BibleProject - Justice Q + R

Episode Date: December 19, 2017

This is our last episode for 2017! Thank you to all our supporters! All of this is because of you. We’ll be back in 2018 with a full slate of exciting podcast episodes, videos, and some surprises as well! We discussed four questions in this episode: Questions: Jenn (3:25): “How does Jesus’ death work to satisfy God’s ‘justice’? Corey (23:08): “How do we distinguish ‘doing justice’ from being an issue of the church or the state to address? Logan (39:05): “How do we determine who is oppressed and who isn’t? And how do we stand up against people who refuse to see the oppressed? Also, 2 Thessalonians 3:10 has been used as a case against helping the homeless… is this correct?” Vic (57:15): “What’s the relationship in the Bible between justice and power?” Resources: Michael Sandel: Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? You can check out our video on Justice here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A14THPoc4-4 More resources are at: thebibleproject.com Music: Defender Instrumental: Rosasharn Music Show Produced by: Jon Collins, Dan Gummel and Matthew Halbert-Howen

Hey, this is Cooper at Bible Project. I produce the podcast in Classroom. We've been exploring a theme called the City, and it's a pretty big theme. So we decided to do two separate Q and R episodes about it. We're currently taking questions for the second Q and R and we'd love to hear from you. Just record your question by July 21st

and send it to us at infoatbiboproject.com. Let us know your name and where you're from, try to keep your question to about 20 seconds and please transcribe your question when you email it. That's a huge help to our team. We're excited to hear from you. Here's the episode. Okay, justice. Yeah. Here we go. Yeah, we talked about the meaning of these words.

Justice and righteousness. Specifically in the Old Testament. Yep. Mishpah and Siddhaka, and how for the family of Abraham, in story of Israel, they were called to a really unique kind of life as a people. In both in the video and in our conversations, we're trying to say these Hebrew words in the context of ancient Israel's life,

they're covenant with God, that justice specifically meant addressing the social inequities in their corporate life of ancient Israel between the privilege and the powerful and the vulnerable, the quartet, right? The quartet of the vulnerable. And mainly just that is the vast majority of the context, which these words occur. So there you go, that's just that.

The implications of that are... God. Yeah. It really brought, and what it means to look to those texts as a source of wisdom and guidance for God's people today. And then also we talked about how the theme was fulfilled in the story of Jesus, how the family of Jesus, the New Cabinet family of God's people, is also called to that same heritage, but Jesus style. Jesus style. Jesus style justice, which justice. It's on the same trajectory. It's not different then. It's not different, but it's actually ramps it up.

Because the level to which Jesus didn't use his privilege and status for his own self-advantaged, disadvantaged himself for the sake of the vulnerable, namely mortal, so that's good opium and that sets like a new benchmark for what the covenant family of God, how they view justice and so on. So it's just a it's a different vision it doesn't quite fit into any of our modern categories. Yeah, yep, the threat. So the tricky thing we tried to address this was that, especially in modern Western settings, there have some kind of more democratic or republic political structure, is that Christianity or this Jewish Christian heritage has been co-opted into the modern categories that I tried to

use that guy Michael Sandell is book justice rights and wrongs. But I'm not a political history expert by any means. So you need responses we have about anything modern and political related to justice. Just take it with a green assault. We're here in our corner of the world. That's right. And we see of the world. That's right. And we see what we see.

That's right. So happy to offer our thoughts. But more, we were just trying to draw attention to this core theme in the biblical vision of these words and ideas is the way that people who are vulnerable, which is different types of people in different societies, the way they ought to be cared for, and how care for them is called justice in the Bible. Yeah, that was kind of our main thing we hope people would walk away with.

Cool, so this first question comes from Jen. Hey guys, I'm Jen in Grass Valley, California. My question has to do with how Jesus's death works to satisfy God's justice. From your discussion, I can see how it brings about my support for the oppressed and for the needy, but so often the cross is discussed in terms of substitutionary atonement, and I have a harder time seeing how that works. Thinking in legal terms, if I murdered somebody and was allowed to go free because an innocent person volunteered to take my punishment for me, nobody would call that justice. So why does that model work for God?

