Wilfrid Laurier University Wilfrid Laurier University
Scholars Commons @ Laurier Scholars Commons @ Laurier
Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive)
1980
An Examination of Personal Salvation in the Theology of North An Examination of Personal Salvation in the Theology of North American Evangelicalism: On the Road to a Theology of Social American Evangelicalism: On the Road to a Theology of Social Justice
Justice
Robert F.J. Gmeindl Wilfrid Laurier University
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd
Part of the Christian Denominations and Sects Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Gmeindl, Robert F.J., "An Examination of Personal Salvation in the Theology of North American Evangelicalism: On the Road to a Theology of Social Justice" (1980). Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive). 1421.
https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd/1421
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for
ABSTRACT
AN EXAMINATION OF PERSONAL SALVATION IN
THE THEOLOGY OF NORTH AMERICAN EVANGELICALISM:
ON THE ROAD TO A THEOLOGY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE by
Robert F.J. Gmeindl
The question under consideration is the effect of the belief in personal salvation on the theology of North American Evangelicalism, for the purpose of developing a theology of social justice.
This study is a preliminary investigation of the history of Evangelical individualism and the potential influence that individualism might have on Evangelical theology. Certain trends toward isolation and separation, as well as a tendency to neglect what I have called systemic evil, are examined to see how they may result from the Evangelical stress on individualism. Also presented is a skeletal outline of Marcuse's analysis of one-dimensional society in order to clarify the power and influence of systemic evil. Finally, these observations are applied to C.F.H. Henry's book Aspects of Christian Social E t h i c s , to analyze how his theology manifests those trends and to examine the power of individualism in North American Evangelical theology.
It was found that a belief in individualism as expressed by the theology of personal salvation may lead Evangelicalism into isolation and separation, end it might
also pressure Evangelicalism into neglecting the corruption in society.
The primary conclusions of the study are that to attempt to found a social theology on North American Evangelicalism's belief in personal salvation, as some have tried to do, is to cater to isolation and separation from society. Also, one may be persuaded to accept the very society that a social theology must be designed to change.
Thus a more corporately oriented approach should be found, upon which to begin building a social theology. One suggested alternative is to view social problems and issues from within the dynamic tension between the social strategies of revolution, reformation, regeneration and revaluation.
AN EXAMINATION OF PERSONAL SALVATION IN
THE THEOLOGY OF NORTH AMERICAN EVANGELICALISM:
ON THE ROAD TO A THEOLOGY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
by
ROBERT F.J. GMEINDL
THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree
Wilfrid Laurier University 1980
UMI Number: EC56344
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMT
Dissertation Publishing
UMI EC56344
Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
uest*
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT i TABLE OF CONTENTS i v
INTRODUCTION I CHAPTER ONE: Some Definitions 16
Hesed, Mishpat and Tsedeqah. . . . 31 CHAPTER TWO: The Evangelical Position on Salvation 47
Historical Roots and Conceptions... 57 CHAPTER THREE: Some Implications of the Theology
of Individual Salvation 68 CHAPTER FOUR: Individual Salvation and Systemic Evil 85
CHAPTER FIVE: C.F.H. Henry and the Evangelical Proposal.104
CONCLUS ION 135
FOOTNOTES 146
BIBLIOGRAPHY 161
I N T R O D U C T I O N
A c c o r d i n g t o a 1979 poll commissioned by C h r i s t i a n i t y Today, t h i r t y - o n e m i l l i o n A m e r i c a n s are evangelicals.(l) T h a t is, t h i r t y - o n e m i l l i o n A m e r i c a n s believe t h a t Jesus C h r i s t is the divine Son o f G o d ; t h a t t h e only hope f o r salvation is through personal f a i t h in Jesus C h r i s t ; t h a t the Bible is t h e Word of God and is i n f a l l i b l e in its s t a t e m e n t s and teachings. These t h i r t y - o n e m i l l i o n U.S.
c i t i z e n s read the Bible and a t t e n d religious services at least once a month.(2) The poll also suggested t h a t over f o r t y - f i v e percent o f the nation's p o p u l a t i o n , almost one hundred m i l l i o n A m e r i c a n s , believe t h a t " . . . t h e only hope for heaven is through personal f a i t h in Jesus Christ."(3)
Evangelicalism is t h e second largest religious movement in the U n i t e d States, second only to Roman C a t h o l i c i s m , and its influence so permeates modern A m e r i c a t h a t it has been called " . . . t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t — a n d o v e r l o o k e d — r e l i g i o u s phenomenon o f the '70s...."(4) The nomination and subsequent e l e c t i o n o f J i m m y C a r t e r , a personally proclaimed e v a n g e l i c a l , t o the presidency of the U n i t e d States has served to focus a t t e n t i o n on this movement and its influence.
However, Evangelicalism was in America long before the media and the politicians discovered i t in the 1970s.
It can be said that American Evangelicalism began with the formation of the modern American nation, and that it embodies some of the most deeply-rooted traditions and characteristic attitudes in American culture.(5) Evangelicalism, in many ways, represents America in the religious community and has taken on a special American meaning. American Evangelicalism is not European evangelicalism, where the term 'evangelical' is normally used to refer to the state Protestant church, but represents a particular manner of interpreting Christianity, a manner which exhibits a certain style or mood of belief and implies a type of doctrinal and experiential content.(6)
One of the important distinguishing features of North American Evangelicalism is its emphasis on individualism.
This stress on individualism is in harmony with that conception of individualism which seems to lie at the foundation of Western understanding and in the forefront of American secular philosophy.(7) It is this conception which is the general concern of this work. How is this individualism expressed and propagated? Where does it find its religious roots and how does it influence the subsequent theology of the North American Evangelical? Some of these questions w i l l be ansv/ered in the chapters which follow,
along with an analysis of the social effects of that expression and propagation.
In order to understand why these and subsequent questions are of concern to me, it may be helpful to present a short introduction to the personal journey that has brought me to this examination. For the first seventeen years of my life religion, as such, played l i t t l e or no part in my education. As with most Canadian school children of the fifties and early sixties, I learned the Lord's Prayer through repetition at the beginning of each school day.
Beyond this piece of memory work l i t t l e was done to forward my religious education. My family was strictly agnostic and churchly religion never had a part in our family life.
It was not until my last year in high school, around the age of seventeen, that I was first confronted directly with a challenge to begin to take religion more seriously.
Some of my friends that year became involved in the operation of a Christian coffee house designed to approach students with their message of Christianity. In that atmosphere 1 began my interaction with Christianity, a dialogue which eventually led to my acceptance of the Christian faith.
A t first the conversation was confined to an intellectual discussion on the existence and purpose of God.
I had never denied the existence of God, but neither had I
taken the t i m e t o a f f i r m i t . Through the c o f f e e house dialogue I was challenged t o do so i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r l y Evangelical way o f a c c e p t i n g Jesus C h r i s t as my personal saviour. It was this challenge t h a t became t h e focus of the c o n t i n u i n g discussion. I f e l t c l e a r l y t h a t I must accept the existence o f God and t h a t t h a t acceptance should be in a c e r t a i n c o n t e x t , but i t seemed t h a t t h e Evangelical c o n t e x t was too r e s t r i c t i v e . Much m o r e to m y l i k i n g was what I began t o c a l l ' t h e i s m , ' t h a t is, a b e l i e f t h a t God existed
and t h a t He operated in the a f f a i r s o f men through many agents. This became the p l a t f o r m f r o m which I hurled m y bolts o f c r i t i c i s m against C h r i s t i a n i t y . The discussion began t o center more and more on the need for a personal salvation experience, an experience shared by those w i t h w h o m I was in discussion. Each o f t h e m seemed t o have found, in the C h r i s t i a n i t y t h e y were o f f e r i n g , a peace and f u l f i l l m e n t greater than my o w n . The power o f this began to wear on me and on my position u n t i l one day, w h i l e r i d i n g a public bus, I too accepted this Jesus i n t o my l i f e . There were no bells, no angelic t r u m p e t s , no blinding light, only a peace t h a t comes w i t h decision. I had f i n a l l y resolved the problem w i t h i n m y s e l f .
