Another false dichotomy to follow up the "over God"/"under God" one, a few days ago?

"As Keller describes them, the justification people are all about justification by faith alone..." Again, who are these people? Not many apparently, as pretty every study seems to show that Christians, as a whole (mileage may vary, of course) support charity far more than their secular counterparts.

Could we all be better? Of course, but I suspect the *real* issue bugging Keller (and so many others) is that "justice" and "charity" are at odds.

"Justice" doesn't mean actual justice: it means the leftist belief that the best way to help the poor is NOT to actually perform charity yourself, but to restructure society. It also implies that the poor *deserve* food, healthcare, etc (it is a right, so you should have it no matter what you're willing to do or not), that those in prison *deserve* mercy, etc. If it is justice, it cannot be charity, and vise-versa. The two conceptions are, and always will be, at odds with each other.

But it is implied that those who participate only in charity are unconcerned about "justice". Of course we care about real justice, (who wants an innocent person in jail?) but we're bad people because we don't believe government is the main tool to use for improving society.

I think Keller nails the relationship between justification and justice. It requires a very intentional community and way of life to live this out. There are very strong pulls from either extreme.

I can't wait for people to start saying...

"Yeah, but justification is still the main thing."

The sad reality is that the "justification only" types are the majority report and we'll only be surprised if they don't come out in indignant force on this comment thread.

Justification is spiritual. Justice is physical. That's the platonic dualism that modern Christian thought had adopted. Of course, that dualism is bad Christian theology. Until it's rooted out, we won't be able to see how these justification and justice fit together.

Justification is what God does, and its effect is imputed righteousness, which is credited in the spiritual (not earthly) realm.

Justice, at least as described here, is what humans beings do, working to make life on earth more in line with the justice God prescribes.

They are two different things. Yes, they are related. But the focus is two different aspects of the righteous life.

So much of the disagreement today deals with what justice is.

Is justice treating people the way God treats them? Offering forgiveness when sins are confessed, but judging the unrepentant?

Or is justice treating everyone impartially, even if they've chosen a sinful or self-destructive lifestyle?

Hot button question: is same-sex marriage a justice question? Or a question of human impartiality?

Part of our challenge today is agreeing on what "justice" means.

I think Keller is dead on. That being said, I think this type of stuff will get Keller into trouble with some PCA folks. His point here is eerily similar to the point that James Dunn makes in his book "The Justice of God." Thats an association that, by PCA criteria, would be totally unacceptable.

Tim - you are right that American Christians as a class give a large amount of money to charity. Yet, although the whole number is quite high, the percentage of income given is quite small. The same is true of volunteerism. There are a lot of people claiming to be Christ-followers that give there time to help others. Yet, the percentage is quite low.

I think the reason the those claiming to be Christians out-pace others at giving and volunteerism is that the category "Christian" is larger than the other categories to which they are compared.

We still as a group, however, are woefully inefficient at fulfilling the commands of Scripture regarding our care for others.

"...it’s about justification and justice, not justification or justice. And when we get this right, not only do we see justification lead to more justice, but doing more justice leads more of the lost toward Christ and justification through faith."
Exactly.

It would be difficult to disagree with the thesis that both justice and justification are crucial, but I don't think the picture painted here is an accurate reflection of current reality. It's more like a heuristic model, I guess. In reality most evangelical Christians really are concerned about both. I'm not sure how helpful it is to paint it like a great divide. Also I think we are missing a point. In common parlance "justice" refers to social justice, care of the poor, etc. While some evangelicals might not be totally comfortable with that set of issues, ALL evangelicals understand that righteousness (often understood personally) is crucial. So the issue is really between people who see righteousness as personal and those who see it as social, not between people who are only for justification and people who are for working out the moral implications of justification. A final note: You don't need to reason from justification to get to practical righteousness. "Love your neighbor as your self" is pretty clear.

It's been interesting to read the above discussion: some assumptions as to what "justice" is, some questions asking to define what it is.

Why not look to the bible, if we really want to find out what "justice" means?

The first operational definition I can find is in Exodus 23: "Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit."

When people talk about "justice" in context above, they typically mean "good works." Yet the bible seems to completely avoid any such meaning. Instead, as in the verse above, "justice" refers (unsurprisingly) to a judicial context: giving someone what they are legally entitled to.

Note that where (social) "justice" usually means reflexively siding with whomever seems to be weakest, the bible's first word on the matter is to call such a tendency a perversion of justice, based on a tendency to want to fit in with others. (We shouldn't do the same with the rich either, mind you -- see verse 6 and Lev 19:15).