Thanks for all you do. Cool. That's a great question. Oh, man, it's a really great question. Really perceptive. Yeah, this is actually where the topic of the video, justice, overlaps with conversations about God's justice, specifically how the apostle Paul talks about it, how he talks about Jesus dying in the four-arcens or on our behalf, and in what's what are called like,

atonement, debates about the meaning of atonement and so on. Right. Well, she's asking as a question about atonement. Correct. Which is... How does Jesus' death cover or deal with human evil and sinfulness? Yeah. There's actually quite a number of different ways. The apostles work that out with imagery and metaphors in the New Testament. But one of the standard ones is like using legal language of God's a judge. Humans are guilty. That's the typical one that I think I was taught growing up in the church.

That was the metaphor kind of drilled down is the legal metaphor, God the judge and the sun taking the place of my guilt. And yeah, that is perceptive, the way that Jen framed it is. If you really step back and think about that, it is kind of weird. It doesn't feel just, it feels, but yeah, it feels really generous.

Yeah, right? Yeah, sure, sure. But it doesn't seem necessarily just. Yeah, I wanna do, sure. But it doesn't seem necessarily dressed. Yeah, I want to do a theme video on the cross, where we'll cover all of the different angles, like kind of like I use this metaphor a lot for different things, but the cross it in the New Testament is a lot like a diamond with many, many facets. And there's many different types of images that the apostles use to get us to explain it. To explain what ultimately is not completely ever explained. Sure. As if you can explain something like

the assassination of a Jewish prophet as God's solution to human evil. You don't explain that. It's not like some mathematic formula that you can just show. That's correct. Here's the proof and now we all understand it. Which actually, it's good to say that out loud because I think that's my assumption. Is that it should be explainable at that very basic level.

There needs to be this inherent logic, this divine logic. Why does the cross work? Why does the cross work? Yeah. It's like a math problem. Yeah, you put together all the passages and then just estimate and talk about the cross, which you might think, oh, there's an infinite number. It's not, it's a big number, but it's not infinite. Like you can actually go find out what they all are and start to put together a picture. Is that what the video on the cross will be? Yeah, because what you'll notice is patterns.

There's patterns of imagery. There's about half a dozen core repeated patterns all across the New Testament. The apostles used to talk about the cross. One of them is a legal set of images. And so here's the problem, just to deal with this specific question that Jen raised, I agree with you, that's kind of a weird use of the word justice, that an innocent person

suffers the punishment of a guilty person. That seems to be some other form of substitution. But it's weird to apply the word justice to that. Because justice is when people are held accountable for things, but that's a tribute of justice. A tribute of justice. And then there's restorative justice, which is, let's make sure that everyone is taking care of and in an equal way.

And so let's make sure that people that are marginalized have a step up. Let's restore some equality that always eventually like equality always it seems like it's human nature to create inequality. And that's kind of what our video on justice was showing. That's just human nature is we kind of just take advantage when we can. Sometimes willingly and knowingly and sometimes just passively. But that's just human nature. So there needs to be some counteractive force to that, which is this restorative justice. That's right. So yeah, it's easier to see how the cross fits into a restorative justice,

or at least makes more intuitive sense. So this is the challenge, and this actually gets us into the heart of a whole series of important and complicated conversations about if and how the cross satisfies God's justice. That was the language that Jen used in her question. Yeah. And even that word satisfy, there's a whole history of that word in these conversations. And so here's a short sketch of what I think the problem is in our conversations about this, is as usual, what we've tended to do is read Paul's letters in isolation from the rest of the Bible. And what's very easily is we hear the language of justification, of God showing His justice. There's a key passage in Romans chapter 3 that talks about God

displaying His righteousness or demonstrating His righteousness, which is a key New Testament word. It's kind of a synonym for God's justice. The God's satisfied. Really, it's a synonym for justice. Mm-hmm. I mean, I know we talked about this, but it's still kind of sinking in.

Yeah. Righteousness. To me, I'd so loaded with just personal morality. Right. Like, that's all it means. When you say righteousness, it's all out here. And my head, banging with just personal morality. Right. Like that's all it means when you say right, just as it's all here in my head, banging around personal morality. That's right.

So in Sadaqa, biblical righteousness is doing right by someone, right relationship. Yeah. Relating towards you. The end is a morality, a personality that makes my relationships with others right. Correct.

Which means that there's a just relationship. It assumes that in this particular relationship that you and I happen to be in, there is a right way, a right way to behave towards you. And justice is doing right by that. So whenever I read just righteousness that word, I should think of it as a synonym for justice. Well, our English word justice is hard to put into its place, because we immediately think in terms of legal courtroom stuff.