With t h a t decision, made on the bus, I began the long road of C h r i s t i a n i t y w h i c h I now t r a v e l . My friends helped me to understand the meaning o f m y experience; the Bible
became my regular reading and C h r i s t i a n fellowship m y constant need. I became involved in a l l o f the c u r r e n t C h r i s t i a n a c t i v i t i e s . I a t t a c h e d myself t o a C h r i s t i a n d r o p - i n center whose purpose i t was t o evangelize the y o u t h of K i t c h e n e r . Shortly t h e r e a f t e r , I experienced the c h a r i s m a t i c experience o f the second b a p t i s m , t h e baptism o f the H o l y S p i r i t . I spoke i n tongues and, in general, experienced the s p e c t r u m o f e m o t i o n t h a t was at t h a t t i m e associated w i t h the 'Jesus M o v e m e n t . ' I knew myself to be saved and did a l l in my power t o bring t h a t message o f salvation t o o t h e r s , w i t h some success. In a l l , I became a classic N o r t h A m e r i c a n evangelical y o u t h and followed the banner o f the Jesus people.
However, a l l was not w e l l in Eden, f o r as I continued my g r o w t h and p i l g r i m a g e through the C h r i s t i a n evangelical w o r l d , doubt began to rear i t s head. I had always been a rather c r i t i c a l t h i n k e r , a l l o w i n g l i t t l e o f the common i n t e l l e c t u a l t h e o r y t o go by u n c r i t i c i z e d . This same c r i t i c a l approach began to r e f l e c t itself in my newly found C h r i s t i a n i t y . In c o n c e r t w i t h t h i s 1 began t o read some rather unconventional C h r i s t i a n m a t e r i a l . Questions o f social justice and social change had always fascinated m e , and as I continued to read socially concerned l i t e r a t u r e , m y own newly accepted f a i t h began to reveal c e r t a i n inadequacies. It was clear t h a t 1 had found my own personal
salvation in Jesus C h r i s t , and I now o f f e r e d i t t o others.
B u t this f a i t h seemed w h o l l y inadequate when i t came to addressing the injustice t h a t I saw in the w o r l d . Most o f m y acquaintances tended t o neglect social questions, somehow c o n t e n t in the knowledge t h a t as long as t h e y brought a man s a l v a t i o n , t h e y had f u l f i l l e d the b i b l i c a l injunctions. I
found t h a t I couldn't share in this c o n t e n t m e n t . I found myself looking for ways t o i n t e g r a t e the need I saw f o r social justice w i t h the C h r i s t i a n i t y I had c o m e to know.
M y b i b l i c a l study, w h i c h , u n t i l t h i s t i m e , had been c o n c e n t r a t e d in the New T e s t a m e n t , began t o lean m o r e t o w a r d Old Testament r e a d i n g . I began t o f i n d myself quoting more f r o m t h e Old Testament than the N e w , a n d , in t h a t , I s t a r t e d t o r e a l i z e t h a t t h e r e was more t o C h r i s t i a n i t y than just a message o f personal s a l v a t i o n . M y O l d Testament reading led me t o c o n c e n t r a t e more on communal and h o l i s t i c approaches t o r e l i g i o n as my i n d i v i d u a l s t i c emphases became less and less v i a b l e in the social w o r l d in w h i c h I l i v e d . I began
to sever some o f my ties w i t h the C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y which I saw as too concerned w i t h salvation and not properly concerned w i t h social j u s t i c e . I found other Christians of a like m i n d , Christians who also saw the question o f social j u s t i c e as one o f i m p o r t a n c e . It also became more precise, through reading end discussion, t h a t I needed a clearer d e f i n i t i o n o f social j u s t i c e if I was t o f u r t h e r my concern.
This d e f i n i t i o n I found i n the Old Testament and is reproduced in the n e x t chapter o f this study.
A s my O l d Testament r e a d i n g increased I also a m p l i f i e d m y reading o f Jewish Old Testament scholars.
P a r t i c u l a r l y i n f l u e n t i a l at t h i s t i m e were the w r i t i n g s o f M a r t i n Buber. Buber o f f e r e d a new d e f i n i t i o n o f salvation, a d e f i n i t i o n w h i c h d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t e d the conception o f deliverance I had espoused t o t h a t t i m e . ( 8 ) A c c o r d i n g t o Buber t h e r e d e m p t i o n o f f e r e d by God t o His c r e a t i o n was a salvation w h i c h would redeem a l l o f mankind. It was God's w i l l t h a t he consummate a l l of His c r e a t i o n and restore a l l in need o f redemption.(9) It was not God's intention to separate his c r e a t i o n i n t o the t r a d i t i o n a l evangelical camps o f saved and damned, a p o l a r i z a t i o n which I had t o this point accepted. Buber contended t h a t God would save a l l those in need o f salvation and t h a t this salvation would be completed through the o u t w o r k i n g o f God's plan o f redemption.(IO)
As I read Buber and the Old T e s t a m e n t , this view o f salvation began t o t a k e on more a u t h o r i t y for m e . My allegiance to the conception o f personal salvation began to waver as the a u t h o r i t y o f the Old Testament and the obvious scholarship of Buber began t o c o n s t r u c t a case against i t . It was at this t i m e t h a t I began to read the work o f Nicholas Berdyaev, c theologian o f the C h r i s t i a n f a i t h who
Berdyaev's critique of Christian salvation found its focus in the Western emphasis of individualism. His theological work led him to state catagorically:
We cannot be saved, one by one: isolated salvation is impossible. We may be saved only with our neighbour, with other people and with the w o r l d . ( l l )
This statement, put so boldly, seemed a direct attack on the Christian faith which I had come to proclaim. The very foundations of my faith were rocked by his words.
Shadows of doubt began to appear more substantial, and unformed suspicions began to take clearer shape as my theology tried to wrestle with the new concepts he was presenting. Questions began to form as this tension increased. From where had my original definition of salvation as individual come? Was it possible that the North American religious community, a community whose foundation was the individual view of salvation, had for so many decades approached Christianity from an incorrect perspective? If this individualism was not biblically mandated, as Berdyaev implied, what were its origins?
