in Solomon’s reign. He maintained a pagan ideology by “trading God’s vision of freedom for the reality of security; he banished the neighbor for the sake of reducing everyone to servant; he replaced covenanting with consuming, and all promises had been reduced to tradable commodities.”[3]  In the process, Solomon regressed to pride, despair, numbness and thus an inability to imagine hope or anything new (Ecclesiastes 1).

            The prophets then critiqued the broken royal order and energized their weary culture of faith toward God’s vision of hope and freedom.  This was the main vision from God that the prophet was privy to and God would use that visual-language, as Brueggemann says, “to bring to expression the new realities against the more visible ones of the old order. Energizing is closely linked to hope. We are energized not by that which we already possess but by that which is promised and about to be given.”[4]  Now, how does this fit in with a book like Jonah especially since the prophet is warning of Nineveh’s judgment?  Well it starts by looking at Jonah’s story.

Jonah’s Prophetic Comedy

Jonah, from beginning to end, looks unusual next to other prophetic books. It is a narrative, as Leslie Allen suggests, that is not recounting historical fact, but is a story crafted like a parable employing provocative elements of surprise and shock.[5]  Here are some of the key elements of each chapter:

Act 1:  In chapter 1 the story begins already in motion. There is an assumption for the reader that much has already happened as God calls Jonah and tells him to travel to Nineveh to warn the Assyrians, Israel’s worst enemy, of their incurred judgment.  This itself was an abnormality in the text because while prophetic oracles against a nation was commonplace, traveling to them was not; “[prophets traditionally spoke] from their native soil for the benefit of their fellow nationals.”[6]

 Right off Jonah surprises us when he does not even give God his reservations/frustrations about doing this (like Moses or Jeremiah). Rather, he refuses to carry the prophetic burden by promptly turning around and running as far as he could in the opposite direction of Nineveh.  From a southern port in Joppa our prophet then buys a ticket and boards a ship that will carry him as far west as he can get. 

While on the boat, God sends a ship-devastating storm. The captain implores the people to pray to their gods for rescue, but our prophet slinks away to hide below. After finding Jonah sleeping and telling him to pray, they cast lots to see who has offended the gods and it falls on Jonah.  Jonah then confesses that he is a Hebrew running from the world’s Creator and if they want to live they should probably just throw him overboard (apparently still a better option than attempting to repent and go to Nineveh).  After God’s power is displayed in the storm they have no choice but to throw him over. This in turn calmed the sea. Upon witnessing the events, the entire boat repents and vows to serve Israel’s God.  The scene then ends with God intervening and making arrangements with a fish to swallow Jonah for three days and nights.

Act 2: Now in the belly of the fish, there is a clear sense that God is still unwilling to let Jonah die.  Here Jonah finally laments and repents and he does it by methodically stringing together Psalter into a congruent psalm of his own (Ps. 3, 5, 18, 30, 42, 69, 120, 139 & 142). As Jonah closes with a promise that he will fulfill his vows, God tells the fish to hock Jonah up safely on shore.  There is, perhaps, a point of amusement for the author depicting a fish that releases its catch back on land.

Act 3: The following chapter opens with God telling Jonah a second time: go to Nineveh and deliver the message; Jonah obeys and travels to the great city. Upon arrival he delivers possibly the worst judgment speech ever.  There was no concern to convince anyone that it was true; no elaborate message planned; he simply walked through the gates and yelled “In 40 days Nineveh will be destroyed” –The End  

Jonah’s worst fear comes true.  While in other texts this might be where the prophet’s life comes to an end, here the king and the entire city believed him and came together fasting, wearing burlap and repenting for their violence. Then just to make extra sure Nineveh was well covered the king also made all their animals fast and wear burlap in repentance. Nevertheless, God is pleased and has mercy on them.

Act 4: The final chapter opens with Jonah throwing a fit because he knew from the beginning Israel’s God would be merciful, compassionate and filled with all that horrible unfailing love for such stupid people. Jonah then says, if you are not going to kill them than kill me, to which God asks, “Is it right for you to be angry?” Jonah ignores him and continues his tantrum outside the city hoping God will destroy it anyway. 