And so, righteousness is a fine word. What would be the word that you would use, that like, justice and righteousness? It seems like it's all about relationships, it's a relational, relational. Yeah, that's right. And so here's, that's right. These words are invitations into reflecting

on the biblical story. Yeah. So what does it mean to say that God demonstrated right relationship with whom? How is the cross a demonstration of God? Well, okay, so let me step back. Here's the way I would always hear that verse. Yeah, yeah, yeah, the cross being God's righteousness is that Yeah, this is interesting because righteousness for people is a personal morality righteousness for God is His perfection is like the standard of the person.

His standard, yeah. That's right. And so because he's perfect, he can't be around and tolerate. Yeah, don't. He can't tolerate. Yeah, tolerate imperfection. That's right. And so when God's righteousness appears, has to be dealt with, what has to be dealt with

is our imperfection. Right. So it's kind of like using it in two different ways. Like my righteousness is my... So here's my humble problem with that. Because I was first introduced to... That word, Christian belief, and these words the same way too. The problem is usually the case with me.

I'm a broken record. The problem is when I actually started to read the Bible. Right. And I realized like, oh, I have the story in my head of God as the just judge who can't tolerate evil. Yeah. Someone has to be punished. Right.

Either humans get punished or lucky for us Jesus gets punished in our place. And that's God's righteousness. Yeah. Well, God's righteousness. Yeah. What God's justice. The problem is that story actually doesn't mesh very well with what Paul's saying in the whole letter to the Romans. And it doesn't help us understand what's going on in the story, a line of the whole Bible

with God and Israel leading up to Jesus. And so here's just a short sketch. I would say that is an abstracted story that the Western tradition has imposed upon Paul. And it just doesn't help us understand Paul's understanding of the cross. When Paul uses these words righteousness, he's thinking Exodus and Isaiah, Genesis, Exodus and Isaiah. So the storyline, so God made a good world, humans ruined it. God would be fully within his rights to pull full retributive justice. That's what the flood story is all about. And so far we're tracking with the old paradigm in my mind.

Yeah, totally. Yeah, yeah. But then on page 12 or chapter 12 of Genesis God makes a covenant promise Mm-hmm. Actually all the way back on page eight. Yeah with Noah after the flood Yeah, God makes a covenant promise and says listen, I know humans are only evil all the time They're really screwed up. So here's my response. I'm never going to do anything like the flood again. The flood story becomes this really important theological truth about God's character, that he could and would be warranted to disbalan humanity. Yeah.

Let us destroy ourselves. But he promises not to. But he promises that he won't. Why? Even Genesis 8. But he knows. Yeah, because they're evil. Right.

That's not a good reason to not do it. Yeah, exactly. It's remarkable. There's no logic there. Yeah, because humans are evil, I'm never going to bring cataclysm again. Yeah. Okay.

So if God's not going to destroy humans for their evil, what's He going to do? Page 12, Genesis 12, I'm going to set in motion a plan to bless them. I'm going to single out one family from among the nations of the family of Abraham, and I'm going to set in motion a story that's going to be long and complicated to bless them. Restore the creation blessing of page 1. So the moment the God does that, the logic of these words, righteousness and justice, take on a meaning that's specific to this story.

And when we impose Western courtroom notions onto it, we distort the thing. So now all of a sudden, God's in a position where it would be unrighteous for him to destroy all of humanity. Because of his promise. Because of his promise. Because of his promise. But at the same time, he is just, and he has to deal with the horror of human evil in some way. So you're saying kind of like God created this own like paradox for himself.

Attention. It's a, yeah, God puts himself into a place of tension in relationship to humans. He did it to himself. He did it to himself. And did it to himself. Yeah. And he does it to himself again, the Israel on Mount Sinai. I'm so proud of that moment in our Exodus part two video where we talk about the Golden Calf and talk about that moment where he, right, it moses, crouched by the rock. And I was so happy. I wanted to find language for this for a long time and the video pressed me to do that. The God, he's angry at the idolatry of Israel. And he would be the pretty blatant idolatry. He just said, they just had their marriage ceremony. They just got married. And then they just, what's the next thing? They said their vows. I won won't worship idols right you know and what do they do right on the altar and so God's

first response is I'm angry I want to pull another flood and who who can blame him but then Moses right says well remember your promise to Abraham. And God says, oh, that's right. And so he relents from that. That's a story of God wrestling with the paradox that he created. That's right. But here specific to the story of Israel.

