The way of peace they do not know, and there is no justice in their ways.

…The Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no justice.

Isaiah 59:8,15

 

“For you practice secondary things and neglect justice and the love of God;

it is these you ought to have practiced, without neglecting the others.”

Luke 11:42

 

 

 

            Christians in general would not intentionally deny justice for the human condition, but the reality emerges that their intentions could be complicit with injustice.  Christians particularly in the U.S. are being tested about this dynamic currently evolving in the 2024 general election—notably since a woman of color now headlines the candidacy for president.  From past to present, this justice-injustice dynamic has defined the majority in the U.S., and throughout human history, who determine its outcome for everyday human life.

            In a survey of what’s primary or secondary in the practice of God’s people, Jesus found their practice (pre)occupied with secondary matters at the expense of what’s primary (Lk 11:42; Mt 23:23).  Thus, they became complicit with injustice because they neglected what’s primary to God and God’s law: “justice and the love of God,” and “justice and mercy and faith (relational trust).”  Further back in history, God’s people were exposed in their practice: “The way of peace they do not know, and there is no justice in their ways” (Isa 59:8).  Past or present, among God’s people in particular or humanity in general, the existential reality of human life is the evolving condition calling for, necessitating and even demanding protest.  That is, only the protest that resonates the whole of God’s heart: “The Lord saw their practice, and it displeased him that there was no justice” (Isa 59:15); “Woe to you” (Lk 11:42; Mt 23:23).

            Woe to us, indeed, who don’t know the way of peace, and thus who don’t enact justice in our everyday life!

 

 

His Way of Peace

 

 

            John the Baptist’s father, Zechariah, predicted that his son would witness for Jesus and proclaim his gospel, which would “guide our feet into the way of peace” (Lk 1:67-79).  Whether Zechariah understood how John would fulfill his purpose is not clear, John proclaimed the gospel by resonating Jesus’ heart in protest.  That is, John protested the bad news of the human condition in order for the good news to “guide our feet into the way of peace.”

            Simeon predicted that Jesus’ relational work (semeion, sign) would “be opposed  so that the inner thoughts of many will be exposed by the piercing of a sword” (Lk 2:34-35).  His proclamation affirmed the protest of John’s proclamation and qualified the good news proclaimed by the angels of Jesus’ birth bringing  “peace among those whom he favors” (Lk 2:14).  How is it affirmed and why is it qualified?

            Christians knowingly wouldn’t protest against peace.  But what peace might they protest for is an open question needing an answer.  Few Christians have been witnessed among the ranks of those involved in peace movements.  This was evident in the peace movement of the ‘60s-‘70s, though there is more involvement currently in the peace efforts to stop the war in Gaza.  Paul makes imperative for the church that “the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, that is, be the primary determinant of your persons from inner out” (Col 3:15).  Jesus made definitive for the identity and function of his followers to be “peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Mt 5:9).  Yet, as Jesus’ survey of God’s people exposed, they essentially don’t know the way of peace in general and his way of peace in particular.

            John the Baptist prepared the way of peace that Jesus constituted with the heart of God’s lament.  John’s protest pointed to Jesus’ protest enacting his gospel of peace (cf. Eph 6:15).  Therefore, Jesus affirmed the protest of John’s proclamation (Mt 11:7-15), and then he advanced their protest to qualify the way of peace.  Continuing from what Simeon predicted (Lk 2:34-35), Jesus declares “I have not come to bring peace but a sword” (Mt 10-34)…“but rather division” (Lk 12-51).  Why does this qualify the way of peace and simply not counter peace?

            First of all, the sword used by Jesus doesn’t divide the relationships of human life, notably in families.  The sword Jesus uses in  protest essentially cuts through the darkness to bring to light the existential division of relationships composing the human condition, notably even in families.  This division needs to be accentuated, because the subtlety of relational distance keeping families apart often takes on the appearance of being at peace with each other; and it is that so-called peace that needs to be qualified.  Moreover, there are layers of this condition that need to be cut through in order to get to the heart of problem.

            The sword used by Jesus opens the way for the “peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you.  I do not give to you as the world gives” (Jn 14:27).  That is to say, “my peace I give to you is uncommon in contrast to the common peace that is available from other sources in the world.”  The difference between his uncommon peace and the common peace of human life is critical to understand, because to interchange them, conflate them or confuse the latter for the former are consequential for reflecting, reinforcing or sustaining the human condition.

            As Jesus approached Jerusalem on his journey to the cross, his heart wept in protest: “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your biased eyes” (Lk 19:41-42, NIV).  In the contexts of human life, even among God’s people, the common perception of peace is the absence of conflict; and, thus, they way to bring peace involves making the changes to reduce, suspend and eliminate the conflict.  The absence of conflict is certainly desirable and a valued condition, but this perception and interpretation of peace creates a bias that prevents seeing, understanding and knowing the uncommon peace given by Jesus.

