my understanding
Josh McDowell's book "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" I believe legitimately makes the claim that Christ confronts each one of us with the choice of either accepting him as the son of God who died for our salvation or rejecting him as a liar and a madman. I believe that the theory of justice proposed by John Rawls in his 1957 article titled "Justice as Fairness", and later in a more detailed account in the book "A Theory of Justice" requires a similar choice by those of us who claim that Christ is indeed who he says he is.
Because Rawls' theory is in essence formulated around the commands that Jesus himself held as most high, to love our neighbors as ourselves and to treat others as we would like to be treated, I think that his theory demands a verdict from Christians. Is Rawls' understanding of justice based on reciprocity that includes broad liberty and equality of rights and opportunity one that fits with our understanding of New Testament Biblical mandates? And if not why not?
For those of you who are unfamiliar with his theory, first I invite you to investigate it yourselves, but I will also try to summarize it here as briefly and carefully as I can.
In its simplest form, the theory operates on two principles. The liberty principle says that everyone has the greatest degree of freedom compatible with equal freedom for everyone else. The second principle is the equality principle which says that inequalities are permissible (just) in so far as they benefit everyone.
According to Rawls, when we consider how laws ought to be formulated in a just or fair manner, we need go no further than to consider the way in which we formulate the rules of games. In games, we expect there to be winners and losers and some inequities. However, the rules need to be such that they are the same for all players involved, and that no players have an unfair advantage at the outset (at least none arbitrarily granted by the rules in favor of one player over another). When we formulate just laws, we ought to think of ourselves in an "original position" or behind a "veil of ignorance", a position from which we do not know where we will land in the game and therefore not extend undue or unfair protection to any one station or group in particular.
What Rawls has done is to take the Golden Rule and turn it into a theory of justice. What would I want done to me if I were someone else? This is the founding principle.
Two points
1. This is a theory of justice that is founded on the principle of reciprocity which Jesus on more than one occasion indicated was the second highest command only below the command to love God with all of our being (and likely falls from that highest command). Jesus also said that the principle of reciprocity encapsulates all of the law and prophets.
2. Through this theory, we can generate nearly all of those agendas that we progressives are interested in pursuing.
-equal rights and opportunities
-assistance for those who are in need
-protection of the environment (because a clean and stable environment effects everyone)
I'll continue with some other aspects and possible hurdles and objections another day.
In the meantime, check out Rawls' theory for yourselves and let me know what you think.
rungavagairun
For those of you who have access through a university or subscription, here is a JStore link to "Justice as Fairness".
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-362X%2819571024%2954%3A22%3C653%3A...
- rungavagairun's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
How about this?
Matthew 12:31-32,
Mark 3:28-29,
Luke 12:10
Are simpatico with gnostic Thomas saying 44:
'Jesus said: "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven."
I take that to mean that God as Holy Spirit, is God that is already within every sister, brother and all Creation, and JC doesn't give a flip if you get him or the Father as God- JC was always on about:
WAKE UP! God is already within you!
His ways are not your ways and Her thoughts are not your thoughts,
Dominion never meant to rape and plunder,
But to nurture, care and love
And if you have not love, you have nothing at all.
And on that final day we all will stand naked before The Creator,
And we have been warned that there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth,
By those who were so sure they were in, because they will be the ones left out.
What do you think about that?
Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"
Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"
not sure i understand
I guess my first response is that I'm personally a little uncomfortable with the idea that God is in all of us. I think that there is substantial scriptural evidence to suggest the contrary.
More importantly, I am not sure I see how your comments relate? I'm suggesting that the principle of reciprocity can be applied, in such a way as to render the progressive agenda in much the way we perceive it now. By giving it a solid foundation in a singular scriptural principle, I believe we avoid inconsistencies and have a firm foundation in the Bible.
I don't see a response to this proposal in what you've said. Could you elaborate?
Try This Logic
God is immortal.
God created us in his image, we are his children.