The answer to this last question was not long in coming. It was Berdyaev's contention that the individualistic view of salvation which dominated Western Christianity, was a manifestation of the prevalent
selfishness in Western c u l t u r e . To so concentrate on i n d i v i d u a l , personalistic salvation was, t o Berdyaev's t h i n k i n g , "...monstrously selfish,...egoistic and s e l f - c o n c e i t e d . . . " and indicated a m o r b i d separation between man and his w o r l d . ( I 2 )
I found this selfishness t o be v e r y much a l i v e in m y own theology and in t h e theology o f m y C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y . I began t o remember the j o y I f e l t t h a t I was no longer damned, t h e selfish c o n c e n t r a t i o n on personal assurance which c h a r a c t e r i z e d my earlier t h e o l o g y . I also began t o see m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f t h a t selfishness in the theology o f N o r t h A m e r i c a n Evangelicals, the seeming disregard for social injustice, the jealous defense o f t h e r i g h t t o the f r u i t s o f salvation and the studied c o n t e m p t d i r e c t e d against those who, once being o f f e r e d the message o f personal s a l v a t i o n , r e j e c t e d i t . I saw men who happily arranged t h e i r personal religious l i f e w i t h l i t t l e or no concern f o r t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o the larger c o m m u n i t y . ( ! 3 ) 1 saw sects w i t h i n C h r i s t i a n i t y whose theology p r o c l a i m e d t h e i r b e l i e f t h a t t h e y alone partook o f the love and compassion o f God and who callously, seemingly w i t h o u t t h o u g h t , consigned billions of human beings t o the eternal f i r e s of d a m n a t i o n ^ 14) It seemed t o me t h a t Berdyaev had a point and t h a t serious consideration had t o be given to his c r i t i q u e o f individual salvation and t o his
B u t i t is not so easy t o deny a b e l i e f t h a t has conditioned the major p o r t i o n o f one's C h r i s t i a n l i f e . I found t h a t although the arguments of Buber and Berdyaev moved m e deeply and challenged me, I could not carelessly discard my Evangelical conception o f individual s a l v a t i o n . A d m i t t e d l y Berdyaev's arguments made i t d i f f i c u l t to espouse individual s a l v a t i o n . Old Testament reading and study seemed t o agree more w i t h the c o r p o r a t e view than the individual v i e w , and even the New Testament began to sound more c o r p o r a t e , but i t was s t i l l d i f f i c u l t t o shake my c o n d i t i o n i n g .
The f i n a l break c a m e when I began t o read the New Testament f r o m the c o r p o r a t e p e r s p e c t i v e . Texts which had stood as bulwarks o f the i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c approach began t o t a k e on new meanings for m e . Jesus' p r o c l a m a t i o n " I am the way, the t r u t h and the l i g h t , no one comes t o the Father but by m e " ( John 14:6 ), once the mainstay o f my evangelical witness t o personal s a l v a t i o n , now whispered of a d i f f e r e n t
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Jesus may have been saying that by His atonement and through the power given h i m by the F a t h e r , He was the instrument by w h i c h a l l of c r e a t i o n w i l l come t o r e d e m p t i o n . This new i n t e r p r e t a t i o n seemed more in line w i t h the theological h e r m e n e u t i c o f Berdyaev. As 1 reread the Gospels in light o f this new h e r m e n e u t i c I found i t t o be helpful and consistent. The p o t e n t i a l for a corporate
theology became more evident, and a tangible link with the corporate nature of the Old Testament started to develop.
However, my reading of Paul and his letters posed a greater d i f f i c u l t y .
It seemed that Paul's theology was one founded in individualism and thus supportive of the individualist position of traditional Evangelica!ism.(l6) Particularly important was to interpret Paul's claim to the Romans that salvation was by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.( Rom.
3:22f ) The corporate hermeneutic could interpret the grace of God as that v/ill to redeem His whole creation; however it failed to confront the individual implications of "faith
in Jesus Christ." Further New Testament reading began to provide an insight which allowed for the more corporate interpretation of even that phrase. Of particular help was the text "Every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." ( Phpp. 2:10-11 ) which could be interpreted collectively, namely that the faith in Christ spoken of by Paul meant a corporate faith and that ail of mankind would be saved by grace through its corporate faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ.
These potential interpretations, while not claiming absolute authority or t r u t h , began to convince me that the possibilities 1 had begun to see in Buber and found more
clearly articulated in Berdyaev showed some promise. They were alternative interpretations of the New Testament that could be applied consistently to the whole of the Scripture.
While not proving that the belief of individual salvation was false, the corporate view that I was examining did pose serious questions about the way in which the North American Evangelicalism I had come to know, interpreted the Scripture.
It seemed to me that the other point in favour of the corporate view of salvation was its inherent concern for the world and its injustice. It seemed that by approaching the problem of social justice from the point of view of corporate responsibility, Berdyaev's Christianity took seriously the social problems and concerns that had first begun the questioning of my religious tradition. I had begun that journey w i t h the realization that the Christianity I knew did l i t t l e to help me to deal with social problems. Certainly it dealt w i t h my personal sin but it seemed to lack any coherent theology that could deal practically with the injustice which appeared to control the world. Corporate theoiogy, on the other hand, proclaimed that my salvation was not contingent on a one to one experience with God but on the grace of God which He could dispense as he would. The emphasis of corporate theology was not on salvation but on the continuing justice of my
relationships with my fellow man. Because mankind was to be viewed as a corporate whole whose salvation was in the hands of God, priority could be given to social responsibility.
This new Christianity I saw was one of social concern, one which concentrated on the redemption of society and faced the problem of social justice head on. Where Evangelical theology had seemed to concentrate on snatching a lucky few out of the damned world, corporate theology seemed intent on proclaiming the salvation of all creation without exception.
This second approach seemed more in line with what I had come to recognize as the compassionate concern of God for His creation. My battle was ending. I had found a theology that allowed me to proclaim both salvation and social justice, a salvation for all and justice for the whole.
This is now where I find myself, on the first few faltering steps of the path of corporate understanding. It is from this place that I now look back at my Evangelical beginnings and initiate a critical examination of its individualist theology. I have walked its paths and have f e l t secure. Now I stand in another place, different from it but related to i t . Yet many of those who travelled that road with me conlinue to proclaim the Evangelical position.
Many continue to neglect the problems in society which have come to possess me. Most have not come to my conclusions.
Why?
It seems that in the theology of the evangelical there exists a pressure to minimize the social condition and its claim on Christianity. It seems that by concentrating on individual salvation, the evangelical is pressured to neglect social injustice in favour of saving a few out of an obviously damned world. Social concerns seem to hold a lesser priority than the mission of personal salvation. It w i l l be my concern in this study to show how the dynamics of the Evangelical position on salvation militate against social action on the part of its adherents. I will demonstrate further that this concentration on individual salvation leads the North American Evangelical to ignore social conditions, to move toward isolation and separation from social realities and to hunger for an assurance of salvation which isolates him or her further from the world.
I will also t r y to show that by approaching the question of salvation from an individualistic perspective, the Evangelical is led to neglect the evil in society and even to defend i t . This examination will consist of an exploration of systemic evil, that is, the evil inherent in a system above and beyond the sum of the individual evils that make up the system. My purpose w i l l be to show that the corporate structures of today's society manipulaie and dominate man and that most Evangelicals tend to disregard this evil when they proclaim their social witness. In
conjunction with this I will furnish an analysis of Carl F.H. Henry's work in the area of Evangelical social ethics and try to illustrate how this disregard manifests itself in his theology. Henry has been acknowledged, both by scholars and the popular media, to be a leader in the Evangelical movement and a worthy spokesman for it(I7), and for that reason he will be the focus of that particular analysis.
Lastly I will summarize my examination and point out where I see the major obstructions to Evangelical social action. In this way I hope to describe the Evangelical journey and its direction critically, and also provide a cautious warning to those who now travel the Evangelical path.