            “My uncommon peace I give to you” embodied and enacted the gospel constituted earlier by the shalom of God’s definitive blessing (Num 6:22-27).  This blessing must not be taken out of its formative context, or it becomes reduced to a mere benediction of worship tradition.  In the formative tradition of God’s people, the Sabbath has been a key identity marker to distinguish them from other persons, peoples and nations. What should have been integral, however, for who, what and how they are as persons and in relationship together became fragmenting of their created ontology and function. Consider carefully the Sabbath in God’s rule of law, which constituted the climax essential to creation (Gen 2:1-3). The Creator enacted the Subject God’s righteousness in what is right and whole, and this is how human persons are to function in likeness—function contrary to the pressure and demands of self-determination to measure up and succeed, and that preoccupy us with secondary matters at the expense of the primary.

            The Sabbath signifies the most transparent stage in the creation of all life, in which we see God being God. In the context of the world, God’s whole ontology and function just is, without any other action or activity defining and determining God in this moment. On this unique day, God’s relational message is “Be still and know that I am God” (Ps 46:10). At this perspicacious point of just being God, God constituted whole-ly the relational context and process of what is primary of God and who is primary to God for the whole-ly relational outcome of all persons coming together in the primacy of face-to-face relationship.

            The uncommon wholeness of God’s relational process and outcome emerged distinguished in relational terms when God responded face to face with his kingdom-family by the relational involvement of his definitive blessing (Num 6:22-27). “Subject God make his face to shine upon you…and give you peace” is the most common blessing in our tradition, whose use has lost its relational significance and has either ignored or not understood the essential significant change at the heart of Subject God’s relational response. By “give you” (siym), God is not acting as a mere benefactor, nor is it merely highlighting God’s good character to give. The deeper meaning of siym used in God’s response centers on the heart of what Subject God brings and gives: (1) to bring about a change, and integral to this change (2) to establish a new relationship. Thus, the Subject’s face-to-face response to subjects (not objects of his blessing) is to bring the significant change that establishes them in new relationships. The relational outcome is not a “new” normal but gives them the new order of relationships together in shalom.

            Shalom is not just the absence of conflict but the well-being of persons constituted in wholeness, by which their relationships are determined.  In God’s way of peace, the wholeness of God vulnerably enacts the blessing of God’s face (presence) for the primacy of face-to-face relationship with the persons primary to God.  Yet, this relational outcome does not happen merely because the blessing states the outcome of peace.  The relational outcome of wholeness in relationships together is contingent on bringing about change that is uncommon to human contexts, in which the old condition is eliminated so the new uncommon outcome emerges.

            Uncommon change will open the way for the wholeness of persons to function in their new condition:

 

just-nection: the right order of relationship together, which was originally created by Subject God for subject persons to have the right relational connection in God’s relational likeness—the relational connection required for justice of the human order. 

 

Only God’s relational outcome of peace brings this just-nection of creation. Therefore, God’s justice is distinguished and God’s peace is experienced just in this relational dynamic of just-nection.

 

Its Interdependence with Justice

 

 

            This highlights the interdependence of Jesus’ way of peace and his love of justice.  Peace and justice operate as interdependent variables, such that the variation in one directly affects the other, and conversely.  Thus, in a context where the way of peace is not understood, there will be a lack of justice in the ways of those in that context—which always evokes God’s protest (Isa 59:8,15).

            In the uncommon change, therefore, that God brings for the relational outcome of peace (“my peace”), justice is at the heart of God’s blessing, and thus cannot be minimized, ignored or displaced.  Just-nection, then, is the unequivocal and irreplaceable antithesis that distinguishes justice from what encompasses the common denominator of injustice:

 

The relational distance, separation or brokenness that fragment the human order and reduce persons to outer-in distinctions, and thus to any and all relational disconnection contrary to their created likeness to God, which is consequential for preventing fulfillment of the inherent human need (as experienced in Gen 3:7-8).

 

            On this irreducible and nonnegotiable basis of his way of peace, Jesus made it essential that his gospel is embodied and enacted as follows, and imperative to be claimed and proclaimed accordingly:

 

The bad news of the gospel unfolds on an intrusive relational path resonating in protest to expose the injustice of tradition and similar conventional practices, in order that the good news emerges ‘whole in justice’ and unfolds ‘uncommon in peace’; and the gospel’s intrusive relational path encompasses exposing the shame of the status quo composed by the dominant views of theology (or related ideology) and the prevailing norms of practice, both of which are under the shaping influence of the common.

 

            Nothing less can constitute the gospel that Jesus embodied and enacted; and no substitutes can claim and proclaim the uncommon wholeness of his gospel.  Anything less and any substitutes are unavoidably subjected to his gospel protest and subject to the lament of God’s whole heart.  His protest notably includes the premature justice and immature peace prevailing among God’s people, which he lamented vulnerably before their biased eyes.