While there, God intervenes to make a plant grow to provide shade for Jonah and he is actually grateful for it, but then that night God makes arrangements with a worm to eat it.  As the sun grew hot the next day the entire scenario pissed Jonah off in a way that confounds even God.  God then demands to know how Jonah can care more about a plant than he can about the people of Nineveh, and their animals.  But, just as the story began in motion, so it also ends in motion and the curtain closes on God and Jonah are finally arguing out their disappointments with each other. 

Interpretative Addendum

This story seeks to entertain, indict and energize Israel through self-deprecating humor.  First, as the only Jew in the story, Jonah seems to have made himself emblematic of Israel.[7]  Everyone Jonah comes across (from the boat to Nineveh) turns their heart to God in record numbers regardless of Jonah’s failures.  Now herein lies the critique: The Jewish people who are privileged to hear God’s voice are the only ones refusing to listen to him.  They have been wearing their chosen status as a “badge of privilege” when in fact it was a call to responsibility. Thus it is a critique of priorities and lack of care for the other nations. 

            Jonah does not however neglect the “energizing” aspect either.  Throughout the story we see God as being merciful, redemptive, loving and committed to the future of all creation through Israel (not even refusing their enemies).  There is a deep hope and vision established by God’s attachment to us, especially for those we like to marginalize and trivialize.  In God’s subversive kingdom the last are not the least and the lost are not left.  So also those ensnared in mind-sets of superiority become free to be God’s community receptive, un-offended and recommitted to the covenant. Such a purpose is what God insists for Jonah (Israel).  

 

[1] Joel Berkowitz. Landmark Yiddish Plays: A Critical Anthology (Albany, NY: State University of NY Press 2006), 1.

[2] Walter Brueggemann. The Prophetic Imagination (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 2001), 33.

[3] Ibid, 14.

[4] Ibid, 33.

[5] Leslie C. Allen. NICOT: The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans 1976), 176.

[6] Ibid.

[7] I got this line from Zahnd, but I believe good part of this interpretation was from him as well so here is a link to his outworking of it: http://wolc.com/watch--listen/sermon-archives/jonah-a-comedy-2015/

Con-Caucusing a Leader

We are entrenched in the season of presidential candidates vying for attention. They want to divide and conquer you, your family, friends, neighbors and your pets.  While I certainly do have my own convictions about not entering into the voting process (with some exceptions), I am not entirely writing to persuade you of them.  What I do want to say is that when one claims Jesus as Lord it comes with a resolve that stands at odds with empire and requires a rethinking of our political involvement.      

Our Nation-State

The first thing to consider is the schema by which governmental institutions operate, especially when considering a president.  A government’s primary function is to systematically rule its society.  They do so by leveraging control over the people through a formation of politicized ethics, laws and regulations that everyone must adhere to.  At the same time citizens expect their leaders to help create something of a free and equitable society.  This is really what the average voter is after. A piece of control through their vote (power to the people and all that) and a leader they can put trust in because a president can potentially work to advance a society one can feel good about and have a sense of security in.                      

To add to the picture, American politics has shoehorned all of our issues into two parties which created bipartisan loyalties, but for a long time Christians as a whole were not necessarily committed to one side over the other.  This changed with the rise of the "Christian Right", in which Ronald Reagan became a key figure, as it sought to gain Christian loyalty to the conservatives by merging political symbols with Christian ones. They emphasized the Republican Party as being inherently more Christian than the Democrats especially during the Reagan campaign.  Yet, Ronald and Nancy also became known for putting their trust in Joan Quigley's astrology more than in God...  

More to the point, no matter how anyone felt about Carter’s presidency he was and is an outspoken Christian who thought the democratic side could exist in line with his Christian values. This alone flew in the face of the Christian Right’s agenda, but the ploy worked and Reagan got the majority of Christian votes. 