C H A P T E R O N E : Some D e f i n i t i o n s
It was during m y religious journey t h a t t w o theological subjects began to d o m i n a t e m y t h i n k i n g , the question o f salvation and the question o f social j u s t i c e . The Evangelical theology o f salvation was the f i r s t t o challenge me t o t a k e seriously the message o f C h r i s t i a n i t y . Its challenge d r e w me out o f an unconcerned agnosticism through an u n c e r t a i n ' t h e i s m ' t o a personal profession o f the t r u t h o f C h r i s t . It served t o f o r m and m o l d my early f a i t h , p r o v i d i n g m e w i t h an assurance o f paradise, w i t h the s e c u r i t y t h a t comes w i t h saving knowledge and w i t h a message I could bring t o t h e non-Christians around me. Through the N o r t h A m e r i c a n Evangelical message o f salvation I was introduced to the whole s p e c t r u m of C h r i s t i a n e m o t i o n and c o n c e r n , and i t was against this conception of salvation t h a t I f i n a l l y began to rebel as my religious g r o w t h required me to give greater consideration t o the questions o f social j u s t i c e .
As s t a t e d in the i n t r o d u c t i o n , the f i r s t seeds of doubt began t o grow when I introduced the concerns of social j u s t i c e to my theology o f s a l v a t i o n . Inadequacies in my salvation theology began t o appear as I t r i e d to apply t h e m t o the social concerns w h i c h c l a m o r e d f o r resolution. The
answers offered by this salvation theology seemed incomplete and did not provide practical answers to the plethora of social injustices that called out for action. As I came to formulate my ideas concerning social justice, the deficiences in the Evangelical theology of salvation became clearer. Of particular concern was the seemingly inordinate emphasis on the personal and individual in the Evangelical theology. This seemed to come into direct conflict with the more corporate concerns of social justice questions, a conflict which became more acute as my investigations progressed.
Perhaps it would be helpful at this time to review the definitions that precipitated this tension. In this v/ay it may become clearer how it is that this strain came about and why I am presently involved in the examination of the North American Evangelical theology of salvation.
The fundamental assumption of North American Evangelicalism is that man is a fallen creature who, having
been created in the spirit and image of God, has at one time in his history rejected that spirit. It is the contention of most Evangelicals that man has sinned, transgressed against God's explicit wish or instruction, and has for that reason fallen from his original state of grace.(l) This fall is universal.(2) Doctrinally it might be said, in more or less the following way:
That all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and that repentence is commanded of God for all and necessary for forgiveness of sins.(3)
As can be seen, not only is man considered to be fallen, "...short of the glory of God," but he must also repent and seek forgiveness for those sins.(4)
This repentence and forgiveness provide the second doctrinal step in this definition of salvation. Inherent in the call to repentence is the threat or promise that some evil consequence is attendant to man's sin. This consequence is normally encompassed in the antithesis to heaven, hell. It is in hell that the unsaved, unrepentent sinner will be lodged, where he w i l l suffer the agony of being without God. With this as the proposed consequence of man's sinful and fallen nature it becomes necessary to provide an alternative which will to one degree or another avoid hell and its attendant agony. This alternative is salvation, literally to save from death as a sinner.
Yet salvation in the doctrine of most Evangelicals is more than the mere avoidance of hell, it is also the present healing and preserving of fallen man. It can thus be said that salvation is not only a doctrine of afterlife but also one which provides for the victory over the temptations of sin in the here and now. A third aspect of the
evangelical's doctrine of salvation is that of legal justification.(5) A part of the original conception of man's fallen state was that man had, by his disobedience and rejection of God, acted illegally and had offended God's need for justice. It is necessary, therefore, that the salvation of man also encompass some legal remedy for his illegal action of disobedience.
The three aspects of the Evangelical's doctrine of salvation are summed up adequately by Everett F. Harrison in the "Baker's _ Dictionary of Theology" where it is said that salvation involves:
...three ideas. ( I ) Justification. Man must be freed from the just punishment which God's judicial sentiment requires so that he may without fear be reconciled to God, but in such a way that God may still be just in His justifying or saving action...(2) Temporal Victory. Victory over evil was promised through the "seed of the woman"... It was accomplished by the Holy Spirit working in Old Testament leaders.... Finally, in the church age, Christ sends the holy spirit to work in and through the church so that believers work out their own victory over evil. (3) Final Deliverance and blessing. Christ will come a second time to deal finally with evil powers and the consequences of sin;...(6)
As important as the doctrine of salvation is for the Evangelical, of equal importance is the method of salvation.
Without some examination of this method, a definition of the
term "salvation" would be hopelessly incomplete. Salvation is both a noun and a verb, both a name for something and an action to something. The method of salvation is the definition of the verb "to save."
In my experience, Evangelicals tend to see methods of salvation f i t t i n g into three broad categories: ( I ) sacrificial ritual, (2) works righteousness and (3) God's grace. These Evangelicals saw the first two methods relying on the actions of men to satisfy a wronged God, while the third was seen to rely on God to act to satisfy this perceived wrong.
Sacrificial rituals have tended to accompany man's most primitive attempts at satisfying an angry God.
Sacrifices have ranged from crops grown or gathered to animals raised or trapped to humans offered or captured for the purpose. The basic logic was that by offering the angry God a portion of the fruits of the earth, his wrath would be satisfied, and man could once more live in harmony with his creator. Man provided the sacrifice and God, in his grace, deigned to accept it as appropriate payment for man's transgression.
Another method of salvation which has been proposed finds close ties with the sacrificial ritual. The method known as "works righteousness" tends to view salvation as the giving of one's actions or life to satisfy a wronged
God. It is believed t h a t by t a i l o r i n g one's actions t o a c e r t a i n pre-defined set o f rules man can satisfy God's need f o r legal r e m e d y . In t h i s w a y man is urged t o love the holy l i f e , doing only good and a v o i d i n g the p r a c t i c e o f e v i l . The degree to which man succeeds in this a t t e m p t is t h e evidence upon w h i c h his worthiness f o r salvation w i l l be measured. P u t in a crude w a y , God is a c l e r k who watches man's actions, r e c o r d i n g his good and bad deeds, and having done so, weighs t h e m against His standard in order t o pronounce man saved or damned.
The Evangelical tends t o see in b o t h t h e s a c r i f i c i a l r i t u a l and the works righteousness a method o f salvation which presents man as t h e p r i m a r y m o t i v a t o r . Both are seen to present man w i t h a task t o p e r f o r m and then look t o God t o decide on the a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f the p e r f o r m a n c e . N e i t h e r denies God the f i n a l judgement yet b o t h i m p l y t h a t as long as t h e a c t measures up t o a c e r t a i n standard the f i n a l , positive judgement is v i r t u a l l y assured.
The t h i r d method o f s a l v a t i o n , God's grace, seems t o reverse t h a t a c t i o n . The t h i r d method o f salvation also tends t o be t h a t method w h i c h is accepted d o c t r i n a l l y by the m a j o r i t y o f Evangelicals, at least, if one is t o assess t h e m by t h e i r r h e t o r i c . In this schema God is seen as the p r i m e mover in the saving of m a n , and i t is God's action alone which w i l l save.(7) Most Evangelicals have defined this
saving action as the "salvation e v e n t " and t i e i t i n e x t r i c a b l y w i t h the l i f e and s a c r i f i c e o f Jesus C h r i s t .
