Sin & Misery, Judgment, Gospel, and Justice: A Few General Theses

By personality or inclination I tend toward the global, big-picture, theological, and philosophical, over against the nitty-gritty details of politics, sociology, or history--I have very little facility in understanding or commenting on the latter (much as I may wish I had more facility in such). Therefore my thoughts here, reflections related to the recently reinvigorated discussions about social justice in North America, are extremely general. Yet paradoxically I fear any one of them could be unduly taken in abstraction from all the others in relation to a given specific social situation, and thereby painted as a very unbalanced or sub-Christian perspective. So bear in mind that these must all be taken together, and even together must be understood as general truths--truths to be applied to the broad situation of our culture and history. In other words, by way of contrast, it would be misleading and even inappropriate to consider any one particular news event as evenly exemplifying all these truths.

For what it's worth, though, for a start to a general theological reading of justice and injustice, which I don't often hear discussed in such terms, here are a few theses:

1) The Right, at worst, tends to make everything about sin and personal/subcultural responsibility, and significantly downplays misery due to past (or present) sins of others or due to other circumstances outside of the control of those who presently suffer

2) The Left, at worst, tends to make everything about misery due to others' past sins or other uncontrollable circumstances, downplaying any potential contribution of present personal/subcultural sins & responsibility

3) Misery does not excuse sin, although it can be a factor in its propagation and prevalence (e.g. poverty)

4) Sin generally brings about more misery, soon thereafter and potentially far into the future--upon self and upon others, in countless direct and indirect ways (e.g. fatherlessness or broken homes/families and e.g. past discrimination/violence/etc.)

5) It would take nothing less than divine comprehension and precision of judgment to quantify the degree to which personal sins of any individual/group are implicated in the present misery for that individual/group, versus the degree to which that present misery is caused by others' sins or other circumstances outside of that individual/group's control

6) The most important answer is not found in unreserved commitment to the perspective of Right or of the Left, nor to an arbitrary Center, but in a gospel-centered approach to ministry that dignifies all human beings as responsible human agents who to one degree or another suffer some of the consequences of past sins of others all the way back to Adam as well as that of their own sins, and who all equally need the gospel of saving grace through faith in Christ, as well as the compassionate ministry of the Church in impartial charity and discipleship--Word & deed ministry together, in the name of Christ

7) There are other answers that need to be debated and discussed, in terms of highly practical, temporal solutions...my thoughts on what those should and should not be are nascent at best

From the Westminster Shorter Catechism:

Quest. 17. Into what estate did the fall bring mankind?
Ans. 17. The fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery.

Quest. 20. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
Ans. 20. God having, out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.

Quest. 21. Who is the Redeemer of God's elect?
Ans. 21. The only Redeemer of God's elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, for ever.

Baptist Faith & Message Ch. 16 "Peace and War"

"It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.

The true remedy for the war spirit is the gospel of our Lord. The supreme need of the world is the acceptance of His teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love. Christian people throughout the world should pray for the reign of the Prince of Peace."

This is a rather broad, and even arguably weak statement about the Christian and his posture toward the reality of war in a fallen world. The emphasis on praying and working for peace ultimately is of course proper, as that is where the kingdom of God is headed--the grand Isaianic vision of the nations beating swords into plowshares. However, on the way there, in a fallen world only gradually being transformed by the gospel, evil will flare up from time to time and threaten the (civically) innocent and vulnerable with violence. In this case, it is certainly the individual Christian's duty in certain situations to use force to protect life.

More complex issues arise in consideration of the use of national forces and arms, especially when it comes to global affairs. Certainly a standing military is biblical and utterly necessary for national defense. There may also be legitimate criteria for initiating Just War, however, it is my personal and rather tentative position for now that the Scriptures teach a more non-interventionist view of the role of national armed forces. Greg Bahnsen and Vern Poythress have written helpfully about these matters in various places.

This section of the BF&M comes close to sounding unbiblically pacifistic by its omissions, except for its reference in the proof texts to Luke 22:36 (which is quickly qualified by a further reference to v. 38 in which Jesus responds to His disciples to the effect that "two swords" is [more than] enough). However, this section's heavy emphasis on the value of peace is certainly biblical.