What makes it worse is that it created a power vacuum and a new pattern for the church’s involvement in politics (namely Evangelical streams) as the church is now invested mostly in the conservative side of the bipartisan trap.  That is unless you are a necessary scapegoat for much of what is wrong with America and Christianity (e.g. progressive/liberal Christians).  We have ultimately fooled ourselves into believing, as Lee Camp says, that we can baptize unrepentant political-structures and dub them Christian.[1] That is a lie from those wanting to gain control and claim certitude for our nation-state, but it inherently sells out the Gospel. 

The Gospel does not create a free and equitable society in the same way or for the same reasons the governments of the world do.  This is because as Christians we have come to locate ourselves within God’s story and it is through this that we begin to be formed by where the story has come from and where it is going.  Thus, there is an underlying need to see why the story of Israel and Jesus should change our relationship and interaction with government and its politics.

Learn a New Song

For sake of length my main focus is on Jesus, but I do want to show the correlations between the Exodus and Jesus as they are pertinent.

In Exodus when Moses leads the Jews out of the land of oppression God has just shown himself as superior to the false ruler Pharaoh (an anti-creational archetype).  It is as Ted Grimsrud terms, God’s and Israel’s “rub with the empire”.[2]  This confrontation results in expulsion from empire out of God’s incompatible cohabitation with it, but it is in exile that God gives them a new hope and new doxology.

Prior to their exit one can imagine that the Hebrews were probably singing songs of oppressed slaves, but when Moses leads them out a new song is sung establishing hope in God as their only true leader and giver of freedom (Exd. 15:1-20).  Walter Brueggemann illustrated that Egypt could not permit or tolerate it when Pharaoh’s own coronation edict (may Pharaoh's reign never come to an end) was misappropriated by Israel’s saying “the Lord will reign forever and ever” (15:18).  Such doxologies are always polemical; the unstated counter-theme at the end is “and not Pharaoh”(15:17-18).[3]     

Move ahead now to Jesus and we see Matthew and Luke very intentionally weave this into the birth narratives in two distinct ways:

1.      Matthew likens Herod to Pharaoh by showing that Herod too feared the one that would bring his reign to an end and thus attempted to snuff out Israel’s potential Messianic boys (compare Exod. 1:15-16; Matt. 2:7-8, 16).[4]

2.      In Luke’s gospel Mary, Zechariah and Simeon sing new doxologies that speak of freedom and hope that will come through this child. Then in Exodus-like fashion the lyrics blatantly threaten Herod’s and the Roman Empire’s positions of power (Lk. 1:46-55, 69-79; 2:29-32). It symbolizes the beginning of the end in a long line of self-deceptions.

Jesus’ Unruly Politics

Nevertheless, the ultimate threat to the empire comes with Jesus’ proclamation that the Kingdom of God is present and is reclaiming its reign over creation (Matt. 13:33) and it is doing so in opposition to its greed, violence and oppression (Matt. 5-7).  The agitation gains traction as the religious leaders fear losing their power positions (Jn. 11:45-53), which gave way to their insurrection indictment of Jesus. They claimed he incites the people to rebellion, tells them not to pay taxes, misleads their nation and claims himself as their king (Lk. 23:2, 14).  Note that the most pressing question out of these accusations for Pilate was: are you king of the Jews?(v.3).  Jesus never denies it. But what is most profound is that he is then the one king whose reign is forever and yet he is the only one willing to quietly go to his end and makes the cross the coronation of his enthronement.     

     

So if Lordship does in fact belong to Jesus, then it will always be in conflict with those who believe they can play power roles because it exposes the sham of personal and national pretentions of importance and reveals that it has an inevitable end.  This is also to say that the sanctification of one nation over another is always an untrue gesture as well.    