 

 

Premature Justice and Immature Peace

 

 

            The dynamics involved in the whole and uncommon gospel enacted by Jesus are constituted only by the relational terms and process innate to the whole and uncommon (whole-ly) God.  Therefore, the uncommon change intrinsic to his gospel only has significance by being relational, and the redemptive change he brings only transforms in the primacy of relationship.  Thus, significant change always encompasses, involves and changes relationships, which unmistakably contrasts with common-conventional change. Any change that is not so engaged relationally falls short and, therefore, is insufficient to bring the significant change and give the significant outcome that transforms relationships in their primacy. Uncommon change is irreplaceable to bring the significant change necessary for justice and to give the significant outcome constituting peace. Anything less and any substitutes, even with good intentions, at best result in premature justice and immature peace.

            Accordingly, and invariably, when we call for justice, we have to know what indeed brings justice; and when we work for peace, we have to understand what truly gives peace.

            The turn-around change in relationships from God’s definitive blessing distinguishes those persons by their well-being in wholeness to constitute their just-nection as subjects in Subject God’s family. Sadly, those associated with God’s kingdom-family turned God’s definitive blessing into a “new” normal by first transposing the uncommon change God brings to common change, and then by common-izing the uncommon peace God gives (cf. Isa 29:13). The pervasive consequence was to convert God’s uncommon good into a prevailing common good. This conversion continues today, subtly shaping how we see and think about the gospel to counter the uncommon change Jesus brings and to contradict the uncommon wholeness he gives. Jesus had to clarify and correct this conversion throughout his embodied presence in order to expose the common-ization of what he brings and gives.

            Notably, of course, his main disciples were common-ized in their identity (seeking to be the greatest, Lk 22:24) and gave priority to serving the common good over the primacy of relationship together (Mt 26:8-11). Also, the majority associated with God’s family functioned in common peace to counter the siym of Subject God’s relational response, and thereby contradicted the shalom he gives (Lk 19:41-42).

            As evident in his post-ascension critique of churches (Rev 2-3), Jesus (together with the Spirit) continues to pursue us in any distorting conversion of the uncommon change he brings and the uncommon peace he gives. His relational purpose is always for the just-nection of all persons and relationships in the uncommon good. Furthermore, his ceaseless purpose in this vital process pursues us, so that any call for justice will not stop prematurely until just-nection is complete, and that all work for peace will not be engaged immaturely without wholeness and settle for common peace. Jesus knew all too well from his personal observations that common thinking, perception and action result in anything less than their maturity until they undergo uncommon change.

            In the ordinary terms of the gospel, the sword of uncommon peace that Jesus brings and gives would seem to contradict peace and to function counter to it. That would only be true for our theology and valid in our practice when the focus is reduced to common peace—namely to the absence of conflict. The truth of Jesus’ gospel, however, that invalidates other gospels using his name is this: Whenever common peace is used in place of uncommon peace, there is a contradiction of what Jesus gives; and whenever our work revolves around common peace, it functions counter to the uncommon peace that Jesus’ sword brings.

            The uncommon good of Jesus’ gospel unfolds in his discipleship manifesto for all his followers (the Sermon on the Mount, Mt 5-7), emerging with their definitive identity formation (the Beatitudes, 5:3-10). Their identity as “peacemakers” is not merely a partial identity but their whole identity as the “children of God” (5:9). Yet, only those who are relationally involved with God with their whole persons from inner out relationally belong in God’s family (5:8), which emerges from only the uncommon-redemptive change of the who, what and how they are (5:3-6).

            Therefore, in Jesus’ uncommon good, the uncommon change of peacemakers involves only whole persons who work just for uncommon peace. These daughters and sons in God’s family know that anything less is an immature account of their whole identity, and that any substitutes are an immature peace of the whole who, what and how they are and function for. Immature peace and uncommon peace are at the critical disjuncture composed between “the wide gate and easy road” and “the narrow gate and difficult road” (7:13-14). This disjuncture continues to create both fog for his followers’ theology and ambiguity confounding their practice, such that they stop prematurely without just-nection in their call for justice, and engage the work of peace immaturely without wholeness by settling for common peace. This describes the who, what and how of persons prevailing among those merely associated with God’s kingdom, whose reduced identity and function composed the religious status quo that Jesus required his true followers to go further and be deeper than, without stopping short (5:20).