Through C h r i s t c r u c i f i e d , C h r i s t i a n s have found peace w i t h God: t h e y have tasted the j o y o f forgiveness f o r past s i n : t h e y have received new l i f e and s t r e n g t h f o r the f u t u r e . ( 8 )
A c c o r d i n g t o most Evangelicals t h e a c t o f salvation was accomplished when God sent His only Son t o e a r t h to l i v e t h e human l i f e p e r f e c t l y and t h e n to d i e , s t i l l p e r f e c t , upon a Roman cross and thus t o s a c r i f i c e h i m s e l f to satisfy t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f d i v i n e justice.(9) Whereas in the f i r s t t w o methods o f salvation man i n i t i a t e d the process, in this method God sets t h e wheels in m o t i o n . Man partakes in t h i s a c t i o n only passively as he accepts t h e saving a c t for his o w n . Thus i t has been said by the Evangelical t h a t salvation is only by God's grace and not through any a c t i o n on man's p a r t . This d o c t r i n e was c l e a r l y expressed by the m a g i s t e r i a l r e f o r m e r s o f the s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y .
Salvation then can be d e f i n e d as God's a c t to save mankind f r o m the consequences o f his r e j e c t i o n o f the o r i g i n a l s t a t e . In some cases it can be the legal recompense f o r acts o f sin w h i c h otherwise would r e q u i r e man's damnation and e x i l e away f r o m God's presence. It is t h e a c t which allows man t o resist t e m p t a t i o n successfully and to l i v e a l i f e which is acceptable in t h e eyes of God.
A l l of this was brought about through the s a c r i f i c i a l death o f Jesus C h r i s t on the cross or t o put it another way:
The purpose o f the miraculous incarnation o f the Son o f God was t h a t He m i g h t become the Mediator between God and m e n , b o t h f u l f i l l i n g t h e divine law and s u f f e r i n g and dying in t h e place o f mankind. In t h i s manner God has reconciled the whole sinful w o r l d u n t o
Himself.(10)
For t h e Evanglical t h e r e is y e t another point t h a t must be made about s a l v a t i o n , t h a t i t begins w i t h the individual and t h a t its major focus is on the i n d i v i d u a l . Robert J . Coleman in his w o r k on the continuing dialogue between the Evangelical and the C h r i s t i a n L i b e r a l , points out t h a t :
For the e v a n g e l i c a l , salvation begins w i t h a c o m m i t m e n t t o C h r i s t g r o w i n g out of a r a d i c a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f l i f e . The p r i m a r y task o f t h e C h r i s t i a n is t o b r i n g other men into this saving relationship w i t h Jesus. The f u n c t i o n of the church is not t o C h r i s t i a n i z e social s t r u c t u r e s but t o nourish the members o f Christ's body w i t h God's Word and the sacraments. In both cases p r i o r i t y is given t o man's s p i r i t u a l needs, because a man must be changed s p i r i t u a l l y b e f o r e he is changed at all (John 3:1-15). Man's e t e r n a l w e l f a r e must always t a k e precedence over his t e m p o r a l needs. Reconciling men to God is the f i r s t order o f p r i o r i t y before men can be reconciled t o m e n . ( l l )
The Evangelical's h e r i t a g e stresses three major points, a living f a i t h in a personal saviour, an individual witness o f the e f f e c t o f Jesus C h r i s t in t h e i r lives and the
belief that this personal, individual view is both biblical and the essence of orthodox Christianity.(l2) This emphasis on individualism finds expression in the pronouncements of all major evangelical spokesmen, from C.F.H. Henry, one of their noted scholars(I3), to Billy Graham their most successful evangelist.(l4)
The individual is all important. He or she is given dignity and worth by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and when Christ calls to man he calls the individual out from the group to stand alone before God in a personal confrontation.
In this way Jesus restores to a human being his or her personal identity.(l5) It is the perceived function of religion to bring the person to that point where he or she is required to make a personal decision for or against Jesus and then to experience intensely and subjectively His presence and power.(l6)
Having made this decision for Christ, the individual has begun to walk the narrow way, with Jesus as saviour giving him or her that joy, peace and security which can be found only in Him.(l7) In this way man is brought to experience the conversion and the 'new birth' that is his or her greatest need.(l8)
For Evangelicalism, this individual experience of Christ, this personal encounter with God which results in the conversion or 'new birth' is the very essence of
salvation. "Evangelicalism is above all an individualizing faith which puts getting a person right with God absolutely first."(l9) This point is particularly crucial to any understanding of the Evangelical theology and to give it less than top priority is to misapprehend its power and its intrinsic necessity. In light of the importance of this point, I will take some time in the next chapter tracing its influence and historical roots.
It is this individualist emphasis which will be critiqued in the following chapters with particular concern for some of its implications for Evangelical attempts at social action. What pressures does this stress on individualism place on Evangelicals as they contemplate social action? Does it help or hinder their social concern and does it provide a conducive atmosphere for actions of social justice?
Along with my misgivings about the individualist emphasis in my Evangelical heritage, there was a growing need to deal concretely with problems of social justice. I began to ask: what is social justice and how do I implement it in light of my present theological position? In order to answer the first question, that of definition, I began to
look for supportive material for a belief already held.
The d e f i n i t i o n o f social j u s t i c e I present here is the result o f O l d Testament w o r k and m y reading o f Old Testament scholars. It is not presented as a d e f i n i t i o n t h a t is acceptable t o t h e N o r t h A m e r i c a n Evangelical because i t is u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e Evangelical w o u l d accept more than its most secondary suggestions. It is o f f e r e d so the reader m i g h t more c l e a r l y understand the tension t h a t developed in m y theology when I introduced this d e f i n i t i o n t o my own Evangelical theology o f s a l v a t i o n . This d e f i n i t i o n o f social j u s t i c e c o m p e l l e d me to question and r e i n t e r p r e t my earlier d e f i n i t i o n s of salvation and in t u r n obliged me to c r i t i c a l l y r e - e x a m i n e those d e f i n i t i o n s .
A l t h o u g h in common use in today's church c i r c l e s , t h e t e r m 'social j u s t i c e ' s t i l l begs f o r d e f i n i t i o n a l c l a r i t y . Our p r i m a r i l y W e s t e r n - o r i e n t e d , Greek-based society tends t o define " j u s t i c e " as A r i s t o t l e d i d : " . . . j u s t i c e is t h e habit whereby a person w i t h a lasting and constant w i l l renders t o each his due."(20) Social j u s t i c e then becomes an extension o f this d e f i n i t i o n as s o c i e t y is seen as t h e agent whereby
"each is given his due." Justice is seen as an a t t e m p t t o ensure some equitable basis for a c t i o n using the p r i n c i p l e o f " d u e , " t h a t is, w h a t each deserves. This is the meaning o f social justice which has tended t o dominate Western
t h i n k i n g w i t h respect t o j u s t i c e .
There is, however, an interpretation which does not root itself in the Aristotelian conception of justice. This definition is Semitic in origin and finds its major expression in the books of the Hebraic scriptures.
Justice is not an ancient custom, a human convention, a value, but a transcendent demand, freighted with divine concern. It is not only a relationship between man and man, but an act involving God, a divine need. Justice is His line, righteousness His
plummet (Isa. 28:17). It is not one of His ways, but in a l l His ways. Its validity is not only universal, but also eternal, independent of will and experience.(2l)
Important in the above statement are two points, first that justice is not merely an act which involves two people but a relationship which by its nature involves God in the action. In this way justice, and its companion social justice, are elevated from the base line of human expectation and need to the moral realm of divine need. It is suggested that social justice is not only a possible action but a necessary action if one is to emulate God in one's life of faith.