To use such a term for handing out food, charity, etc implies that people are legally entitled to such. Yet the bible calls this "mercy". For example, when hurting Jews approached Jesus asking for healing, they did not ask for "justice", they asked for "mercy" (see Matthew 9:27, Luke 10:37, the parable of the good Samaritan).

So why do we want to call "justice" what God calls "mercy"? What is this language doing to our conceptions?

Mercy implies unwarranted favor, justice implies you deserve it. So mercy is eliminated by "justice", since no one should be grateful to receive what they're owed.

Further, anyone can show mercy, but only a judge can hand out justice. So this formulation makes us believe we must sit in the seat of the judge (running society, deciding who really gets what) before we can begin to deal with the poor and downtrodden as we've been commanded.

I don't see what is Christian at all about this conception. Nearly every aspect of it seems to fly in the face of the bible's teachings on the subject.

Set me right if I'm wrong.

First, Tim Keller sounds like a good United Methodist to me. We are all about "both/and" theology. So much so that we are often accused of not having any beliefs.

Asking what justice means is a crucial question in this conversation. When talking about the Kingdom of God, justice and mercy have meanings that do not necessarily match up with our contemporary definitions.

To Tim (Random Observations)

Job 31 says that 'keeping my bread to myself'--not sharing with the poor--is not simply stinginess, but sin: "If I have denied the desires of the poor...if I have kept my bread to myself, not sharing it with the fatherless (v.16-17)...for fear of his splendor I could not do such things (v.23)...these are sins to be judged (v.28)"

Job 29 speaks about putting on 'justice' as clothing and then defines that in the context--caring for the blind and lame (v.15,) caring for the needs of the needy (v.16a,) and being an advocate for the immigrant (v.16b.)

These kinds of activities are called 'justice' and failure to do them is called 'sin.' Any sin is a violation of God's law and will and as a law-breaker you are violating his justice.

Justice usually costs a lot of money. On the issue of charity and believers, you need to watch where the money goes. Leaderships statistics show that believers consume 86% of it erecting special buildings and hiring staff to provide for gatherings of 75 people in one room or more. If the saints were willing to examine the traditional assumptions and the warped scripture used to justify these assumptions, they would discover huge amounts of resources for justice and justification around for all nations. This current system consumes 90% or more of the giving here in America. This is not humble or wise or obedient to Christ. It feels good to most folk but that's about it.

The fundamental disagreement to my mind seems to be over trying to decide who "deserves" mercy and justice -- and whether anyone (other than God) has the right to make that judgment of worthiness. If "leftists" (or whatever people who take a more magnanimous approach to mercy and justice issues are called these days) err too much on the side of "anything goes," the other camp too often falls into the trap of playing God. What I hear some of my justification-focused brothers and sisters saying is that, yes, by all means, let's give food to the hungry, shelter to the homeless, love to the outcast, but only IF the recipient is worthy of it (the homeless guy should be trying to get a job, the homosexual should denounce his or her "lifestyle," the mom with too many kids should get her tubes tied, etc., etc.) Does God command individuals to take stock of their lives and give up sin? Absolutely! But does God give us authority to determine what consequences someone will suffer if they don't "fix" their life to our satisfaction (withholding of support or love, or even ostracization), to make our mercy and justice conditional? Sorry, I don't read the Bible that way.

Tim (Random Observations) made a good point regarding the definition of justice vs. mercy. Yet, in my tradition the issue is the same whether we call it justice or mercy we still don't do it very well. We use the doctrine of justification to justify our lack of practicing justice but rather teaching the doctrine of justification.

God broke my heart on this one through the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25. The fact that every time I choose not to care for the less fortunate I miss a chance to encounter Jesus kills me. Whether you call it justice or mercy is ultimately irrelevant. The issue is, are you doing anything to care about the people that Jesus cares about.

God has always made special provisions for the poor among his people. We can' ignore that just because we have been justified.

"The fact that every time I choose not to care for the less fortunate I miss a chance to encounter Jesus kills me. Whether you call it justice or mercy is ultimately irrelevant. The issue is, are you doing anything to care about the people that Jesus cares about."

Perhaps we could simply call it "LOVE".

To Tim Keller:

Concerning Job 31, you wrote: Job 31 says that 'keeping my bread to myself'--not sharing with the poor--is not simply stinginess, but sin.... These kinds of activities are called 'justice' and failure to do them is called 'sin.' Any sin is a violation of God's law and will and as a law-breaker you are violating his justice.