And so you could say, in one sense, was God righteous to be angry and want to bail on the relationship? Is that right? Well, yeah, that's a legitimate response. But in the context of this story with this God, that would be actually unrighteous. He would not be doing right by his promises and that relationship with Israel

because it would be breaking his promise to Abraham. And so that's what Paul has in mind here in Romans chapter 3. When Paul thinks about the story of Jesus, he's thinking about a God who said, I'm not going to destroy humanity. That would be breaking the promise day, Ram. But I do have to deal with their evil in some way. Their evil has unleashed death. And so God's justice is to fulfill both

of those at the same time. And that's Paul's point in Romans chapter 3. He's demonstrating his righteousness, doing right by his promises, Abraham. In the fourbearance of God, this is Romans chapter 3 for his 25. In the fourbearance of God, this is Romans chapter three, for his 25, in the Four Barrens of God, he passed over sins previously committed. He's been putting up with human evil on the right, since early Genesis. Yeah, his flood trigger finger is getting a little itchy. So he passed over human sins for a long time.

Yeah. In order to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, namely, that he is both dealing with human evil and also fulfilling his promise to provide blessing to the nations. So that Paul goes on, he could both be just, he could be righteous and the justifier, the one who declares righteous, those who have faith in Jesus. So, Jen, you're right.

The biblical story doesn't at all fit into modern categories of our courtroom. However, some courtroom language can kind of help us to get the idea. It's a way to look at the diamond. Yeah, but the moment we force the story into God's the judge, humanity's guilty, Jesus takes the place of the guilty, that's justice. We're not honoring the terms

of the story. You know what's interesting is the judge, Quarterm analogy, what's kind of tricky about it is the judge is just kind of a pier in that system, right? Like the judge is just another one of the citizens whose his role is to administer justice. That's right. But that's different than God's role. That's different than God's role. In the story.

Because the judge can't just decide, like, you know what, what's righteous for me is to make sure that this civilization succeeds no matter how evil it gets. Like a judge can't say that, Supreme Court judge can say that in America. So what's interesting is like a more accurate metaphor perhaps is the one Jesus gave of like the vineyard owner.

Oh, sure. Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah. Or, you know, there's a lot of his parables about the owner of land and combat, but there's the one in particular where he has the workers come at different times of the day, and he pays them all the same,

and they get kind of irritated. And the point of that is his grace and letting other people in to the family and stuff like that. It seems like that's a whole nother conversation. But the metaphor of him being a vineyard owner, he can decide it's gonna be the right thing for me to do because I own all of this. I'm the owner.

That's right. So I have responsibility to it. Responsibility to it. I have to do right by the land. Yeah. Do right by the land which I own. And that's the biblical paradigm of God created this. He is the one who ultimately owns everything.

And it's good. He's committed to taking our creation towards the purpose that he has for it. And humans are a part of that. The problem with the biblical story is that humans have become the obstacle. In the way of creation, becoming what it's supposed to be. And the solution isn't get rid of humans. It's fix humans by becoming one of them. And to take the consequences of the hell we've created here into himself.

And so it's just that's the biblical form of God being just, i.e. doing right by his promises. It's the twisted backward logic of like God's grace. Yeah. To, like right there in the flood story, it's so perfect. Like, I know man's heart's gonna be evil all the time. So, I am never gonna destroy you. Like what? And it's kind of interesting thinking about that, like if we put the way of Jesus in the

same terms of like, I know you're going to hurt me, but I'm always going to seek the good of our relationship. Correct. Or I know that there's inequality in the city, but I'm always going to fight for equality. And I know that it's not going to be good for me. I think people will take advantage of me, but that's okay. I'm going to do anyways. Because, yeah, because I'm doing right by the one

who did right by me, who right lived and died and was raised for me when I was just a participant in the corrupt human system. And so what's the right response? Yeah. So what do we say? I wanna draw this to a clear response. I agree with you, Jen.