The second point of importance is that social justice is defined as being eternal and universal and is said to be independent of will and experience. Where Aristotle views the act of justice as one which is dependent upon a lasting and constant w i l l , the Hebrews see a justice free from the
vagaries o f human c a p r i c e . For the Hebrew, social j u s t i c e is a constant w i t h i n t h e v e r y nature o f God, w h i c h is beyond the a b i l i t y o f man t o e f f e c t . God's w i l l to j u s t i c e is b o t h universal, in a l l His ways, and e t e r n a l or constant. In this way the relationship between man and man, w h i c h is viewed as an a c t involving God, must also involve j u s t i c e as one o f i t s constant e l e m e n t s . If this is not the case then the relationship between men denies the involvement o f God, or denies the v e r y nature o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p . For the Hebrew, man must a c t j u s t l y if he is t o acknowledge the presence o f God in his actions.
Interesting to note is t h a t in the Old Testament the w o r d " j u s t i c e " is n o r m a l l y a v e r b t h a t implies a c t i o n . Justice is not a state or a c o n d i t i o n but is by its v e r y nature an a c t i o n . Also j u s t i c e is not m e r e l y t h e negative a c t i o n o f not doing injustice but t h e positive action o f looking t o do j u s t i c e . A b r a h a m J . Heschel in his book "The P r o p h e t s " states t h a t : " . . . t o do justice is what God demands of e v e r y m a n : it is the supreme c o m m a n d m e n t , and one t h a t cannot be f i l l e d v i c a r i o u s l y . " He goes on t o c l a r i f y his conception of just a c t i o n when he w r i t e s : "The demand is not only t o respect j u s t i c e in the sense o f abstaining f r o m doing i n j u s t i c e , but also t o s t r i v e for i t , t o pursue it."(22) The hebraic concept o f justice is a concept o f a c t i o n , one looks t o a c t justly in order t o
f u l f i l l the commandment of God. This fulfillment can not be vicarious, it cannot be left to others in society but must be a personal action and involvement. It is also clear that the action is not merely avoidance, but a positive attempt to confront injustice and to obliterate i t . In order to confront injustice i t is necessary to be able to define it with some accuracy. Frank E. Eakin jr. sees injustice as:
"Transgression of a neighbour's inherent worth as a creature of Yahweh." and this trangression "...was anathema, whether the means to the transgression was legal or not.... To fail to render to one's neighbour the dignity and respect inherently his was a direct affront against Yahweh, the Creator God whose every relationship was characterized by justice."(23)
More simply put "Justice exists in relation to a person, and is some thing done by a person. An act of injustice is condemned, not because a law is broken, but because a person has been hurt."(24)
Injustice, then, is the act of injuring another person, whether this injury be physical, mental, economic or social, an act which denies that person his or her inherent worth as a creature of God. To be injust is to fail to give another person the respect and dignity to which he or she is entitled by the very fact that he or she is human. This definition of injustice moves the question beyond another
common present-day parameter, that of legality. Both Eakin and Heschel deny that legality or law provide a true measure of the extent of injustice and in turn the extent of justice. Injustice is possible even though it may be linked with the structures of legality, a point clearly attested to by the consistent legal acrobatics of the Canadian government's historically unjust relationship with the Canadian Native Peoples. Although the action was perfectly legal, backed by Parliamentary legislation, the overall effect was that Indians were slaughtered and the white Canadians failed to render the Indian the dignity and respect which was inherently his or hers.
If justice, then, is an action demanded of man in his relationships, how does one go about administering this justice?
Justice is something positive; it aims at restoring the law that has been infringed first of all by saving the one who had suffered by this violation of the law and on the other side by punishing the one who had made somebody else suffer.(25)
For the Hebrew this type of administration of justice could be defined by the words hesed, mishpat, and tsedeqah, with each word representing a particular facet of the justice process. H.Wheeler Robinson has said that, "To know
God is to know One who w i l l carry into effect the mishpat,
hesed and tsedeqah . . . i n w h i c h he delights."(26)
In order t o more c l e a r l y understand the H e b r a i c concept o f social j u s t i c e perhaps we should examine each o f these terms i n d i v i d u a l l y as w e l l as some o f their intended a p p l i c a t i o n s . F o l l o w i n g t h i s a m o r e general v i e w o f Hebraic j u s t i c e , p a r t i c u l a r l y the nature o f its a p p l i c a t i o n , w i l l be presented.
Hesed, Mishpat and Tsedeqah
Each o f the three t e r m s has its one-word english c o u n t e r p a r t which can t o some small degree a i d in the r e c o g n i t i o n o f the concepts being v e r b a l i z e d . Hesed is translated l i t e r a l l y as "covenant love," Mishpat as
" j u s t i c e , " and Tsedeqah as "righteousness." Each of these capsule d e f i n i t i o n s allows us t o m o r e easily i d e n t i f y t h e t e r m but provides l i t t l e or no insight into its t r u e meaning. Mishpat as " j u s t i c e " is not helpful when we know nothing about a d e f i n i t i o n f o r " j u s t i c e , " and this a m b i g u i t y has been p a r t o f the c o n t r i b u t i n g cause to the present inconsistency in d e f i n i n g " j u s t i c e " and "social j u s t i c e . "
It is the i n t e n t i o n o f this e x a m i n a t i o n t o provide more salient points o f c o n t a c t w i t h the three terms and in t h a t w a y open the door t o a b e t t e r understanding o f the t e r m
"social justice." This is a word study, but not an exhaustive examination of any of the terms. It will provide a feeling for the nature of the terms and an overview of their importance to the Hebraic understanding of social justice.
The term Hesed attempts to define the nature of the relationship between men and the relationship of God to man in terms of the hierarchical positions of those involved.
"Hesed is an action performed for the weak party by the powerful one, for the situationally inferior party by the situationally superior one."(27) It is "...deliverance or protection as a responsible keeping of faith with another with whom one is in relationship."(28)
Two points stand out about Hesed. The first is that it is the deliverance or protection of another with whom one is in relation. In this way Hesed is seen as an action which attempts to save the one that has suffered or may suffer. It is both preventative as well as restorative in its application, for in protecting, the justice-giving party
prevents the transgression which may be planned and by delivering, the justice-giving party is restoring to the transgressed the unjustly taken goods, services, and so on.
in this way hesed deals primarily w i t h the sufferer, and this emphasis is clear in the second point. Hesed is an action which has as its object one who, for the moment,
lacks the a b i l i t y or means o f p r o t e c t i n g or d e l i v e r i n g h i m s e l f . The t e r m places r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on t h e strong p a r t y in a relationship f o r t h e w e l l - b e i n g o f the weak p a r t y . This weak and strong p a r t y may change as the situation changes, b u t the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r deliverance and p r o t e c t i o n remains c o n s i s t e n t l y w i t h t h e p a r t y t h a t is strong in t h a t p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n .
The p a r t y or subject doing the hesed may be human or i t may be G o d , but it is always seen as t h a t p a r t y which is s i t u a t i o n a l ly superior. The superior p a r t y has c e r t a i n responsibilities and these are c l e a r l y outlined by K a t h e r i n e Doob Sakenfeld in her d o c t o r a l dissertation on the word
"Heseo".
W i t h a human subject:
1) the w o r d hesed denotes action, not a psychological s t a t e .
2) Hesed denotes u n i l a t e r a l assistance f o r the helpless granted w i t h o u t compensation or c o n d i t i o n , not a m u t u a l exchange:...
3) Hesed denotes essential and o f t e n indispensable assistance, not e x t r a p r i v i l e g e .
4) Hesed denotes a c t i o n d e t e r m i n e d not by law or c u s t o m but by personal decision:...