I agree that this (and plenty of other verses!) imply that we have an obligation to help the poor. Again, I hope you understand that this isn't in question at all, if I haven't made that as clear as possible already. I agree with you that Christians have a duty to help the poor, no question.

(The question is only how we should think of this area of activity (is it "mercy" or "justice"?) and regarding technique (is it better if Christians do it, with their resources, or if they use compulsion to get others, including non-believers, to underwrite their ideas and programs)?)

But, following this, you go so far as to apparently almost completely undermine the entire theological basis of Christianity! If the opposite of "sin" (no charity, in your example), must be "justice", then what would that imply concerning Jesus? If he had hesitated at the cross, and refused to die for us, and said: "God, nice idea, but I'm just going to live out my natural life", wouldn't that have been a sin? Yes? So then wouldn't it imply the opposite -- his obediently dying for us -- must have been "justice" (we deserved) not "mercy"?

The argument you're proposing here, if you truly believe it, means we must also view salvation as an act of "justice", not "mercy", since Jesus would have sinned by withholding it from us.

Your choice to use this particular argument makes my point as clearly as anything I could imagine.

Again, as you've just illustrated, calling mercy "justice" undermines the very basis of Christian charity: we love because we have been loved. We forgive because we have been forgiven. We give unwarranted favor because we ourselves have received unwarranted favor. These is no parallel with justice: we did not receive "justice" from God, so we should be very careful about presuming to hand it out to others, beyond areas God has himself carefully delineated (protection of life, property, etc) -- lest we end up like the ungrateful servant, who, having been freshly forgiven, presumed to extract "justice" from others.

Your "justice" framing also undermines a critical emotional and mental effect of charity: Mercy softens the heart. Justice, though good, does not. A woman who receives justice gets what she deserves. She earned it; she "had it coming"; her moral debt is settled. Her life will not be as changed as the forgiven criminal, or the poor person who knows nobody owes them a living, but was helped anyway. Framing our love as "justice" (and demanding non-believers underwrite or carry it out) undermines the very psychological and social effects others have cited (above) as the reason Christianity initially spread.

Next, you mention Job 29:14, which has Job mentioning his love of "justice" alongside some things which we'd think of as charitable acts (such as helping the poor) and some we'd probably not think of as precisely being charity (dispensing wisdom). Is Job equating "justice" with either of these, or is he simply building up a case about what a great guy he is by mentioning every good deed, of any kind, he can think of?

To resolve this, check the rest of of the book of Job to see how Job and his peers (who, unlike others in the bible, are not from a Jewish culture) use "justice". In every other use (I'm counting twelve in the NIV) "justice" refers to a judicial/moral usage -- most, explicitly and unambiguously so. For example: "Though I cry, 'I've been wronged!' I get no response; though I call for help, there is no justice" -- by and from God, Job means.

(And never mind the dozens of other clearly judicial/moral uses we had to skip over in the Torah, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, etc before we found this first, vague reference noted in Job above.)

BUT, even if we grant that:

1. Job is still not referring to what advocates of [social] "justice" tend to mean: he did the charitable acts himself, using his own money or capabilities. He didn't demand others carry out his programs using the money of still another group. (Indeed, he's arguing people think he's a great guy because of that -- also not an aspect we should duplicate...)

2. I'm always personally hesitant about drawing too much from the Job dialog, given that God shows up later and rebukes all parties involved for their words. In Job's case, Job is clearly saying these things to build up a case that God has been unfair to him (see quote above). Even if we grant your reading, I'm not quite sure I'd be comfortable building a theological case around such a self-serving speech, given God's own reaction to it, later.

It would seem if the bible really supported such a concept well, we wouldn't have to pull our argument from an ambiguous reference, in a speech God later rebukes -- no? Is the verbal framing some (above) refer to as foundational to the Christian faith (charity as "justice") really built around only one (or even a few) references as ambiguous as the one you cited?

Best to you,
- Tim

TimRO,

So really, for you this about government policy? We should do good--and call it mercy or love--but we shouldn't force other people to do good?

That's a bit of a slippery slope. We force people to do good all the time. We make laws, and we enforce them, in an attempt to get the world to be a little closer to what it ought to be. People ought not to be robbed of their possessions. Women ought not to be raped. Employers ought not to carelessly disregard the safety of their workers. Judges ought not to rule in favor of the person who pays them the most. These efforts won't rid the world of problems, of course, because laws don't save. But that doesn't mean we should abandon trying to make good laws.