The way that you framed your question doesn't correspond to our English use of the word justice. And I would say that just exposes the problem is that we're importing categories of justice into the biblical story that just aren't native to the story itself. If I want to know what these words mean in the Bible, I have to let the biblical story and the biblical authors shape what these words mean which will be different than what they mean for us in our day. And then the question is who adjusts, who has to do the

adjustment? The Bible. Do I change my understanding of justice to fit the unique biblical vision? Or do I, you know, and that's at least what I would recommend if I wanted to be a follower of Jesus. Great. Thanks, Jim. This next question is from Corey. Hi, guys. This is Corey Miller from West Lafayette, Indiana. I teach ethics and philosophy at Indiana University. And my question pertains to the characterization of Mishpoth as the problems of the poor and the downtrodden ought to become my or our problem. And in particular, have we failed to distinguish between owning that problem as an application for the church versus the state? Thanks. Yeah, thanks Corey. Yeah, heavy hitter. Yeah, it's a great question. Yeah, and yeah, professor. Yeah, it's all logic Yeah, that's right. Yeah, I'm already intimidated

But it's Corey. It's yeah, wonderful. Yeah, you know, it's interesting. This came up in conversation with friends and other people about the video. Yeah, maybe either we weren't clear on this point or because we didn't address, who is it that's called to call out and address social inequities and in terms of Mishpot, we didn't talk about who's who should do that. We did we talked about people who received

Chris Richardson issue. That's true that's right yeah but we didn't talk about the church's relationship to the state. For all those issues work out. Well how would we put that in a five minute video? Yeah totally that's exactly right and so what I noticed in patterns of Conversation and people asking me about this was that whatever people's existing view Yeah, the church's relationship to the state. They just tend to do it from yeah, they tend to do assume That was the view we were affirming in the video. Yeah, which means that people took away really different messages And you know, I've been thinking about this in terms of the different political spectrum. Okay, so we're Americans, we're an American thing.

Apologies to anyone else. But we have this political divide going on with, how do you govern in a way that makes the most prosperous country and takes care of the most amount of people? I think if you asked a politician on either side, they would want that. The question becomes how do you do that? What kinds of policies, what values and philosophies, undergirding, what policies. Yeah, but you know, sometimes I'm suspicious of whether or not you actually frame the question

of going, hey, can we all agree that the main point of our politics as Christians is to take care of the vulnerable? Like, that's the main point. Now, we might disagree on how, but let's begin with the premise that we all agree that that's the end goal. I think that would be a bit of a, a bit of a come to Jesus moment for many people, including myself. Like, I don't think that's really what's humming in the background in my head as a main goal when it comes to politics. There's many other things of self-protection or opportunities, all these other things

aren't necessarily bad, are bad at all. But to say that the main point of our politics as Christians should be to make sure that the vulnerable are taken care. First of all, do you even, would you agree with that statement? Oh, man. Well, hold on. I feel like we're not... We went too far.

Well, Cory's question is, have we failed to distinguish between who it is that's supposed to be carrying, owning the problem of injustice? Well, I think first of all, before you keep and ask that question, you have to ask, are we all on the same page? Right? Is the church on the same page as to what that even means to... Well, so to me, that's the point we're trying to make in the video. Okay.

Is that if you look at these biblical words, Mishpah and Siddhaka, Yeah. The vast majority of their usage and application is their Hebrew words. Yeah. So they're for ancient Israel, right? Yeah. And so this is actually part of the problem is the ancient Israel was both a covenantal people.

Yeah. Their religion was their politics. And they were an actual kingdom. Yeah. So that their covenantal terms with God structured their society. Yeah. Or at least least were supposed to. So yeah, what we were describing in most of the video actually was how these words work in the Hebrew Bible, which will automatically be both covenantal, religious,

and communal or political. That is their meaning in the Hebrew Bible. And so in the course Bible. And so when in Korya saying, did we fail to distinguish between the church and the state? Well, in the Old Testament, the covenantal people is the, they are the state. Yeah, there's no. And that's the meaning of these words. Yeah. The rub comes when as the Hebrew Bible is already pointing towards the ideal shape of God's covenant people in the family of Abraham is not just

the ethnic people of Israel. Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, I mean, many, Zachariah, many biblical prophets, the whole story is going towards a multi-ethnic family of Abraham, the new covenant people. And so that family is going to have a different relationship to the state than Israel did. And that's what you see being worked out in the New Testament. Right.

So in that sense, yes, I think the vision of justice that followers of Jesus are to foster, which is carrying on this tradition from Israel, that the default institution that followers of Jesus should be thinking about when they think about justice should not be the state. In my reading of the New Testament, rather it's of the followers of Jesus as a contrast community in whatever culture or state that those people happen to be found, and that they foster this alternate story, this alternate way of life that pays particular attention to the vulnerable. And how can you read the stories of Jesus and not see like that was part of his main deal, was good news for the poor. And so there are going to be cultures and times where followers of Jesus

happen to live in a society where they can advocate for that value set within the public square. And what's happened, especially in Europe and America, is now we're in centuries, centuries into a culture that has gone through that and is now on its way to something else. Right. It's a bit of the post-Christian whatever. Post-in-language Christian. Whatever, yeah.

