Words
have meaning, and they have a
meaning; that is, words have a particular definition and in Scripture words
often have a peculiar definition. One of the unfortunate circumstances of our
modern discourse on what constitutes “Jesus work” in the world is the
vagueness, at times, of the English language. For example, the English word
“justice” is open to all manner of interpretations; I know of very few
Presbyterians who intentionally seek to be purveyors of injustice yet I know
plenty of Presbyterians who disagree about what justice looks like for our
communities.
Turning
to the Biblical languages helps us clarify our meaning and to bring meaning to
the word “justice.” In the Hebrew of the Old Testament, there are two words for
justice: mishpat and tzedakah (with a silent “t”). Rabbi Jonathon
Sacks says of mishpat:
Mishpat means retributive justice. It refers to the
rule of law, through which disputes are settled by right rather than might. Law
distinguishes between innocent and guilty. It establishes a set of rules,
binding on all, by means of which the members of a society act in such a way as
to pursue their own interests without infringing on the rights and freedoms of
others.
But
then he suggests that mishpat alone
cannot create a just society; true justice also requires tzedakah, which Rabbi Sacks says conveys the meaning of distributive justice:
One
can imagine a society which fastidiously observes the rule of law, and yet
contains so much inequality that wealth is concentrated into the hands of the
few, and many are left without the most basic requirements of a dignified
existence. There may be high unemployment and widespread poverty. Some may live
in palaces while others go homeless. That is not the kind of order that the
Torah contemplates. There must be justice not only in how the law is applied,
but also in how the means of existence… are distributed. That is tzedakah.
This
distinction between retributive justice (mishpat)
and distributive justice (tzedakah)
is at the heart of many of our arguments between economic conservatives and
economic liberals. While we can all imagine the extreme of an unjust society
because of the breakdown of the rule of law by rampant political corruption (where
mishpat has failed to be lived – “Idi
Amin’s Uganda”), we can also imagine the extreme of an unjust society caused by
discrepancies between the vast wealth of oligarchs feasting while the masses
live in gross poverty (where tzedakah
has failed to be maintained – “Let them eat cake!”).
Three
quick questions leap to my mind: (1) how should a just person, a just Church,
and a just society balance the requirements between retributive and
distributive justice, between “the same rules must apply to all” (mishpat) and “the rules must all lead to
dignity” (tzedakah)? (2) If one must
choose between them, leaning in the direction of one or the other in a 60-40 or
40-60 split, which takes priority? (3) When Jesus was confronted with a
situation where his choices required he lean more heavily toward one or the
other, how did Jesus live?
What
is striking to me is that, while we can and will argue as Presbyterian
followers of Jesus how to balance these requirements between mishpat and tzedakah, what we cannot do is argue whether both are requirements. Words have meaning, and these two Biblical
words for justice have a meaning; and
now you know both their particular and peculiar definitions. Those who have
ears to hear, may you hear the Word of the Lord.
Blessed to be a blessing,
Brad Munroe
A seemingly insignificant example comes to mind related to the Phoenix valley, and this has to do with the residents against the the mayor's interest in changing the street name of Squaw Peak. I cringe writing the name because I know what that word means in the language from which it comes. But the white majority of this country never felt the need to transmit knowledge related to the peoples that stood in the way of progress. Our cultures, languages, communities have been a pain from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteMost Native Americans don't know what that word is all about either because it comes from an eastern tribal people. It was the word used by fur traders time after time to refer to the female Indian woman they encountered or "married". That tribe most likely (as other tribes do) would have referred to a female, even a stranger, in kinship terms: sister, auntie, cousin, mother, depending on the age. We never talked about male or females by noting body parts.
Can you see why that word is offensive to Native Americans who know history? We would rather this word not be held up as a legitimate way to call our women even if it means a hardship for people with wealth (more than most of us have) to change their personal documents? They would have to do that if they ever moved, right? I wish they could consider this a move to granting human dignity to peoples long forgotten by this country, but on whose land they now prosper. -Judith Wellington