So for me, the question is not "Should we help the poor?" or "Should we try to make and enforce laws?" The question is, "How can we best help the poor?" And I'm willing to hear arguments about whether certain government programs are really helpful. I'm sure there are many that are not. But now we're talking about effective policy, not about whether to help the poor or not. And if there are some programs that DO help the poor, why would we oppose them?

Unless you really think you deserve food more than poor people. Then we are just fundamentally at odds.

tim...really nice insights, thank-you.

I think everyone should read the book "Who Really Cares" by Arthur C. Brookes. His research on charity in America blows all kinds of holes in the sterotypes of who, what and why people are charitable or not.

I thought one of the most insightful parts of his book was this...

"Econonomists have a name for this phenomenon: (i.e. government spending leads people to give less to charity) and it is a potent theory for opponents of "big government... Numerous studies have demonstrated that a dollar in government spending on on nonprofit activities displaces up to 50 cents in private giving.

The most likely reason for this is that people tend to see government aid and private charity as substitutes: If the government takes my money to help others, I will lower my private giving.

The problem many evangelicals have with "social justice" advocates is the emphasis on government re-distributing other people's money and calling it charity. This is not justice, it is not mercy and it is not charity.

Nobody talks about a work ethic anymore, but the Bible does.
Did the author of that book you mention happen to give you the statistics on the huge percentage of tax dollars that goes into the bureaucracy before it actually gets to the needy person? Perhaps that's why the 50% of us who are taxed (and 50% are now on the receiving end-outrageous) may give slightly less. But the money we give goes directly to the recipient, and not the 20 managers in-between.

Lots of us are getting a little sick of the system that has half the population giving everything and half receiving everything from the workers. If we were taxed less, believe me, we'd be happy to give a lot more privately. In addition, NOBODY but God and me knows what I give privately, so it is not covered in any statistics, and I am hardly the only one that prefers to keep my giving private. Perhaps we should follow this example from the Bible.

2Thess 3:
7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

Nobody talks about a work ethic anymore, just entitlements.

Nate: So really, for you this [is] about government policy?

Well, I hope we'd both care about government policy, because, right or wrong, it sure impacts a lot of people. But it sounds like you're alleging that my views of government policy are the "real" motivation behind what I wrote above. That is, by the way, an ad homen argument (fallacy).

Why not just ask whether what I wrote was true or false, and supported by the bible? Do we have to judge some man's motives before we can look in the bible to see what it says for itself?

Of course, I tend to think that my Christianity has influenced my politics much more than the other way around, but since nobody knows his own heart, how could I be sure I'm not deceiving myself? My conscience (on that tiny point anyway) is clear, but I'll let God be the judge, and try to remain open to counter-evidence.

We force people to do good all the time. We make laws, and we enforce them, in an attempt to get the world to be a little closer to what it ought to be.

What "we" do isn't necessarily a gauge as to what is right. Our government, and we voters, do all sorts of wrong things. The kind of (societal and secular) laws God spells out in the bible tend to be "negative", that is, they more stop people from doing evil than forcing them to do good. If a man steals, he will be punished...

People ought not to be robbed of their possessions. Women ought not to be raped. Employers ought not to carelessly disregard the safety of their workers....

Right! You make my point precisely! None of the examples you give are forcing someone to "do good": "don't steal / don't rape / don't break your promise / don't be corrupt". This is also the historical foundation of US law: not that people are forced to do good, as much as prevented from doing evil. The same thing is true of the "theocracy" God gave Israel (Judges 21:25), as well as Paul's instructions in Romans about the role of government, "an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13:4)

Now you could argue, perhaps, that it's better to use government to compel people to do good (say, give to charity) than merely avoid evil. If you want to justify it biblically, go ahead and quote some supporting verses, as I've been asking. Otherwise, admit your basis is simply secular and practical, and then give the evidence it works better than the alternative.

But I don't see either happening, above.

So for me, the question is not "Should we help the poor?" or "Should we try to make and enforce laws?" The question is, "How can we best help the poor?"

I agree, but I think both are relevant and must be thought about. I tend to judge political policies on practical basis, but that always brings in questions of values -- and we should get those from the bible. I myself have found that so-called "conservative" solutions actually do more good than the more "progressive" alternatives (to my surprise -- having started out somewhat to the left of where I am now) -- and am always glad to have that discussion. (Though few seem interested.) But if some "practical" solution I favored seemed to run into the bible, I'd have to try to figure out where the disconnect came in, step back, and rethink.

And I'm willing to hear arguments about whether certain government programs are really helpful...