To then take part in an anxious election season will be a tricky one for Christian voters because any governmental change for the better is always incredibly shortsighted and temporary especially when it comes to leaders. Remember, Jesus left behind a Church for his political benefactors not a nation-state.  The state that is characterized by power, force and coercion is overturned by the reign of mercy, self-giving love, patient-forgiveness and reconciliation.  If you then feel inclined to take part to vote, then don't use it as a way preserve your own way of life (especially at the expense of another).  Rather, use it as a vehicle to temporarily stand in service of the other: helping the poor, the foreigner, children, the sick, the marginalized all while condemning state-sponsored violence and greed.  More to the point we then need to spend that much more time being the church that embodies this ethic.

It seems to me our faith in ideologies and final solutions are idols that should only be obscured by our trust in the Lord of heaven and earth.  So if our politics, and indeed our lives, do not act as if Jesus is Lord and look like his destabilizing the current power-structures, then we are probably doing it wrong.   

 [1] Lee Camp. Mere Discipleship: Radical Christianity in a Rebellious World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing 2008), 22.

[2] Ted Grimsrud. Jesus’ Confrontation with Empire Retrieved from http://peacetheology.net/2012/06/09/jesus-confrontation-with-empire/

[3] Walter Brueggemann. The Prophetic Imagination (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 2001), 19.

[4] Ibid, 82-83.

The Truth About Porn and Fantasy

A friend recently sent me a “TEDx Talks” link in which a gentleman by the name of Ran Gavrieli was speaking about why he stopped watching porn (see here, I recommend it).  I found his initial reasons extremely telling particularly when he labeled the porn industry “filmed prostitution” because we are paying for a sexual act to happen.  More importantly Ran makes the point that no one usually wants to grow up to be a prostitute or a porn star, but it most often happens out of desperation to a related distress which then becomes exploited.  

It does not, however, stop there. He points out that because the porn industry only makes money when they can produce what arouses their audience, now we also have a long list of fantasy genres to pick from, from every unusual fetish to sexual torture and violence (e.g. rape-porn).  Though he goes on to further explain the unhealthy sexuality happening within these industries, this alone should not set well with us.

The point I would like to contribute to this is the reality of our own fantasy life and its affect on shaping our sexuality and influencing this industry.  These films are a result of what has already occurred (or occurs) in our imaginations.  To make certain our sexuality and desire for sex is not a bad thing; it is a good thing and a biological one.  This is something many unprepared parents have tried to stifle and make taboo, but the truth is none of us would be here without it and at our healthiest we are procreating and relational creatures (which means we also do it as the one of the most intimate forms of bonding).

The problem that led to the porn, I surmise, began back when the “stimuli" began occurring in attraction toward another person.  This moment in and of itself was not bad, but rather the moment we began to engage with the imaginative fantasy that offered the proportionate potential for good as it had for bad.  What most often tends to occur is that thoughts of healthy sexual relations become a one-sided venture.  When the physical person is removed from our sexual act the only one to be aroused and satisfied is ourselves.  As this occurs the other person ceases to be an actual person and becomes a tool for our pleasure. Suddenly what was a human-subject becomes an impersonal-object.  They no longer are real people who have problems with some sexual acts, nor do they have any attributes that could be a potential turnoff. 

The tendency then is to say, "well it is only in our heads and not real so what is the problem?"   The problem is our cognition is a very complex thing and we have a unique way of using  imagination and practice to create internal patterns. What might seem like "innocent" sexual fantasies (that pleasure only us) can and does transfer to our behavior. Without our knowing it the repeated process of “getting it” our way forms how we view and what we expect from our sexual partner. 
But, a healthy sexual relationship is a developed two-way road which is occasioned by needs and inconveniences: one or the other not being in the mood, or needing to feel desired in other ways, or listened to, or actually be respected as an equal before being able to connect on any sexual level. So, the man or woman who has needs, problems, boundaries, and possibly gastrointestinal issues is not the person of our fantasies, but is the real thing.  When we embrace that counterfeit the result then is a supply and demand platform for things like the porn industry, prostitution, and human trafficking as a way to force an extremely distorted reality that fulfills our disconnected fantasy.       

