“The Justice Project”

New book recommendation:  The Justice Project

Edited by Brian McLaren, Elisa Padilla, and Ashley Bunting Seeber, is a eye-opening follow-up to The Emergent Manifesto of Hope.  It continues the theme of approaching a topic, Justice, from an array of voices.  While there were notables such as Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Peggy Campolo, and Lynne Hybels, the book mostly consisted of names I’d never heard of, activists working to challenge the status quo from their niches

It was that broad range of experiences that drew me in.  A chapter by Peggy Campolo challenged me with a story of a gay-affirming church here in Arkansas, as well as challenging the typical notion of what “Biblical family values” really are.  Her son Bart explained why campaign finance reform might just be the most important political “Justice” issue out there.  One writer told of her experience in a barely post-Civil Rights black church, which looked up to MLK, Jr. they way we look up to Jesus, and this backed up nicely to stories from South Africa where white anti-Apartheid advocates feared the suspicious, “accidentally” fatal car incidents with cops.  Then a description of Just Conservatism and Just Liberalism.  Samir Selmanovic, author of the newly released It’s Really All About God: Reflections of a Muslim Atheist Jewish Christian has a provocative piece on decolonizing God’s name.

Particular sections where particularly biting.  The entire book was absolutely replete with Scripture.  An early chapter asks if capitalism can be just.  Has there ever been an economic system that paradoxically produced more good while at the same time producing such imbalance of wealth?  A definition of justice is in order, given that we have to decide whether Justice is distributive or redistributive; is Justice starting where we all are and going from there, or is it inherently redistributing and hence imbalanced against those who start off with more.  The West has traditionally ran with the former while the Tanak inarguably aims at the latter.  The question is whether or not a capitalistic system which, while creating a great deal of good, inevitably creates inequality is a redemptive system.  That takes it pretty far, maybe beyond what I am comfortable with, but it does strike me as true that there will be no room for any inequality in God’s economy.

Then cut to a discussion on immigration reform in which a Latino writer recounts a discussion with a friend.  One asks the other if he also carries his ID with him in his sock whenever he leaves the house so much as just to jog.  It’s a world I cannot imagine, where naturalized citizens of the US live in fear of illegal deportation because of the stories they heard about the unlucky neighbor who forgot his drivers license when jogging.  That neighbor is picked up, presumed illegal, detained and/or deported away from his family.  The author barely has to imply the Scriptures that call for lavish welcoming of the squatter immigrants among us.  It challenged me because I know we need serious immigration reform and laws to guide us.  But I also know that Scripture holds up this ideal for sheltering the alien that many of us consider simply too idealistic.  Maybe it is, but it is Just.

Just ecology.  Just land.  Just business.  Justice in the slums.  Justice in the suburbs.  Just parenting.  Just Trade.  Just church-planting.  Justice in religion.  Justice in racial issues. Just elections.  Just family values.  Prophetic Justice.

This is one of those books that has perspectives that anyone but the most hardened ideologue will have their heart melted by.  I’m really encouraged to see the awakening of much of the church to the Biblical primacy of Justice as integral to the Gospel.  The church’s Justice awakening has gained such a tide that there is even now a resistance to it by Christians who feel we should drop such emphasis on Justice and “get back to Jesus.” The Justice Project is one of those books that reminds me why that perspective isn’t much good news at all.  It’s got a perspective to unsettle, teach, encourage, anger, and give hope to anyone.

Advocating for the Homeless in Little Rock

Libby has been working with the SOAR Network to reduce homelessness and extreme poverty in Little Rock. As a part of this, she’s putting together the Warm Spaces project, with the goal of providing mass shelter for the homeless during the ninety cold nights from December through February. We hope to see churches volunteer their space and resources, as well as drive volunteerism to help with the project. If you are interested in getting involved, you should contact her at libby@soarnetwork.org . We need space for the families to rest, but we also need volunteers to spend the nights on location.

There is also an informational meeting tonight at 5:30pm at Main Library.

I am convicted that homelessness and our response is a key barometer of the ethical veracity of our theology. We hope to see churches involved, as we believe God-of-the-poor is on a mission to restore shalom and justice to the world, and cares little for the logistical and legal concerns that may stand in the way and make acts of mercy inconvenient. But so often, we favor an other-worldly salvation that skews the prophetic calls for mercy and justice. We find small ways to justify non-mercy. I find myself guilty of this every time I look at a homeless person with contempt, assuming he is suffering under his own stupid choices; or when I feel he needs correct religious beliefs more than food; or when I become indignant at an opportunity to help. The Hebrew prophet Micah sang that worship without concrete acts of justice is detestable. Poets, sages, prophets, rabbis, and preachers throughout history have recognized God’s preferential option for the poor and the oppressed, and who usurps systems that create imbalance. James Forbes once cleverly summarized Matthew 25 with the suggestion that “no one will get to heaven without a letter of reference from the poor.”