I am too!

And if there are some programs that DO help the poor, why would we oppose them?

(Hmmm... one more try... apologies!)

And if there are some programs that DO help the poor, why would we oppose them?

If something does more good than harm, what's to oppose, right? But what if, for example, murdering one innocent person in cold blood could somehow save many other lives? How would you sort that out? What if stealing one rich man's money would feed the poor? Would the ends, again, justify the means? These are hard questions, so I suspect our answers aren't purely "pragmatic". We're Christians, not "utilitarians", after all.

As it is, I usually find that the things which *do* work tend to match up with what I see the bible as favoring. So I'm usually spared this problem, thankfully. And, really, isn't that what we'd expect anyway, if it were really from God?

Unless you really think you deserve food more than poor people. Then we are just fundamentally at odds.

What do *I* deserve? I deserve God's wrath for my sins. Anything beyond that is grace and mercy.

But to answer what I think you really mean: One man is born smart as a tack, one is born mentally retarded. How could you argue the smart man "deserves" his talent, since both he and the other man were given their intelligence long before could do anything, good or bad? One woman is beautiful and sings well, and another is ugly, and can only croak, off-key. Did each "deserve" what they got? And what about the one born into a rich or poor family? Are we saying God is unfair for distributing things this way?

The point is that God gives each one different talents, and ASKS them to use these, whatever they are, wisely and well. Then he watches to see what we will do. He, who is God, doesn't force us -- so what gives you (or me!) the right go beyond what he does? And if we compel everyone to do "what is right", as we see it, where is the room for virtue, and where does it end? Do we force the rich man not to teach his child what he's learned about building wealth, or prevent him from giving other advantages? Do we force the woman to sing, lest she be thrown in jail? And how does that differ from forcing a man to give to charitable causes under threat of punishment?

Muslims are fond of saying their women are more virtuous than western women because they dress more modestly. But if they will be beaten otherwise (and they will), then how can you call it "modesty"? There is no virtue there at all. Coercing "goodness" removes any room for actual virtue.

Further, forget me -- it would appear you and God are "fundamentally at odds", because God does seem to believe that some people deserve more than others. Speaking of talents, read the parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-28), where he decides that those who worked harder, or invested more wisely, truly deserve more than those who didn't. Likewise, consider Paul's instruction that those who work deserve more food that those who don't. (As well noted by Barbara, above.)

(I didn't make this stuff up, by the way. You can go read it for yourself.)

I'm certainly not saying that all who are rich worked hard, or that all who are poor didn't. But your point that no one "deserves" more than another seems to be directly opposed by God. You two are, indeed, "fundamentally at odds" if you really mean what you seem to be saying.

Feel free to clarify, otherwise.

Be careful, Kellor! Teaching like this will cause you the same troubles that such talk has others, Spurgeon comes to mind. As always the nitpickers and religious legalists are bouncing all over the place and the liberalist "christians" who would deny the most important aspects of our relationship with the Christ have forsaken their first love for a worldliness disguised as charitable justice.

Mercy is justice, but justice is not always mercy. Some writing here cannot seem to figure that out. Although it seems to me from my experience that it is more a case of won't understand rather than don't understand. There is a very specific willfulness to both sides of the argument and that is exactly the problem. Our willfulness is sin and whatever position we hold, if it be by our own willfulness, it is sin.

The loudest voices fail to remember their own weakness. The liberal justice promoters seek government solutions rather than putting themeselves and their personal belongings on the line and the religiosts claim a charity that statistics say they do not have. Conservative evengelicals (I am one) claim that personal charity not government spending is most important, however statistics show that evangelicals don't even tithe the proposed ten percent muchless give charitably in addition to that amount. The average evangelical gives less than five percent of their income to the church and liberals give even less. Neither gives the full deductible amnount of ten percent to charity either. All their argument is a smokescreen for keeping what is "theirs" and not letting anyone tell them what they should do with it.

Liberals won't support the church and conservatives won't support the poor. Which is the greater sin? Both are certainly sin and the argument won't be resolved until both are willing to see that and repent.

"...the polarization in the church between the 'justification people' and the 'justice people'...the justification people are all about justification by faith alone...this rift between justification and justice is completely unbiblical..."

It is just as sickly as the polarization between Catholics and Protestants. In light of Jesus Christ's intention to bring all people together through his cross, "to reconcile to himself all things...making peace by the blood of his cross" (Col 1:20), such polarization is one of the most terrible diseases of the body. Following excerpts drew a picture vividly.

