Justice Archives - Page 4 of 4

I’ve been thinking about the name we give our Fourth of July Holiday. Independence Day. Of course it comes from the Declaration of Independence when we decide we could not longer tolerate being a colony of Great Britain. At that point, we weren’t even sure we wanted to be a nation so much as a collection of states who had united for the purpose of fighting against what we perceived as British tyranny. It took a good deal of further argument, and some economic necessities, for us to decide that the thirteen states would indeed unite to form a nation under a federal constitution. All that is history but it suggests to me how deeply this idea of independence runs in our nation’s sense of identity.

Never mind that independence depended on our seizure of land occupied by the First Nations peoples who were here long before us. Never mind that much of our early economy depended on an unholy acceptance of slavery by both South and North. Never mind that when slavery was threatened and the compromises no longer worked, the fight over the decision of the South to pursue an independent existence and break its union with the North cost the lives of 620,000 men. It seems to me that the “independence” that is etched so deeply in the American character has often taken such an absolute value that we have been willing to kill and commit numerous injustices when they may have been more peaceful and just alternatives. Even in the case of our revolution, the reality is that it was British incompetence and the challenges of communication over distances that contributed our problems as much as any tyranny. It might be argued that we could have achieved nationhood without war (and not had to fight a follow-up war in 1812).

My problem is not with the idea of “independence” in and of itself. It is rather when we make this an absolute value–when we fail to realize the ways we are dependent and interdependent. Independence of thought can be a good thing that leads to creativity, innovation, works of original beauty and insight. Nevertheless, even these things build on knowledge and skill acquired from the generations. And what happens when independence just becomes the stubborn refusal to take counsel and heed the sense of others? What happens when we so harden in our positions that being right matters more than finding some concord?

The truth is, none of us, neither individuals nor nations leads an entirely independent existence. We depend on family, community organizations, the labors of others for so much in our lives. Our very sustenance depends on an environment that is incredibly beautiful, fruitful and yet not invulnerable to our depredations. We likewise as a nation depend on an economic and trade system that is global. The truer reality is that we are “interdependent”, part of a web of relationships where we mutually sustain each other in families, communities, nationally and internationally. The hubris that denies this reality and glorifies our “independence” as an absolute, an ultimate value, seems to lead to rape of the land, plunder of the weak, and a violent way of life. And despite our use of “under God” language in our Pledge of Allegiance and the trust in God we express on our currency, I fear that this statement of dependence is often mere verbiage when the truth is we conceive ourselves answerable to no one.

So while I want to celebrate the birth of a country I truly love as both beautiful and remarkable in many of its achievements and whose Constitution seems to me a near work of genius, I have to admit that I am ever more uncomfortable with our language of “independence”. I think far more compelling is our expressed passion for “liberty and justice for all.” If today can be a day of renewed dedication to this ideal for ALL of our own people as well as the other peoples of the world, then that is truly cause for celebration!

Journey toward Justice: Personal Encounters in the Global South by Nicholas P. Wolterstorff
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This is a book that sparkles with clear thinking and a personal narrative that helped inform and shape that thinking. Wolterstorff continues in this book to elaborate thinking outlined in Justice: Rights and Wrongs. In short chapters he shares both his own ideas about justice and the personal encounters with victims of injustice in South Africa, Palestine, and the Honduras. And he contends that it was the personal encounters with those whose dignity was impaired and whose inherent rights were denied that informed his theory of justice centering around human dignity and inherent rights.

Nicholas Wolterstorff

He distinguishes his approach from one of the leaders in the field, John Rawls. I’ve not read Rawls and so I don’t feel I can adequately assess the distinctions between the two. Wolterstorff focuses on the idea of inherent rights as opposed to right order as central in his concept of justice. This arose, as I’ve noted from his experiences, particularly in South Africa, of seeing justice defined as right order and yet denying basic liberties to blacks that he would consider inherent rights. His theory also develops an understanding of justice in terms of ‘primary’ and ‘reactive’ justice (the latter being justice that responds to criminal acts against a person while the former dealing with structural injustices that impair personal liberties). He argues against those who claim that an “inherent rights” approach can be abused by those claiming extravagant rights beyond what he envisions. He contends that abuse does not support doing away with an inherent rights concept but rather calls for its proper use.

Along the way, he engages some of the biblical theology surrounding justice, particularly what he sees as a mistranslation of the New Testament dik stem words in many contexts as righteous or righteousness instead of just or justice. He also argues against the blind submission to authority that many read into Romans 13, arguing that this is to be understood not as rulers who are divinely appointed who must be submitted to no matter what (except where submission involves direct disobedience to God) but rather that rulers are appointed to exercise justice and the power of the sword against perpetrators of injustice, which warrants advocacy when the state fails to live up to its God-appointed role.

Wolterstorff’s philosophical work has included work in the area of aesthetics and here he considers the role of artistic expression in justice movements. In a chapter on “Justice and Beauty” he argues for the intrinsic worth of art and that shalom, the kind of peace in which humans flourish, knits together the disparate elements of pursuing justice, scholarship, and beauty in the world.

My sense is that this book represents both a distillation, and, in some ways, an elaboration of his academic works on justice. It left me wanting more and served as a good introduction to his thinking about this important subject.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher through Goodreads “First Reads” program.

View all my reviews