Estimates put Little Rock’s homeless population at 3,000 men, women, and children. That’s right around 1.5% of Little Rock, Arkansas. I grew up in the more affluent west Little Rock, where everyone seemed to know to whom you referred when you spoke about “the homeless man that lives under the bridge.” We were a bit removed from reality, and it allowed us to see this man as a kindly, drunkenly bumbling grampa-ish figure who choose his lifestyle (which always seemed to reinforce the legitimacy of non-concern). We were removed from a reality in which some of that 1.5% will perish this winter for lack of shelter, food, or health care.

I don’t think the human soul is capable of baring the sadness of poverty on a global (or even city) level. But we do have our hands and feet and resources, and we can join with the God-of-the-poor in small, concrete ways. We may give up a bit of our world, but we may gain a bit of our soul back from the hell of indifference and piety.

While my wife and I will be the first to admit that homelessness is not our primary passion or calling, it has been enlightening to immerse ourselves in this active culture struggling with the powers-that-be for mercy. I hope I can become more and more involved in social justice over the course of my life (and please point out my hypocrisy if my words carry no action, so long as I present myself as a follower of God-of-the-poor).

I have two middle fingers for Starbucks (thoughts on global cycles of injustice)

“We have too many Christians discussing the evils of global corporations while sitting in Starbucks, and they don’t see the irony”  -Peter Rollins

My wife and I are trying to explore a few intentional steps to live more simply and sustainably.  We are eating more simply, using less energy, biking where we can to cut fuel usage.  It’s been a blessing so far.  I live in the Hillcrest district of Little rock, and I love it.  I’ve been biking more, and feeling the need for caffeine, I rode to The Station this morning to supplement my addiction.  The Station is a small grocery/café that sells all organic and/or locally grown products.  And while I love me some Starbucks, the “green” in me was feeling the need to tap a locally owned business today.  The coffee is better, anyways.  It got me thinking.

I recently finished this picture of Trendy Guy with his trendy skinny jeans talking on his trendy cell phone while pumping gas into his trendy, petroleum-guzzling SUV.  He is starring at African Soldier Child who bears his big smile and AK-47 with three clips duct-taped together… better for the killing of many other children today.  The point is that while the two would never see each other in this world, they are more related that either would imagine.  Most Americans are, at best, only tacitly aware of the relation of petroleum to African tribal violence, and concordantly unaware of how many children are swept up into the fray of warring factions to dominate control of fuel.  Similarly, cell phone parts are mined from ore mines which are also controlled by warring militias.  Injustice to children so often sweeps the industry that makes our trendy clothes.  I drew this picture of a child from a pic online; he is an actual child soldier, and he may already be dead.  The Trendy Guy I copied from is most certainly still alive.  As a shot at myself (who drives a petroleum-using car and took this picture with my iPhone with parts mined from fought-over areas in Africa), Trendy Guy has a “Save Darfur” bumper sticker on the back of his SUV, implying our incognizant complicity in the very things we are against in our cheap words.  It would be hard to drive a gas-guzzler is we understood the relation of oil, al Qaeda, politics, religion, and African violence.  The picture is about Trendy Guy’s ignorance, but it is really about my own hypocrisy and injustice.  Because these luxuries, albeit near certain necessities in America, are still pictures of injustice.

Oil is not inherently a bad thing; neither are global corporations making our coffee, clothes, cell phones, and vehicles.  But where there is much wealth, there is a great temptation for injustice to emerge against those whom we marginalize with ease.  And what can we really do?  Because my biking to The Station will do practically nothing to stop a global cycle of injustice.  It’s true, but at least I removed myself from the cycle of injustice this morning in a few, very small ways.  It’s healthy for the soul.  I’m still wearing clothes made buy who-knows-who, and typing on a MacBook with parts mined from who-knows-where (more tacit complicity), but I can try.

I cannot stop injustice entirely, but I can take small steps toward participating less in the cycle.  I believe the God of the oppressed would have us do what we can to take that road toward simplicity and justice.  We will do what we can to save the world from the soul’s great sin of indifference.

Torture Update: Opinions by country

Anyone who follow’s my feed for long will see that the prevelence of sanctioned torture is one of the human rights and social justice issues I care very much about (did you catch the post about Evangelicals being the biggest proponents of torture?- how’s that for “pro-life”?).  This was a revealing poll of opinions on torture across nations.  Those polled where asked to select between two options: the absolutist “All torture should be prohibited” and the more utilitarian moral position of “Some degree of torture should be allowed.”  (Let’s hope the obviously neglected option of “Torture is always acceptable” was too marginal to be included.)

From The Economist:

“Surprisingly, democracies are not necessarily more hostile to the practice than non-democracies. According to the polls, Americans are more willing to tolerate the use of torture than are Chinese.”