And so now it's even more awkward situation where the language we use is still shaped by the Christian tradition, but it doesn't mean what it means anymore. What language do you mean? Oh, just, there's still language of public discourse that's justice oriented in America. Again, that's where we live. So, any language about rights, human rights. Oh, yeah. That assumes a biblical worldview.

Sure. Most people who use that word don't have a biblical worldview anymore. And so, it creates this awkward scenario. So there you go. We didn't go into this in the video just because it was too much to come. I mean it's still... You would still say the state's responsibility, we should advocate that the state's responsibility should also be for the vulnerable as well. Yeah I mean I think that's a part of the church's role of prophetic critique. This is where the church takes on the role of an Amos or a Micah, where it's speaking

to those who are in authority or a Daniel. Speaking to those who are in authority, reminding them that they're under God's authority, and under God's authority, the people who matter is everybody, but particularly the vulnerable. And that's what Amos and Micah and Daniel were doing in their different contexts. However, for most of the history of the early church for those early centuries, no Christians were in any position to influence Roman policy. So what they did was just fully dispossed alternative communities and invented things like hospitals and social safety webs for widows and orphans and this kind of thing.

They created the institutions, but that will go differently. It depends on your context. So many Christians live in some form of a democratic state where they actually are able to advocate for their values set, for the common good. And so, in that case, I think there's a sense of obligation to speak out for that, but to not mistake the state for the church. Sure. And that the church is the primary means by which the covenant family lives out the biblical

vision of justice. I mean, this all theoretical. Yeah, I want to create some tangible wisdom out of this in O.A. It's like if you were to try to boil this down to like insights or precepts of like, you know, when do you engage the state and when do you stop and you just do it in spite of the state, you know? Like, and how do you decide what's the most effective? Yep. And maybe it's a very, that's not a simple question.

It's not a simple question. And it'll depend on, it seems to me it'll depend on your neighborhood, your city, your county, your state, and that's an Americanized version of your country. I think it just depends. Your providence for people. And so this is where I wanted to defer to other people who were more well-read and more thoughtful about the issues in our time and in our context because I'm just going to sound ignorant.

You know, on whatever, but we live in Portland, Oregon, and it wasn't, but a few generations ago that within the city of Portland, there were racially discriminatory housing practices. You weren't allowed to, well, you weren't allowed to get loans or purchase homes in certain neighborhoods based on your ethnicity. Yeah, not too long ago. They're like, yes, yeah, fully within the last century, within my grandparents lived experience.

And so, in the city like Portland, even though those practices, I don't even know what date those policies were changed, but even once those policies were changed, the cultured of Portland did not change. And the culture of Portland, the urban core still today is one of the whitest, least diverse, least diverse urban cores in the country. And so it seems to me, and there are a number of church communities here in Portland who take that really seriously. And so what they've done to foster it and to address that issue is just to really pursue multi-ethnic leadership teams and to really promote the racial reconciliation and partnership

as like a main priority because that is one of the major injustices that lay in Portland's past. And so the church should be at the vanguard of that. Should the church also advocate that that same kind of multi-ethnic representation should be happening in our public offices for the city Totally. And to the degree that people can influence that. That's what awesome. They should do that But they shouldn't mistake that for the calling of the church to address that particular wound in Portland's In Portland's history. So there's a practical example. Mm-hmm. I don't know. Yeah

Yeah, you know, I think you grand. And I think that what's great is what you're saying is you're bringing it back down to earth of like what's going on in your neighborhood? Like start there. Don't try to like, I wanna think about how to fix entire economic social systems. You know?

Yeah, that's right. And it's like, sure, sure. It's both more complex because it's mega. Yeah. But it's easier because it's distant. Yeah. And it doesn't actually require me to do anything tomorrow. Right. With the people. And it can look my neighbor in the eyes. Correct.

It doesn't require that either. Yeah, I feel the same way. I know there's a whole complex series of debates about Christians and voting, for example, and responsibility to vote, responsibility to not vote. People get very passionate about these debates. But I also noticed for myself,

and I think a whole layer of maybe people in my generation, I'm right on the board of Gen X and Gen Y. Yeah. And it's just like for me, my experience of voting and introduced to it, the culture of voting that I was brought up in, was this is my primary way of making my contribution. Yeah. And man, I just... It's A-way.