Manifesto

As soon as the generals and the politicos can predict the motion of your mind, lose it. Leave it as a sign to mark the false trail, the way you didn’t go. Be like the fox who makes more tracks than necessary, some in the wrong direction. Practice resurrection. –Wendell Berry

Jesus Called a Woman a Dog?

It is true, Jesus strayed from character and degraded a Canaanite woman (in need) simply because she was not a Jew; however, I think we need to pay more attention to the events that led to this point.  Some people uncomfortably read past this not sure what to think about Jesus’ behavior, but in recapturing this busy scene I think we will see that this was not just another moment of resolute faith on someone’s part, but this is also a crucial moment for the disciples and a playful moment for Jesus.

Starting from the top of Matthew 15, the Pharisees confront Jesus about his disciple’s violation of Jewish purity codes because they did not wash before eating bread.  Jesus uses this moment to expose something in them. They were clearly concerned with purity when it came to their “holy” appearance, but they did not care about observing more important parts of law. He uses the example of loving your father and mother which they say they do, but then notoriously use excuses to neglect their needs (15:1-11).

At this point, the disciples approach Jesus and say, "Hey Jesus, you kind of upset the Pharisees with what you said", but Jesus only reply is that they were not the holy religious leaders they claimed to be.  Peter then asks Jesus to explain the parable to them, but Jesus says this was not exactly a mysterious story so how is it you don’t get it?  Yet, Jesus obliges them and says, as plainly as possible, what goes in your mouth does not matter, but it is the things you say and do that are direct reflections of what kind of person you really are on the inside.

It was only after this that they then came across the Syrophoenician (Canaanite) woman whose daughter was possessed. Notice that even in a time when there were cultural observances prohibiting a Canaanite woman from talking to a Jewish man, she obviously had heard enough about Jesus’ character that she was willing to risk it and plead for her daughter.  To our surprise Jesus first ignores her, but if we pay attention I think he is testing his disciples.  In fact the bigger shock should be that even after Jesus's explanation that what is in their heart is what defiles them, they say, "Jesus send her away so we don’t have to hear her incessant crying!"  Wow, way to step-up fellas…

Now, in the following lines it turns comedic so try imposing a sarcastic tone with what Jesus says.  Clearly ‘“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’  But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, “Lord, help me!”  And He answered and said, ‘It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”’ But then she seems to catch on to the playfulness and quips back with, “Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus dropping pretenses says, “O woman, your faith is great!”(15:21-28).[1]  

It seems to me Jesus was possibly flaunting stereotypes and self-righteous behavior to exploit the defiling thoughts of contempt his followers had for the Canaanites, or women, or even both.  Nevertheless, because this is text and we cannot hear the author’s inflections or naturally pick up on good-natured teasing in first-century lit., we must watch-out for these moments. Life is happening in these stories and it is anything but void of changing temperaments, demeanor and relationships. 

[1] Note that Mark has almost this exact same story, minus the disciples, but he seems to be doing something similar in a more subtle fashion 

Biblical Justice is Restorative Justice (Prt 2)

In my last post I made the point that law in the Bible was always a flexible feature because it was meant to stand in support of a people who were continually changing. Therefore, when there was a violation of a law it was a violation against a person more than an arbitrary breaking of rules. The function of justice was then to make it right.[1] 

Restorative Justice

This gives way to the needed alternative to retributive justice as it only seeks to assign guilt, inflict pain one “deserves” (which is measured by the process) and define the offense based solely on the law broken.[2]  The alternative is restorative justice which centers on the victim’s needs and asks the offender to face what they caused.  This comes by asking:

1.      Who has been hurt?

2.      What are their needs?

3.      Whose obligations are these?

4.      What are the causes?

5.      Who has a stake in the situation (primary is victim, but secondary can include family and community)?

6.      What is the appropriate process to involve stakeholders in an effort to address causes and put things right?[3]

I also recall Zehr pointing out that this model has to be flexible enough to know that it is not always good idea to reunite victim and offender especially when the victim is not comfortable with it, or if the offender is completely uncooperative.   