            Reductionism is always imposing its “knowing good and evil” on those functioning as objects shaped by the human context in reduced ontology. These are the sentinels (Eze 33:7-9) who all-too-easily claim premature justice and who all-too-widely profess immature peace—taking a wider trajectory and easier path than Jesus (cf. Eze

34). Yet, this bad news is redeemed and transformed by the good news: the uncommon good that Jesus brings with uncommon change and gives with uncommon peace. If we are willing to turn around from the assumptions in our theology and change the bias in our practice, then our just-nection can be completed to counter premature justice rather than countering what Jesus brings; and then our persons and relationships can be made whole to contradict immature peace instead of contradicting what Jesus gives. The common-good workings of reductionism always seeks to convert the uncommon good, so that premature justice will subtly pervade everyday life to enable injustice, and that immature peace will prevail over human life to disable justice and prevent just-nection.

            Once again, the uncommon good Jesus brings and gives faces us with this persistent reality:

 

How we see and think about change will be the change we use, which will be the change we get…which will be the justice and peace we use, which will be the justice and peace we get—all of which will compose either the common good or the uncommon good…that we get as objects or experience as subjects, who serve as mere servants, or work for as whole persons in the Trinity’s likeness.

 

The common good is composed by reduced ontology and function that lacks just-nection regardless of the amount of premature justice and immature peace generated. The uncommon good is constituted by whole ontology and function in the right relational order for the just-nection of all persons and peoples in whole justice and uncommon peace. Jesus’ gospel brings and gives nothing less and no substitutes.

            To know what indeed brings justice and to understand what truly gives peace converge in the integrating dynamic of just-nection that Jesus brings and gives. As the conclusive extension of the definitive blessing of Subject God’s face (2 Cor 4:6), Jesus’ gospel embodies the primacy of God to enact the primacy of face-to-face relationship for the persons primary to God. The right order of relationship together, which was created by the Subject only for subjects in his likeness, is the whole-ly relational outcome of just-nection. God’s justice is distinguished whole and God’s peace is experienced uncommon by the integration just in the relational dynamic of just-nection. Jesus redeems, reconciles and transforms the relational connection required for justice of the human order in the integrally created and newly created whole-ly likeness of God (summarized by Paul in 2 Cor 3:18; 5:16-17; Col 3:10-11). Therefore, just-nection is the unequivocal and irreplaceable antithesis that distinguishes justice from the common denominator of injustice:

 

     That which encompasses the common’s prevailing relational distance, separation or brokenness that fragment the human order and reduce persons to any and all relational disconnection contrary to their created likeness to God; this is consequential for relegating persons to relational orphans, the relational condition that disables them to function in their vested and privileged rights, and thereby prevents fulfillment of their inherent human need, whereby their everyday function subtly enables injustice—reinforcing and sustaining injustice even as they exercise their permissible rights.[1]

 

            The obscured reality, verified by existing facts, is this: Without just-nection persons fall into this equation of injustice. Contrary to any misinformed, distorted or fake news, this inescapable reality composes the human relational condition that pervades the existing human order with relational orphans—pervading even the church, countering and contradicting Jesus’ gospel (Jn 14:18). The disjunction between the common denominator of injustice and the integrating dynamic of just-nection raises questions about surrounding human conditions (past and present).

            When we fact-check these various conditions, situations and circumstances in human life, they verify the existing reality of their premature justice and immature peace. In one way or another, to whatever extent, they all fall short of what Jesus brings and gives. Premature justice does not bring just-nection and immature peace does not give wholeness; and their premature and immature fruits expose the roots of the tree they come from. Moreover, while such prevailing premature justice and pervasive immature peace may serve the relative notion of the common good, they do not, will not and cannot work for the uncommon good of Jesus’ gospel. What works in Jesus’ gospel only brings justice by uncommon change and gives peace through uncommon peace. As a further qualifier, what Jesus brings and gives do not preclude the diversity exercised in efforts for justice and peace but rather are against the reductionism expressed in their lack of maturity. Thus, the uncommon good of Jesus’ gospel should not be confused with a common metanarrative that postmodernism opposes; nor should Jesus’ uncommon good be conflated with the grand narrative proposed by modernism, which has been adapted into traditional theology and the practice of the status quo.

            The uncommon good Jesus brings and gives distinguishes only the uncommon, so that it is irreducibly incongruent with the common and, therefore, is nonnegotiably incompatible with anything common. Even a partial hybrid in theology or practice are indigestible for the uncommon’s integrity—as the church in Thyatira was corrected by Jesus’ critique (Rev 2:19-23). For the sentinels of human life to function in premature justice is to be misguided in their calling and to have misguided results. For the shepherds of God’s family to function with immature peace is to be misled in their purpose and to mislead others for the outcome. This immaturity creates a crisis of credibility about what sentinels and shepherds do bring and give, which directly applies to those claiming to be his witnesses.  

            In Jesus’ perception and thinking, this existing condition is encompassed in the bad news of his gospel, which apparently has not been received to clearly distinguish whole-ly in much theology and practice today. But, not surprisingly, nothing more than the common (change, peace, good) can result and should be expected whenever what Jesus brings is countered and what he gives is contradicted.