"...there are some diseases that can spread infection throughout the body of Christ. The mind can become swollen with pride. The heart can grow cold and indifferent because of sin. The digestive system can get clogged by sterile theory and unapplied theology, so the body can't digest what needs to be turned into energy or eliminate what needs to be released. When that occurs we start to fight among ourselves or we lose our equilibrium and find ourselves unable to stay balanced....Sometimes a dreaded thing occurs in the body - a mutiny - resulting in a tumor..." - Paul Brand and Philip Yancey, "Fearfully and Wonderfully Made"

The reference is intended to Catholic-Protestant disunity for over four centuries - an ugly blasphemy which mocks the cross of Jesus Christ and insults his name. Looking back, it was in the first assembly of the World Council of Churches in 1948 that the subject of "justification by faith" was deemed the rift's "deepest difference."

But, "hope springs eternal in the human breast: Man never is, but always to be blest," wrote Alexander Pope.

"A young Catholic student commenced work on a Ph.D. thesis," George Carey narrated in his book "A Tale of Two Churches." "His project was novel and daring. He set out to explore the doctrine of justification by faith, knowing that this fundamental issue separated Catholic from Protestants. His approach was to compare Catholic teaching as expressed in the canons of the Council of Trent with that of Karl Barth, the great Protestant scholar whose thought had influenced the shape of twentieth-century Christianity. Kung's published work, which was thorough and original, CONCLUDED THAT CATHOLIC TEACHING DID NOT IN FACT CONFLICT WITH BARTH'S TEACHING." (Emphasis added)

Ironically, Kung was stripped of his license to teach as a Roman Catholic theologian - a lamentable act that seemed to be cast in the same mold with that of excommunicated Martin Luther.

To Tim Keller, here's simple wisdom from climbing mountains:

The reason mountain climbers are tied together is to keep the "sane" ones from going home...bolting, fleeing in panic, and returning to the "sanity" of skepticism.

TimRO,

We're clearly not going to agree on things, here, but I want to address two things:

1) The question about what you're really concerned about was about the content of your posts, not an attack on you personally. I appreciate you responding to the content of mine.

2) I couldn't disagree more with you about how to interpret the parable of the Talents. How, for example, would you interpret the parable of the rich fool in Luke 12? I believe the overwhelming evidence of Scripture places God as the owner of all things and as on the side of the poor. I believe the overwhelming majority of poverty is not the fault of those trapped in it, and the overwhelming majority of wealth is the result of fortunate circumstance. I don't think God puts people in unfortunate circumstances because they deserve it, because I believe God poured out every punishment for sin upon Jesus on the cross. God does not punish people for their sins--he punishes himself. This is the essence of the Gospel.

Much of the debate here is unaware of the Old Testament background of the phrases about the arrival of the righteousness of God. The prophets and apostles would probably chuckle to read the debate, as it has reduced the timeless and transcendant and end-of-history day of God's justice to this or that administration. The discussion reminds me very much of the line I heard a few years back "Today's biggest theological issue is why does Bush allow so much evil?" Theology? Humans...allowing?

While the properity-gospel people think Jer.23--33 is all about finding your existential 'plan for you', the justice people must think it is all about 'social' justice (I have never heard anyone explain why the adjective is needed).

Instead, the historic and apostolic Gospel of righteousness through Christ must be seen as dealing with the eschatological day of God, but ahead of time, as though it had come already. The Judge of all became the Judged for all, and is willing to credit or transfer his righteousness to you. He is THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, as the Jeremiah section says. This is does not at all mean total transformation; it rather is meant for you to apply to your past and how it harrasses us with guilt.

The clearest and historic definition that we have of this is how it was used by and affected Paul the zealous Judaizer. It wasn't some attempt to be the 'most relevant' about "social" justice, but it did put believers of all races on the same footing. In Phil.3, he meant 'righteousness' in a mostly personal performance sense (the Pharisees had a 'righteousness' mentioned there, like Mt. 5). It was a basis for all the amazing healing demonstrations we see in NT period: forgiveness, overcoming bias and prejudice. (Secular society has seen these effects, admired them and tried to codify them into existence in many places.)

But it is a critical error to take any of these effects and consider them to be the cause. No, the cause is what God has done in Christ for us. The side effects are what he does in us through the Spirit. "One of the greatest evils is to confuse the cause and effects of the Gospel"--R. Brinsmead, Australian Forum, 1970s.

--Marcus Sanford
editor/author Interplans.net
THE GOSPEL I NEVER KNEW
reprints of Australian Forum materials