            However, this raises the question what is it that is inherently wrong with the prison system as punishment? When the crime is violent in nature, confinement is often necessary. Yet, Zehr also points out, the prison system and the distorted worldview of domination that exists on its inside only reinforces the mindset that put them there in the first place and it never holds them accountable to see the people and harm they caused.  Moreover, anybody who has spent significant time in prison will tell you they can come to exist within the prison system as-well-as they do on the outside and sometimes better which makes the punishment of little threat.[4]  But, like I said, I see little alternative for those who are not “mentally ill” and only succumb to violence as means to get their way.  Alternatively, community conferencing for offenders has been a surprisingly effective solution even within the prison system.  This is where they are given the opportunity to talk with mediators and the victim(s) and/or family members which make them face questions from the victim’s side like “why them”, “for what purpose” and so on. 

These meetings are often harder for the offender than just sitting in a cell, and yet it has also contributed to a large decrease in repeat offenders.  When the victim can ask questions and get answers, and also when the offender faces what they caused and in some cases can help make things right, or at least offer a symbolic gesture of remorse and compensation, it re-empowers both in a positive way.  It offers a little bit of control back to the victim who had it stolen and it empowers the offender to be part of the rebuilding process. Though many assume they are getting off easy, they are not.  They are having to make new choices in contrast to their toxic behavior that not only devastates people and community, but reveal the obligations to persons injured they would otherwise be shielded from.  Through this process many victims feel justice has been served even more so than in the criminal justice process. While I leave a lot out, this is the essence of restorative justice.

Biblical Justice

So to bring this back together with the first part I want to say this is Biblical.  What I see is the overall narrative of God’s reconciliation and restoration within the setting of broken covenant.  Covenant, Zehr reminds us, is an agreement between two parties that implies personal relationship with reciprocal responsibilities and mutual commitments.[5]  This is something that exists, to greater and lesser degrees, within all societies and communities simply because we are relational creatures.  The difference is God refuses to play the game of scapegoats, marginalization and elimination.  Think of how we brand ex-cons as criminals and refuse to see past that; when that is all you are defined as what else can a person do but embrace it, but God says no to that.  God confronts Adam and Eve, Cain, Moses, David and Israel, but does not destroy them.  God does allow Israel to finally be exiled, but even then he goes with her so to enable the correction process instead of throwing the clay out altogether and labeling her hopeless (Jer. 18:1-11; Rom. 9).  His request was always that we begin by taking responsibility for the other (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 14:29; Lk. 10:27). 

Jesus further rejects our one-sided thinking and expulsion toward another when he comes as the physician/reconciler not as judge or attorney, prosecuting or defending (Mk. 2:16-17).  Jesus does the work of making the sinner face that dark part of the self and does not lessen the offense, but he does not leave them there either.  Though no one can take back the offense they committed Jesus permits them to cut ties with it and work to help make things right in the earth under a new covenant and relationship with God and neighbor  (Mt. 19:16-22; Lk. 19:1-10; Jn. 8:1-11).    

God and human has been the victim of human harm and yet scripture tells of God entering in to make it right rather than destroying it.  To then bear witness to God’s act we are asked to participate in it, so I believe more Christians would do well to understand and enact restorative justice where it is possible.  While I have no interaction with law and courts, I did realize I disciplined my children in a way that looked like punitive justice by grounding, or taking away possessions or spanking as punishment. This only created children who obeyed out of fear of punishment not out of responsibility to do what was right because they understood the damage.  I have had infinitely better results (though I have had to get creative) when I hold them accountable and enable them to see what they did and make it right. The big take away here is not that I am now a superior parent (because I certainly still have lots to learn and still fail) but start where you can (home, schools, workplace etc…).

To me this is how we can thwart the tendency to interpret God based on our own criminal justice system in judgment, punishment and penal atonement theories and finally allow God to form our lens in a modern age for the return of shalom.        

 

   

[1] Something also to keep in mind, since we tend to link “justice” with “punishment”, is that the Hebrew word for “punish”, rsy (yasar), means “to teach” and “to discipline”, but it does not mean “to hurt” or “to injure” (those got their own word).  See William L Holladay. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing 1988), 137.