All bodies eventually die, they are not immortal.
It must not be our bodies that are created in the image of God.
It must be our Soul or Spirit that is created in the image of God. This is what is meant by "The kingdom of God is within”. The kingdom of God is not obvious in our outer shell, our decaying body.
Therefore all of us have a divine inner nature that is in the image of God.
Also there are volumes of scriptural references to our divine nature. From Paul saying that he dies daily to the flesh, to Jesus saying "Don't you know that you are Gods".
The logic of "the kingdom of God is within"
Although I don't take your interpretation amiss, Jim -- in fact, I like it -- there's another way to take Jesus' words about the kingdom of God being within you.
It couldn't be simpler: the word translated as "within you" can also be translated as "among you" or "in your midst".
Two interpretations: Jesus is among them as the inbreaking of the kingdom. Or (or and/or), the kingdom already exists, potentially, in the interrelationships or nationhood of the Jewish people, the possessors of the scriptures (that later became codified as the Hebrew Bible).
immortality and divinity
This seems to be a little astray from what I am trying to urge, but It is definitely an interesting topic.
Regarding "the kingdom of God is within" I have always taken this to be Jesus correcting a misconception that his contemporaries had of God's kingdom. Couldn't it be the case that the God's kingdom is in those who repent from sin and submit to God's authority? I just find it difficult to handle from a theological/doctrinal standpoint that the kingdom of heaven is within those who knowingly reject God.
When does Jesus exclaim "Don't you know that you are Gods?" I just did a quick search online for that text and found people saying that Jesus said it, but found no reference. The closest was "Do you not know that you are God's temple?" I Cor. 3:16. Paul goes on to say that the Spirit lives within his readers, but here again, he is writing to believers. I did find one reference that said "teaching by Jesus in John 3, is paraphrased by Adi Da as follows: "Don't you know that you are gods?"
In fact, John 3:5 says "...no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit."
Can anyone find a reference for that quote?
But again, I'm not sure that any of this gets us closer to a unifying principle or set of principles from which we can render a consistent political and social agenda.
immortality and divinity
You are right, it is straying from the main topic, your original post. If we are to continue we should probably start another post.It seemed important though.
Right now the best I can do is John 10: 34, Jesus answered them, "It is written in your Law, "I have said you are gods. If he called them "gods" to whom the word of God came-and the Scripture cannot be broken, what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said "I am God's son?" I am sure there is even a more direct quote than this expressing this idea, I may have to try some other translations. I am using the NIV for ease of reading.In may be in the KJV becasue I distinctly remember reading it as "Don't ye know that ye are Gods" Jesus obvioulsy takes no issue with the Hebrew Bible quote here and in fact usues it in his defense, in that he is completely justified in being called the "Son of God".
We are all God's children and sometimes we fell as if we have lost our way and we or others are unworthy. For this I offer the parable of the Prodigal Son. God, our loving Father is always ready to welcome us back home no matter how far we have strayed or how much we have sinned. We are our Father's child whatever we do and wherever we go, we just have to remember who we are and go home when we come to our senses.When the Prodigal SOn was off in a far land, sinning, he was still his father's son.God will always be there to welcome us.The Prodigal Son never lost his inheritance.That was the point of the parable.
The kingdom within: "you are gods"
John 10:34 seems to be the right and only source.
Checking translations online, I found nothing that matched "Don't ye know that ye are Gods".
The KJV is: Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
perhaps this will help?
You offered a 50 year old work.
I offered a new thought and it is good to not 'be sure' it is great to wrestle/struggle with The Divine Mystery and God is the Ultimate Mystery.
We don't always get what we want-easy answers; but we get what we need when we open up to the Mystery that is God.
Do you or don't you agree there is ONE Creator and EVERYTHING came from that ONE?
If so; there is something of God in ALL of Creation and even St. Paul warned NOT to judge the non-believer, but provoke our sisters and brothers onto good works.