5) Hesed denotes actions which may be promised w i t h or w i t h o u t c o n f i r m a t i o n by a promissory oath (or covenant); only e x c e p t i o n a l l y is hesed r e l a t e d to a previous covenant r e l a t i o n s h i p .
6) Hesed denotes a c t i o n t h a t is not optional but r a t h e r o b l i g a t o r y on m o r a l grounds
7) Hesed denotes a c t i o n w h i c h requires special moral q u a l i t i e s : v i z . i n i t i a t i v e , courage, constancy and t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s .
8) Hesed denotes e x t r a - l e g a l acts or good works deserving special r e c o g n i t i o n and r e w a r d ; t h e i r
9) Hesed denotes an a c t i o n which has its source in G o d . He desires and commands i t , recognizes and rewards i t , and punishes its omission.
In theological usage, t h e hesed o f God, l i k e the hesed o f m a n :
1) denotes a c t i o n , not a psychological s t a t e .
2) usually denotes u n i l a t e r a l help for the helpless w i t h o u t compensation or c o n d i t i o n .
3) denotes essential assistance, not mere p r i v i l e g e . 4) is essentially d i s t i n c t f r o m j u d i c i a l or legal a c t i o n . God grants hesed not as a divine judge but as a personal f r i e n d and benefactor who f u l f i l l s his responsibilities t o the helpless whoever t h e y may be, w i t h o u t regard to t h e i r m e r i t and o f t e n in d i r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o His own l a w .
5) may or may not be c o n f i r m e d by a promissory oath or covenant.
6) possess c e r t a i n marvelous c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : a l l - p e r v a d i n g , i n i t i a t i v e , i r r e s i s t i b l e power, n e v e r - f a i l i n g c o n s t a n c y .
7) is w o r t h y o f highest praise, and is t o be rewarded not by r e c i p r o c a l hesed b u t by love and obedience.(29)
By f u l f i l l i n g t h e m o r a l responsibility attendent t o t h e position o f s i t u a t i o n a l s u p e r i o r i t y , one does hesed and, in t u r n , one a c t s in a j u s t manner t o those w i t h whom one is in r e l a t i o n . One also f u l f i l l s the p r o t e c t i v e and r e s t o r a t i v e aspects o f hesed, and, in t h a t way, f u l f i l l s m o r a l obligations w h i c h are a p a r t o f one's social p o s i t i o n . T o some degree it parallels t h e medieval conception o f
"noblesse o b l i g e " but uses as its standard not the social c i r c u m s t a n c e o f b i r t h but t h e s i t u a t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e o f power. This s i t u a t i o n need not be t h a t of a king or lord and his vassal b u t may also be t h a t o f one man who has and
another man who has n o t .
I t was Ms. Sakenfield's conclusion t h a t , in hesed, God's sovereign f r e e d o m and His c o m m i t m e n t t o His people was expressed in one w o r d . Hesed denotes b o t h the dependence o f man on God and God's willingness and a b i l i t y t o deliver h i m . It is hesed t h a t urges God to save man even though He has pronounced judgement on him.(30)
M i s h p a t , the w o r d n o r m a l l y t r a n s l a t e d " j u s t i c e , "
l i n g u i s t i c a l l y descends f r o m the root " s h - p h - t " which means t o judge. This r o o t includes a l l aspects o f j u d g e m e n t , and m i s h p a t , in t u r n , includes t h i s j u d g e m e n t in i t s own d e f i n i t i o n . I t also stands f o r ordinance and legal r i g h t in some cases b u t can n o r m a l l y be t r a n s l a t e d " t o give judgement according t o a p r e c e d e n t . " This precedent is n o r m a l l y t h e declared w o r d o f God as p e r c e i v e d by t h e society, and, in t u r n , the judgement i t s e l f also becomes a precedent. In short " I t is necessary t h e r e f o r e t o t h i n k o f 'doing m i s h p a t ' ( M i c . 6:8) as meaning 'doing God's w i l l as i t has been made clear in past e x p e r i e n c e ' . " ( 3 l ) Mishpat can also be a legal phrase used t o i n d i c a t e Yahweh's sentence on Israel,
In the broad sense Yahweh's mishpat would be his s e l f - r e v e l a t i o n , w h a t he has done f o r Israel, the q u a l i t i e s w h i c h he displayed in these m i g h t y acts, the c o n d u c t r e q u i r e d of Israel when she enters into relationship w i t h a God o f this k i n d , and the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f keeping or breaking the relationship.(32)
In short, mishpat might be defined as the covenant responsibility of Israel to act in reflection of Yahweh's revelation, revelation given through Yahweh's historical action with Israel. It is what we today might call following the law and keeping the commandments. Yet mishpat is more than just a legal requirement, for the action it mandates moves beyond the legal limits of the covenant.
Mishpat also explains the accepted way of acting outside or beyond the covenant. Generally mishpat is presented as the right dealing with others, and as a part of the appropriate covenant relation, it is the appropriate action which has as
its precedent the revealed way and will of Yahweh.
For a thing or action to be 'according to mishpat,' it must be filling its appropriate and constructive place within this established order.(33)
To do mishpat is so important to some of the Hebraic writers that it becomes a major pillar in the continued survival of the Israeli nation. Jeremiah said that to violate mishpat is to take the first steps toward national destruction. It was Jeremiah's belief that once people violated their own appropriate and constructive place in the society they, by necessity, stopped being constructive and became destructive. This appropriate and constructive
a c t i o n which so undergirds t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f mishpat extends even beyond the people t o t h e i r God, f o r Yahweh also does m i s h p a t . As a m a t t e r o f f a c t , t h e people do mishpat because Yahweh does m i s h p a t . In doing mishpat one f o l l o w s the w i l l o f Yahweh, f o r " T o be just is t o a c t according t o the r i g h t (mishpat), t h a t is t o say, not according t o an a b s t r a c t and ideal r u l e , but according t o c o n c r e t e norms and duties resulting f r o m the social r e l a t i o n s in which each is involved. God is j u s t , t h a t is t o say, H e acts always according t o the norms t h a t f l o w f r o m His nature and the covenant t h a t unites H i m t o Israel; He complies w i t h what is r i g h t l y expected o f H i m , insofar as he is God and the God of the covenant ."(34)
It would be w e l l to note at this point t h a t mishpat is f i r s t an a c t i o n , mishpat is done by a person, as van Imschoot says, i t is not an a b s t r a c t ideal but a concrete a c t i o n which results f r o m the r e l a t i o n s in which one is involved. There is no real w a y t o speak o f mishpat outside of this social s i t u a t i o n because i t is the s i t u a t i o n which defines w h a t is and is not m i s h p a t . A n a c t i o n w h i c h may be mishpat in one s i t u a t i o n may not be mishpat in another. It is for this reason t h a t one must underline t h a t although mishpat r e f e r s t o judgement by precedent it does not r e f e r to legal penalties w h i c h r e m a i n unchanged. Mishpat is the s p i r i t o f the l a w , and i t is t h a t w h i c h it seeks t o e n f o r c e .
One should also note t h a t mishpat is a salient requirement o f any r e l a t i o n t o God. I t is r i g h t t h a t a man can expect mishpat f r o m God, and i t is also r i g h t t h a t he expect i t . f r o m his f e l l o w m a n . One is not f r e e t o refuse to do mishpat and not suffer consequences. To not do m i s h p a t , t o v i o l a t e God's j u s t i c e is t a n t a m o u n t t o leading the society t o national d e s t r u c t i o n . Consequently t h e word mishpat implies a social responsibility o f t h e f i r s t o r d e r .