[2] Howard Zehr. Changing Lenses: Restorative Justive for Our Times (Harrisonburg, VA:  Herald Press 2015), 69.

[3] Ibid, 237.

[4] Ibid, 40-45.

[5] Ibid, 136.

Biblical Justice is Restorative Justice (Prt 1)

We Christians spend a lot of time talking about justice and working toward justice.  Yet, if I were to ask most westerners what “justice” in the Biblical sense meant I imagine many might reflect our societies’ picture of criminal justice or perhaps just limit it to someone who gets their just desserts.  Such a portrait of justice will look like fire and brimstone and vengeful-retribution against the guilty.  Not only is this wrong, but I think it is important we get this right if we are going to be a community that works toward peace not least of all through justice. 

            The retributive model of justice that the US holds (as-well-as that imposed on Biblical text) actually comes from the Greco-Roman justice. This justice is represented by the Justitia statue.  It is a statue of a woman who while blindfolded holds the balancing scales of justice in one hand and a sword in the other.  She is supposed to represent an objective ruler who does not judge based on fear or favor, but rather seeks to weigh evidence thereby justly taking sides and using the authority of the sword to retributively give someone the due punishment for their offense.

            Why would we let someone detached from the situation decide our fate you may ask (well you should have), because we have exchanged actual care for the victims with a new centerpiece.  As Howard Zehr points out, the ideology supporting criminal justice believes that crime is a violation of the State and its laws (the new centerpiece) and that violation creates guilt. Subsequently, justice demands that the state determine who is guilty and then impose painful punishment so that they get what they deserve.[1]  Zehr says this in turn creates three main questions for dealing with crime:

1.      What laws have been broken?

2.      Who did it?

3.      What do they deserve?[2]

This is an inflexible system that we believe offenders must go through so that justice can be determined and served through inflicting pain as punishment. 

Now this is not to say that criminal justice is useless and we do not need it.  Zehr also makes the point (although I don’t remember where), when no one wants to be honest and truth need be brought to light criminal justice is very good at getting to the bottom of the issue. While it perhaps should not be the central form of justice, legal professionals who know how to do this are needed and helpful.  But, this should never be allowed to create focus more concerned with “rules” that have been broken than people involved.

Before looking at Biblical justice it first helps to understand Biblical laws.  We tend to reduce the laws to a lot of static “Thou shalt nots” that God uses for earning salvation and maximizing his authority and making his followers moral superiors over everyone else. To add to the problem, these laws are also inconsistent throughout its development in the Pentateuch, so God’s static laws seem untrustworthy. What gives?

I believe Jesus summed it up when he said God made the Sabbath for humankind not humankind for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27).  This applies to all of the laws because the laws were always meant to stand in service of creation and not the other way around.  To utilize Terence Fretheim’s work, the law was a gracious gift that intersects with lives being lived in the Biblical stories and thus each law is meeting specific creational and human needs, namely life (Deut. 6:24).[3]  It is precisely because of this that the law can never be a static thing, but it must be as dynamic as the organic life it supports and serves, meaning that it is always open-ended.

What does the law’s open-ended development through the Bible mean?  In its simplest terms, as people change so do their circumstances and their needs. Subsequently, it becomes a testimony of unrest in the law for it to be flexible enough for continual revision so to “link law with life in new times and in new places.”[4]  From the Christian standpoint Jesus both revises and improves on Jewish law every time he says “you have heard it said… But I say…” (See Matthew 5-6 or 19:7-8) or pay attention to all the times Jesus violates purity codes for the sake of mercy.

So, I am going to end this part with this, if Biblical laws are standing in support of people (not for lording over one another) then justice seeks to make it right when they have been broken.  When the law that serves the person has been broken the central violation is of a person not just some law.

[1] Howard Zehr. The Little Book of Restorative Justice (Intercourse, PA: Good Books 2002), 21.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Terence Fretheim. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2005), 149.

[4] ibid, 153.