            Therefore, we have to understand the uncommon good that Jesus brings and gives to know what justice is. We have to know what justice is from inner out to understand injustice; and we have to be aware of injustice to live daily in justice from inner out. Being aware of injustice, however, is an entangled problem when our understanding of injustice is biased. This has been an ongoing problem ever since “good” was common-ized and “evil” was renegotiated, making injustice variable and relative. Therefore, we need to face these related questions: “Where are you—in your person from inner out?” and How has reductionism shifted your person to outer in and defined your identity by such distinctions?

            The reality also facing us is the fact that how injustice is seen and thought of have varying understanding and relative ascription. This reality produces benign injustice, which promotes illusions of justice by dulling or obscuring awareness of existing injustice. And the distinctions used for persons and relationships are at the core of this reductionist process. When his disciples were entrenched in such distinctions and preoccupied with having the privilege of “the greatest,” Jesus corrected their thinking and lens by changing that so-called privilege into the right human order. Persons of privilege live in unequal relationships that are stratified by power relations or by those “called benefactors” (Lk 22:24-25). Jesus alerted them to the gray areas of the human order that make up benign injustice.

            Benefactors are identified with distinctions of privilege, prestige and power, and how they have functioned in their distinction has varied—with mixed results and reviews. Consider how the default love of benefactors is composed by paternalism. Many recipients also consider God’s love as paternalistic and render God the ultimate Benefactor. This confuses common love for uncommon love, and many benefactors conflate their actions with God’s love. Paternalism, however, functions contrary to uncommon love and thus in contradiction to the uncommon good that Jesus brings and gives.

            Any paternalistic action directed to others always emerges from an upper position in the relational order, whether that order is recognized as stratified or not. It is from this position of privilege, prestige and power that recipients receive, and thus by implication are relegated to a lower position—whether explicit or implicit in the so-called positive action. Intrinsic in this comparative process is the formulation of a deficit model to measure the recipients, which both measures all recipient persons as less than benefactors and also tells those deemed as less what they need to measure up to in order to rise higher in this human order. The deficit model has been imposed by those deemed as more to subtly subordinate those less and to maintain the inequality between them. Those less only reinforce and sustain such inequality when they accept the deficit model for their self-assessment.

            This is the unavoidable result: the ongoing engagement in relationships and treatment of persons composed by personal, institutional, systemic and structural inequality; and this inequity is consequential for both preventing just-nection and enabling injustice however benign paternalism may seem.

            Consider further: The paternalistic efforts of liberal ideology have promoted a deficit model in U.S. race relations, which has only maintained the reduced identity and function of minorities in the fragmentary human condition. Many would consider this progress from past use of a deficit model that categorized minorities as sub-human, less human, inferior humans, or simply unworthy persons. Yet, the label of second-class persists for any use of a deficit model for persons. Thus, in existing race relations, whether politically, economically, educationally or just socially, the right human order has not emerged to stop enabling injustice, much less bring change to stop disabling justice and turn to just-nection.

            This state of paternalism has been exacerbated by the existing reality of benevolent sexism.^[2] While benevolent sexism is certainly more benign than sexual abuse, all such paternalistic actions have relegated females to a deficit condition and related position on the comparative scale—which then must also be construed as sexual misconduct. This deficit has had exponential consequences for all persons of both genders and their relationships together and separate (e.g. comparative masculinity among males).

            Christians have not been on the sidelines of paternalism or removed from its consequences. On the contrary, Christians have directly engaged in paternalistic efforts, strongly supported paternalism if not led it, and widely been complicit with its consequences. Christian missions from the West, of course, led the way with its paternalism (with colonialist variations) imposed on others with a deficit model. Western theology has been paternalistic with its views, insisting on (imposing) its so-called correct doctrine so that the rest of the world will be “correct” in its theology and practice. Even Christian justice and peace ministries have engaged in paternalistic efforts that by default reinforce a deficit model without bringing the uncommon-redemptive change that gives uncommon peace.

            The bad news of Jesus’ gospel counters any good news used that contradicts the uncommon good brought and given by Jesus. Such misinformed, misrepresenting or fact-less news have been a critical issue for the prophets of God’s words, the shepherds of God’s family, and the sentinels of human life, including “my witnesses.”   For example, there were false prophets who said “the Lord declares…” when the Lord had not spoken, and who proclaimed “Peace when there is no peace” (Eze 13:1-10, cf. Jer 8:11)—all acting with a benign sense of injustice that common-ized the peace the face of God gives.