In his study o f Jeremiah's use o f the word m i s h p a t , D r . Lawrence Toombs notes t h a t in nine o u t of t w e n t y - o n e occurences o f the w o r d , mishpat implies " t h e deliverance o f the weak f r o m e x p l o i t a t i o n by the more p o w e r f u l members of society."(35) This meaning is also found in large measure throughout the prophetic books of the Hebraic w r i t i n g s . M i s h p a t , in t h i s sense, places a burden o f responsibility on the powerful in society to see t h a t t h e i r actions r e f l e c t the duties and norms o f the covenant and, in this w a y , p r o t e c t the w e a k f r o m exploitation.(36)
Mishpat is thus defined as doing appropriate and c o n s t r u c t i v e a c t i o n in social r e l a t i o n s , in this way f u l f i l l i n g covenant and e x t r a - c o v e n a n t responsibility t o Yahweh. Mishpat can and must be expected f r o m a l l the people but especially f r o m the p o w e r f u l who have the p o t e n t i a l t o ensure m i s h p a t . And f i n a l l y mishpat is essential to t h e continued w e l l - b e i n g of the nation and its v i o l a t i o n spells d e s t r u c t i o n and c a t a s t r o p h e .
The t h i r d w o r d used to define social j u s t i c e is
" t s e d e q a h " ( a l t e r n a t e l y t s e d e q ) whose o r i g i n a l root is
" t s - d - q " meaning " t o be s t r a i g h t . " Tsedeqah can be translated "righteousness, s a l v a t i o n , p r o s p e r i t y , and d e l i v e r a n c e , " p a r t i c u l a r l y in deliverance f r o m Egypt (ISam.I2:7f.).(37) It can also mean " t o c o n f o r m t o the n o r m in the a f f a i r s o f the world"(38) and to be " p u r e , real and t r u e . " Tsedeqah is " . . . t h a t w h i c h agrees t o the end t o which i t has been c r e a t e d . . . a c t u a l l y f u l f i l l s t h e f u n c t i o n for which (he) it exists."(39) In p a r t i c u l a r tsedeqah stands for the establishment o f j u s t i c e in the land and t o do tsedeqah is t o a c t i v e l y pursue the just way. Inherent in the d e f i n i t i o n is t h a t ' man was c r e a t e d t o do j u s t i c e and t o do tsedeqah man agrees t o t h e end f o r w h i c h he was c r e a t e d . In Israel this can be d e f i n e d as l i v i n g o u t his chosenness as the doer o f Yahweh's w i l l .
Tsedeqah c e r t a i n l y stands for the establishment o f j u s t i c e in the l a n d . . . . It is incidental t h a t tsedeq stands for j u s t i c e , ft is incidental because tsedeq a c t u a l l y stands- for the establishment o f God's w i l l in the land, and secondarily for j u s t i c e , because t h a t , in p a r t , is God's w i l l . It is 'in p a r t ' , because God's w i l l is wider than j u s t i c e . He has a p a r t i c u l a r regard f o r the helpless ones of e a r t h t o rescue t h e m f r o m the clutches o f those t h a t are stronger than they.(40)
The establishment o f God's w i l l , and in that way, o f j u s t i c e requires t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n be paid to those
who are unable t o f i g h t injustice by themselves. Tsedeqah implies t h a t those o f power and means have a responsibility t o see t h a t j u s t i c e f o r a l l is established. Although
tsedeqah means the establishment o f justice and righteousness, " I t means not only t h e establishment o f righteousness on equal t e r m s f o r a l l , but also the v i n d i c a t i o n by God o f those who cannot secure their own r i g h t s . " ( 4 l ) In t h i s way tsedeqah introduces a bias or p a r t i c u l a r emphasis into the d e f i n i t i o n o f social j u s t i c e . Social j u s t i c e is not b l i n d ; i t is not o b j e c t i v e . Rather it seeks d e l i b e r a t e l y t o p r o t e c t and deliver those who are caught in the e x p l o i t a t i v e grasp o f the powers in society.
This bias t o w a r d s the weaker members o f society is integral t o the d e f i n i t i o n o f t s e d e q a h , and since i t is God's concern t o establish t s e d e q a h , He must be concerned p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h these weaker members.(42)
Having thus probed some o f the d e f i n i t i o n a l depths o f the Hebraic concept o f j u s t i c e it is now possible t o examine the way in w h i c h i t is a d m i n i s t e r e d and how the various facets o f hesed, m i s h p a t , and tsedeqah are woven together in the a t t e m p t t o a c t u a l i z e the revealed w i l l o f Yahweh.
It is clear t h a t , in the Hebraic w r i t i n g s , " J u s t i c e was not equal j u s t i c e , but a bias in favour o f the poor.
Justice is always leaned t o w a r d mercy for the widows and orphans. D i v i n e justice involves His being m e r c i f u l and
compassionate."(43) In this way j u s t i c e is a subjective a c t i o n which weighs the evidence o f the social situation as w e l l as t h e requirements o f legal s t a t u t e s . By so s i t u a t i o n a l i z i n g j u s t i c e i t is d i f f i c u l t for t h e p o w e r f u l in society t o e x p l o i t the weak t h r o u g h the j u d i c i a l system.
Legal precedent is not enough, since each s i t u a t i o n is judged on its own m e r i t s and by the s p i r i t o f the law. In this way the judge is required t o consider t h e e f f e c t s o f his judgement on the whole f a b r i c o f the society, and each case is seen as a p a r t o f a greater c o n t e x t . It is not enough t o have law on one's side but it is also necessary t o ensure t h a t t h e s p i r i t o f the law is being served.
The basic i m p e r a t i v e in the search f o r justice is t o ensure the r i g h t s of the weak.(44) T o be just is not merely an exercise but an urgent i m p e r a t i v e upon w h i c h the f a t e and situation o f the helpless hangs. It is the f u l f i l l m e n t o f responsibility t o the society and c l e a r l y r e f l e c t s the w i l l o f God f o r His people.(45)
J u s t i c e , however, is not only the deliverance o f the weak f r o m the clutches o f the p o w e r f u l , for this is only a part o f the a c t i o n o f j u s t i c e . It is also judgement, the judgement rendered upon the p o w e r f u l and the e x p l o i t e r . Justice w i t h o u t the t e e t h of punishment holds no responsibility for those t h a t would deny i t . In order t o establish j u s t i c e i t is also necessary t o r e m o v e f r o m the
powerful the ability to do injustice.(46) Therefore justice also includes the destruction of the ability to do
injustice. For to allow the instruments of oppression to survive while looking to deliver the weak from the effects of that oppression is only to tolerate those instruments.
One is saying in effect that injustice is a given and that the only option is to live with i t , while salvaging from it the human refuse it leaves in its wake. To ignore the instruments of injustice is to permit their existence and in that way to tolerate the human suffering they bring.
Any justification of the wicked is not only an offense against, an abstract ideal of justice, but the actual betrayal of the poor and the innocent. Every perversion of justice is also the imposition of suffering on someone who is unable to defend himself against it.(47)
To ignore the instruments of injustice is a betrayal of those for whom justice is most necessary and is a violation of the mishpat which supports the national survival. It is only logical that as long as the instruments of injustice are allowed to exist they will be used, and they will present a clear challenge to the health and security of the society. It is therfore necessary that the establishment of justice include the disestablishment of the instruments of injustice.