Do you believe that God is the Judge of all and is a God of Justice and that God is LOVE?
Perhaps that is the one scriptural principal progressives should wrestle/struggle/meditate upon?
What do you think about that?
e
Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"
Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"
clearer
I do agree with One creator and everything came from that One. I also believe that there is some hint of God's nature in his creation. However, since we are part of a fallen creation, it is a flawed resemblance at its best.
I also agree that we ought not be judgmental toward non-believers because we are only believers because of God's grace and not because of our own goodness and because God is the final judge.
He is just and loving and merciful.
The question remains, given the fact that in our democratic system we have influence over the laws that govern our neighbors, does the Bible provide instruction or exemplars that can guide us? We should meditate, struggle with, and pursue this question. If our answer is to be just and loving as God is just and loving, what is justice and how can we know it? I point to Rawls' 50 year old theory because
A. it is little known in spite of its 50 year existence
B. I believe it might 'fit the bill'
One reason that I am uncomfortable with religious political conservatism is the fact that it is so internally inconsistent. Even though there is a great deal of uniformity on specific issues, if you apply the same reasoning used to formulate their positions to other issues, the formula breaks down.
For example: (forgive me if this is a bit of a straw-man representation, but this is typical of conversations I've had with Christian conservatives)
Q: Why should abortion be illegal?
A: The Ten Commandments say 'thou shalt not kill' and abortions kill babies.
Q: The Ten Commandments also to have no other gods. Should we outlaw all other religions?
A: .... no.
Q: Why not? This was the first command in the Old Testament and reiterated by Christ in the New Testament as the most important command.
A: Well, I think God reveals to us in our spirit which commands ought to be laws and which should not.
This is a dangerous formula and one that should be avoided whenever possible. I think Rawls' theory is an alternative.
In my next blog I want to discuss the role of humility in the equation and how we often miss an important aspect of it. It relates in part to what you and I both said about judging non-believers.
Love Rawls, not such a big fan of McDowell
I have found Rawls extremely helpful when framing discussions of issues of equality, especially with more conservative friends and family.
I'm not such a big fan of McDowell whom I came across early in my Christian development. What he wrote largely turned my impressionable mind and heart away from Christ. His essential claim was that the Bible says the Earth is 6-20,000 years old and if you don't believe that and everything else in the Bible is true, than how you can believe the claims that Christ made including his resurrection. Well, I know that the earth is a lot older than that so it injected all this doubt about Jesus. Rejecting this irrational fundamentalism led me to reject Jesus in the process.
It took a couple of years and ironically a born again experience to find my way back to Jesus.
I'm sure others have had this experience with fundamentalism. I'm better off for it in the end, but it wasn't much fun at the time.
not a huge fan myself
I probably shouldn't have made reference to McDowell. I do agree with his observation that Christ really doesn't leave room for wishy-washy beliefs about his divinity.
That was probably a pretty crappy introduction. I was just trying to compare the claims.
I think we underestimate the power and subtlety of Jesus' command to do unto others and love your neighbor as yourself. Rawls proposes a theory of justice built on the same principle. I think we who accept the authority of Christ are thus compelled to consider if Rawls' understanding is in line with what Christ intended or not. If not, what is the alternative and what are the implications?
no worries
McDowell has come up a couple of times on this site, but Rawls has not. Thanks for bringing him into the conversation.
The connections betweeen what Jesus commands and Rawls framing of the issue is particularly interesting. Rawls frame forces us to take a second look at Jesus's command to love others, almost to check and see how we're doing.
I was involved in meeting with ONE yesterday and its clear we all could be doing a lot more on issues of global poverty and inequality. Check out:
http://www.one.org/faith/
Rawls has a great theory
Thank you rungavagairun for explaining in more detail Rawls' theory of reciprocity. It sounds like a good basis for a philosophy that Progressives could use as an intellectual basis for their politics. When I have time I'll try to read "Justice as Fairness" and try to read a Yoder link that someone else in Crossleft recommended.