            These signify the false hopes today that must be unmistakably contrasted from the distinguished relational hope placed in Subject God’s relational response of love to bring just-nection and give uncommon peace. In ancient history, Israel errored in confusing the kingdom of God with nationalism, and they mistook their uncommon identity with the common distinction of exceptionalism—all conflated under the assumption of having God’s favor (counter to Dt 7:7-9). In modern history, the U.S. also makes similar confusing and conflating assessments of itself, along with the false assumption of “one nation under God” as “God’s chosen nation.” Many evangelicals in the U.S. proclaim this news as the gospel. The bad news of Jesus’ gospel, however, exposes this so-called good news as misinformed, fact-less or fake news, which misleadingly promotes illusions of justice by a lens of benign injustice that common-ize peace.

            As long as we remain steadfast in proclaiming the gospel by paltering (selectively stating only part of the gospel) and persist in avoiding Jesus’ bad news by confirmation bias (selectively using only that which supports our beliefs), then we are faced with the reality of his bad news—as objects of his gospel protest:

 

If how we see and think of injustice excludes benign injustice, then our understanding of injustice is deficient because we lack knowing justice from inner out. The consequence is having a bias in how we act in everyday life, which makes us inconsistent in our daily actions because justice has become relative for us—with permissible rights variably composed, enacted and enforced. Since this reflects not understanding the uncommon good of Jesus’ gospel to know what justice truly is, how we act is limited to default love and is constrained to the common good. Under this limit and constraint, our actions then in reality subtly enable injustice and disable justice, and thus which reinforces and sustains the (our) human condition. Without uncommon change, therefore, this condition prevents just-nection and the enforcement of vested rights and privileged rights to fulfill the inherent human need of all persons. The reality of all this evidences both the influence of reductionism exerted on how we think, see and act, and the extent of common-ization in our theology and practice.

 

 

 

 

The Justice of Love

 

 

            The sword Jesus uses penetrates human hearts in order to, on the one hand, expose humanity’s condition from inner out, and, on the other hand, to make vulnerable human hearts to connect their whole person in the relational process and involvement of love. 

            In the uncommon relational terms of Jesus’ whole gospel, he constituted a new dimension for his rule of law; and this dimension is defining for his followers (notably “my witnesses”) to distinguish them in the contexts of the common: reciprocating love—a new commandment of relational involvement with each other based just on the face-to-face experience of his intimate relational involvement with them “just as I have loved you” (Jn 13:34-35). Jesus makes conclusive that reciprocating love is foremost what God desires from us in our relationship. That is, God doesn’t desire what we have and do—which is the human identity of a reduced theological anthropology—but our whole person relationally involved with him (as in Ps 40:6-7; 147:10-11, cf. Jn 4:23-24). Reciprocating love illuminates the relational reality of just-nection and thereby qualifies the embodying, enacting and enforcing of God’s rule of law condensed into love (Mt 22:34-40). This relational understanding composes the justice of love.

            All too often, God’s love has been highlighted commonly apart from the whole relationship context and process of the gospel, thereby rendering God’s love without its full relational significance or its whole relational outcome.  Jesus counters that in “just as I love you.” 

            Contrary to common Christian thinking and perception, God’s love has less to do with serving and even less to do with sacrifice. God’s love (agape in the NT, hesed in the OT) certainly includes serving and sacrifice, but it involves more depth. In God’s relational terms, love enacts the presence and involvement of the whole of who, what and how God is. That is, God’s righteousness and love are inseparable (Ps 85:10,13; 89:14), and without their dynamic integration, God’s presence and involvement are ambiguous, if not concealed. Deeper than serving and beyond sacrifice, love makes vulnerable the presence and involvement of the whole who, what and how God is, and anything less and any substitutes for God (even in sacrifice on the cross) no longer constitute the encompassing depth of God’s love.

            The pivotal enactment of God’s love, which expressed the justice of God’s love, emerged in the strategic shift of God’s presence and involvement that clarified any ambiguity and corrected any distortion of God’s relational response in the human context. When Jesus engaged face to face the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well (Jn 4:4-26, noted previously), he extended God’s whole presence and involvement to her (as in 4:10,14,23-26). His vulnerable relational response enacted the justice of God’s love that openly countered the gender, racial-ethnic and socio-religious injustice this woman experienced from the pervasive discrimination of others. In this strategic moment of God’s whole presence and involvement made vulnerable face to face, Jesus embodied, enacted and demonstrated for us the depth of relational involvement that constitutes the love he gives and the justice of love he brings, together with his protest. It is only on the relational basis of his relational involvement that his followers can understand his commandment to them, and thus also embody and enact reciprocating love from the vulnerable experience of his love face to face. This relational involvement is commonly confused with serving or sacrifice, but such actions neither require this involvement nor have its embracing depth.