…or Iranians, you might notice.

It’s so crazy to me, the mix of opinions you get in America on torture.  I think a lot of the confusion is fueled by the media’s compliance with what we might call the Cheney/Yoo position on retrofitting old practices under new lingo, giving legitimacy to that which is profoundly immoral.  As American media at large tends to run to the Right of most other media outlets in the world, where use of the term “torture” is used to call a spade a spade.  We have this complex where if Iran uses a method, we call it torture; if, on the other hand, the US uses the exact same technique, it is called “enhanced interrogation.”  As a result, while just over 4 in 10 Americans take a utilitarian view on this moral issue, i daresay a similar number would not acknowledge that the US participates in torture at all.  Drowning, sleep deprivation, rape, beating (sometimes to the death), electrocution, dogs, burning, chaining to a ceiling for months on end while blasting music at a decibel louder than jet engine from a foot away, and the new account of the week (taking a razor blade to the penis)… these things are only called torture if they are done by non-US agents.  And until our media becomes more comfortable with calling it what it is, I assume Americans will continue to rank among the highest in support for torture, while being sumarilay incognizant that this thing they support with such utilitarian tenacity is, in fact, torture if the word has any meaning at all.

A part of me thinks that maybe this would become clearer if we would just bring back “the rack” or any of the other medieval torture devices people are familiar with from their history textbooks.  But even then, I suspect the culture of fear would continue to even justify something that stark.

Empathy, Judicial Activism, Obama, and Supreme Court Justices

I’m about a week late jumping on this story, but I’ve been stewing on this controversy with President Obama hinting at his desire to see a justice pick for the Supreme Court who will display “empathy.”  Pundits have jumped all over this with, I think depending on your perspective, a fairly good point: empathy towards one party is not a completely equitable justice.

Obama picked up flack during his campaign for a brief mention of this as well.  I don’t have the exact quote, but he stated something like that he would pick a Supreme Court justice who would show preferential treatment for the poor or the less powerful.  The statement picked up a bit of media attention then, but it’s a big deal now that there will actually be a Court vacancy to fill.

I suppose this all revolves around how we define Justice.  I think most people have a simple, working definition of Justice without much concern for the complexity of the term.  Discussions defining Justice have been going on in philosophy and ethics since Plato, and nobody has come up with a perfectly satisfying definition yet.  So safe to say, Justice is a far more complex issue than most pundits will allow for.  Is Justice being fair to all in the moment?  Or should it also take into account systemic injustice?  Is Justice part of a deontological moral construct, or is it decided by mass utility and consequentialism?  Who decides what is Justice- the gods, the individual, society?  If a judge’s view of Justice differs from the Law, should he side with the Law or his own ethics?

It’s a complex issue.  So what of Empathy?  It certainly highlights a few things about Obama’s concept of justice.  Two things I notice specifically:

1.  Obama desires activist judges that reflect his values.  And so does everybody else. Why do we claim we want activist presidents, senators, and congressmen, but want complete impartiality in our judges?  Because it feels safe, like we can fit human judges into predictable boxes of opinion based on the law.  But it doesn’t work that way.  In this country, many pundits frame the question this way: should we want a court justice who will actively manipulate the law to fit his opinions, or do we want a justice that will strictly interpret the Constitution?  Of course, the fairly obvious point ignored here is this: the case is only here for the Sumpreme Court’s consideration because it’s unclear via the Law and Constitution.  Regardless of their liberal or conservative stance, all justices are activists, shaping legal opinion to reflect how they think it should be.  A “strict constructionist” is still, in fact, shaping legal precidents according to his own hermenutics, interpreting the Constitution within his particular values.  Nobody is simply “doing what the Founders had in mind.”  Every court justice reshapes law.

2.  Obama does not see Justice as strictly defined by Law or conventional in-the-moment equity. I think this is a brave stance.  If you screw up in weighing an opinion, it’s easier for people to point and say, “well, if you would have just stuck to the law…”  As I understand, Obama would prefer a judge show partiality to the less powerful, the poor, the down-on-their-luck.  This may even account for correction of systemic injustice.  So the wealthy banker foreclosing on a poor family man, for example, may not stand on equal footing in front of the Supreme Court.  And while I have my own opinions about where the practical limits on this type of action can be, I also think it is a profoundly Biblical view of Justice.  In the scriptures, God seems to show a preferential treatment to the poor and the oppressed over and above His desire for being “fair.”  So as a Christian with that particular view of God, this Empathy comment makes a lot of sense.  I’m sure God and Barak would have many disagreements about ethical Justice constructs, but I feel they would agree that Empathy for the down-trodden is a plus, and that “fair” can take a back-seat some cases.

I could be ok with an activist for Empathy.  I hope he has a good pick.