            Just as the Samaritan woman experienced face to face with Jesus (in her vulnerability also, Jn 4:15-20), the justice of God’s love brings just-nection, in which she enacted her vested and privileged rights to fulfill her inherent human need (Jn 4:28-30,39-42). Her just-nection emerged from the relational outcome of Jesus’ whole person making relational connection with her person by his vulnerable relational involvement initiated by his protest. In other words, Jesus loved her—not by serving her or sacrificing for her—and the depth of his relational involvement brought the uncommon change necessary to redeem her from injustice and to transform her condition to just-nection in order to give her wholeness. Thus, by his vulnerable relational involvement she experienced the relational reality of the whole who, what and how Subject God is—the strategic shift of the face of God whose presence and involvement shined on her and brought the uncommon change for new relationship together in wholeness. This is the integration of siym and shalom (Num 6:26) unfolding in the integrating dynamic of just-nection. Without the embracing depth of Jesus’ relational involvement that first protested her bad news, the justice intrinsic to God’s love does not unfold and thus its whole relational outcome of just-nection does not emerge. At best, what unfolds is premature justice that counters what Jesus brings, and what emerges is immature peace that contradicts what he gives.

            This key interaction modelled Jesus’ ongoing vulnerable relational involvement that engaged his whole person with all persons, which he expressed also while on the cross (evident by his face-to-face involvement with diverse persons). The depth of his relational response and involvement face to face distinguishes (1) clearly how he loves us to constitute our involvement in reciprocating love, and (2) the whole relational outcome of just-nection that by necessity involves the justice of his love, which must be engaged for the right involvement in reciprocating love.

            Stopping short of Jesus’ relational involvement relegates our love to a default condition that can only bring the premature justice and give the immature peace of the common good; and such love would have had no relational significance to the Samaritan woman for significant change in her life filled with discrimination and injustice. Without the significant change of what filled up her life, how could she or anyone have their inherent human need filled to wholeness?

            In his gospel, Jesus didn’t proclaim the concept of justice (as Mt 12:18 is commonly misconstrued). He vulnerably lived and enacted the relational terms of whole justice in its embracing depth of relational involvement—the integration of love and righteousness with faithfulness (as discussed in Ps 85:10,13; 89:14). Without the experiential reality of this integration, the relational process essential for justice is reduced to the concept of justice, which has no relational significance in spite of its claim for the common good. Jesus makes integral to justice the relational involvement of love, and this is primary over any other enforcement of the rule of law (as in Lk 11:42). For justice to have significance and to encompass the significant change needed for just-nection, it must be constituted by the justice of God’s love.  That’s why he protested the neglect of “justice and the love of God” (Lk 11:42).

            Jesus demanded that the righteousness of his followers go beyond and deeper than who, what and how the majority associated with the kingdom of God were (Mt 5:20). To function in God’s kingdom-family involves living daily in the realm of the uncommon while in the surrounding context of the common (as Jesus prayed, Jn 17:13-19). This relational process requires the right order of persons as inner-out subjects, who are governed by Subject God not to merely conform to the rule of law but to be relationally involved according to God’s integral ‘rule of justice’, as defined only by God’s relational terms (laws) for relationship together. Therefore, contrary to common practice, to love our neighbor involves going beyond and deeper than doing something positive for them, even if that’s what we would like ourselves (enacting the Golden Rule). The underlying thinking in just a positive response is that any such action is “good” and thus would also be right for the common good.

            Jesus clarified and corrected such thinking and action with his ongoing vulnerable presence and relational involvement. The new dimension of reciprocating love that Jesus constituted for his rule of law and of justice encompassed the depth of God’s relational terms for the right order of relationship together—the only human order for just-nection in wholeness. As Jesus prayed, however, God’s relational terms are holy, distinguished uncommon from the common, and therefore cannot be confused or conflated with our human terms shaped by or enveloped in common terms. Yet, the line of distinction between the uncommon and common has blurred, become obscure or simply assumed to be insignificant or of little consequence.

            When Jesus’ disciples returned to find him interacting with the Samaritan woman, “they were astonished” (surprised, amazed, thaumazo, Jn 4:27). Given the discrimination prevailing that constructed the existing human order in their context, they assumed that Jesus would conduct himself according to such normative relations. They understood neither the embracing depth of his relational involvement with her that distinguished how he also loved them, nor the relational purpose of his involvement to bring just-nection that distinguishes the right involvement for their reciprocating love. Jesus challenged them to enact this embracing depth of relational involvement in order to extend the justice of God’s love for the just-nection of all persons without making distinctions, and to build on its relational outcome of wholeness for all persons and relationships (4:34-38). If they (we) do not make their whole person vulnerable for this depth of relational involvement with all persons without using distinctions—“just as I have loved you”—there will not be justice in their love. Rather their actions will be rendered to default love, whose reduced function even enables injustice and disables justice to prevent just-nection. This would have happened to the Samaritan woman if Jesus had not relationally involved his whole person vulnerably face to face with her person without distinctions.

            To make unmistakably clear, the disciples used the gender, ethnic, social and religious distinctions of the Samaritan woman to not be involved with her. Likewise, Peter used the distinctions of Jesus as Teacher and Lord to avoid being vulnerably involved with Jesus; and he used the Gentile distinction to discriminate against them, even after learning that “God made no distinctions” (Acts 15:9). Their default love reflected their choice as objects to live by reduced ontology and function, whereby they defined their own persons by the valued distinction of “the greatest.”

            Based solely on the primacy of persons from inner out involved in relationship together, Subject God corrected the value placed on such distinctions (Jer 9:23-24), and also clarified that God’s people are not responded to by Subject God based on any valued distinction they had (Dt 7:7-9). Moreover, he exposed the common influence of distinctions and how this creates bias that disables justice and enables injustice (Ex 23:2-3; Lev 19:15), and thereby contradicts the ontology and function of the whole-ly God (Dt 10:17; 2 Chr 19:7).

            Counter to default love, God’s uncommon love is enacted so that the justice of love will unfold the whole relational outcome for persons and the right relational process, involvement, connection and order for their relationships. Since human distinctions are a prevailing reality for everyday life, the issue of this simple fact is “what do Christians choose to do about it?” Do we choose to allow it to define our persons or other persons? Do we choose to allow it to determine how we are involved in relationships? Or do we choose to assert our person as subjects and exercise who, what and how we are from inner out, and thus not allow human distinctions to influence or shape us in reduced ontology and function for our response of love?

            When our relational involvement of love goes deeper than human distinctions, our relational response is freed from any bias that limits, constrains or even prevents relational involvement with persons we dislike and with our enemies. Default love could be nice, irenic or positive with those persons, but distinctions have already precluded the depth of vulnerable relational involvement. The justice of love is not about merely being nice and involves not just making friends and influencing enemies; and this love is not about being different but involves being uncommon. On the other hand, uncommon love shouldn’t be confused with common notions of ‘tough love’. Default love can act firmly and sternly but the level of relational involvement is not vulnerable to be hurt, to suffer or be anguished…“just as I love you.”

            There are no shortcuts in the justice of love. Its difficulty is in the relational terms constituted by God, which are irreducible to the common and nonnegotiable to human terms.  Therefore, “Do you love me?” is not answered by common love. Love each other, your neighbor and your enemies are not responded to by default love. Just-nection for persons and relationships does not emerge from premature justice, nor does their wholeness unfold with immature peace. Until the uncommon good of Jesus’ gospel prevails in our theology and practice, pervading the biases of our Christian traditions, church systems and ministry operations, we cannot and should not expect anything more. Anything less and any substitutes are rooted in reductionism, which operates subtly by the (over)simplification of human issues and then the common-izing of human responses to the human condition—all reinforced and sustained by Christians in default function.        Until we make the conscious choice as subjects to ongoingly engage the critical battle against reductionism as all sin, the shame of our status quo will continue. Without the uncommon relational involvement distinguished by Jesus’ gospel, only common change can occur at the most, with common peace the most optimistic result possible. And unless we expect from each other the embracing depth of relational involvement as Jesus loves us, our default love signifies a crisis in urgent need of the transformation emerging only from uncommon change.

            The justice of love enacted vulnerably by Jesus in face-to-face relationship is critical for experiencing what justice is from inner out.  This relational experience is the essential basis in order to protest injustice at its roots.  From this basis, we have to be aware of injustice to proclaim the gospel by living daily in justice from inner out. 

            Jesus shared unequivocally, “my uncommon peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives…as Israel gave…as the U.S. gives.” Based on the fact-checked integrated bad and good news of what Jesus brings and gives, here we are at this critical juncture—which we need to resolve unmistakably or be relegated by default to the common alternative:

 

• We cannot claim the good news of Jesus’ gospel without receiving his bad news.
• We cannot have his uncommon peace until we turn around from common peace.
• We cannot experience uncommon-redemptive change unless we go beyond common change.
• We cannot embrace the uncommon good brought and given by Jesus if we have fallen into the common good.
• We cannot be relationally involved in the justice of love as long as we function in default love.
• We cannot mature just-nection and wholeness while we counter what Jesus brings and contradict what he gives.

 

            The uncommon good of Jesus’ gospel brings just uncommon change and gives just uncommon peace. Anything less and any substitutes in our gospel are on a wider theological trajectory and an easier relational path than Jesus’. This wide trajectory and easy path need to be turned around and transformed down to their common roots, so that uncommon good fruit will grow and mature to fulfill the inherent human need of all persons—persons distinguished from inner out, without distinctions, for their wholeness in equalized relationships together.  But, don’t be misled about this relational outcome, because it only unfolds from Jesus’ gospel protest resonated by “my witnesses” in tune with his whole gospel.

            “Woe to you…who diminish justice and the love of God!”