It's A-way. It's important. But it doesn't, DaVan, very much of me. Right. I read a It's A-way. It's A-way, it's important, but it doesn't, DaVan, very much of me. I read a voter's pamphlet, and I've signed a piece of paper, and somehow I'm involved in the public life of my study. Yeah. That doesn't make any sense.

As sure doesn't be, seem to be what Jesus has in mind. You know, what he says, love your neighbor. We're finally here right now has in mind. What does it have to say? What is your name? I'm here in America. There's a lot of talk about, well, the voters, let the voters decide and that we do stress a lot the importance of voting. But you're right. That's such a small way to engage. I shouldn't let the experience of voting abdicate my responsibility to my community.

Yeah. And the very tangible things with the people that are in proximity to me. Yeah, it's interesting when you get into politics, and I'm not really that into politics, but I've been so much more interested in it in the last year. Well, I want to soap opera because it's kind of not to be glued to it. It's like a reality TV show. But it seems like, yeah, you first, you take your own voting seriously, and then the next step is to take other people's voting seriously by going in

canvassing and going door to door, and then it's just kind of that way of like how do you rally more and more people to get the votes because that's how you get the right people in office that you want an office and but Take that Versus just you know who in your neighborhood needs help yeah, and what can you do to help that person yeah, yeah and They're just two different strategies or What changes have taken place in my part of the city so that policies that made sense 30 years ago about who has access to this or that actually are causing problems now because they don't account for this whole new population that exists.

Well now you're talking about policies, you have to get it but it's all back to votes again and signature and that kind of stuff. Exactly, that's what I'm saying. this whole new population that exists. Well now you're talking about policies, you have to get it, but it's all back to votes again, and signatures and that kind of stuff. Exactly, that's what I'm saying. Yeah. So, they're never divorced from each other. Right, yeah. At least in a society where people can influence the policies,

but that's a responsibility that people who live and whatever, democratic republics have. The strategies dovetail. Many humans live in states where they can't do jack to influence the shape of their society. So the calling of the church and that kind of thing is super different. It will be totally different. That's way more like the situation Paul was in.

Sure. More Peter. I have found people who have grown up in those types of cultures are able to track with the New Testaments vision on these topics way more intuitively than modern Westerners. Isn't that interesting? That's interesting. Great. This next question is from Logan.

There seems to be this divide amongst Christians on who is oppressed and who isn't. For example, I've heard 2nd desolonians 310 used as a case against helping the homeless. How do we as a collective body in the spirit determine who is oppressed and who isn't? And in the same way, stand up against those who refuse to see the oppressed. But do that in love. Cool, thanks Logan. Yes. We don't know where you're from Logan, but thank you. Wherever you are.

Wherever you are. That's a good question. Thanks for your question. I'd like to give this more thought. For me, it's always about another stack of books and more time to think for a shoot later. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, I'm totally think for a shoot later. My first thought is to go towards the main model that we have of the just

Covenant community with ancient Israel. So who determined the quartet of the what what is it that determined the vulnerable? Yeah in ancient Israel the prophets. Well, it wasn't just religion. It was very it was socioeconomic It was a land-based, land-owning-based farming tribal network. Right. Which I don't live in one of those. I don't live it, yeah totally, yeah. But in that environment, we talked about this in the podcast. The primary people who become vulnerable are people who don't participate in the ownership

of land or who aren't connected to families who own land. So there's all this and then you get the quartet of the vulnerable. So women, specifically widows, who are vulnerable to be take advantage of by other male community members or family members when their land owning husband dies. Yeah. Even though women could hold a seams based off from stories and book of numbers, 27, 36, that women could hold ownership of land. They could also, it was patriarchal society,

managed to grew up, people have grew up. Yeah. But men are stronger. But men have to tie. Yeah, yeah. And so in that kind of society, widows are extremely vulnerable. Yeah.

And then obviously orphans, immigrants, and so on. And so that's what determines. So what the logic seems to be, people who's a participation in what we consider the good life, is uniquely vulnerable. That's how you identify the good life is uniquely vulnerable. That's how you identify the quartet of the vulnerable. When you look in the New Testament, it's very different socioeconomic setting.

Most letters of the apostles are written to urban churches, house churches in large Roman cities. Right, and urban centers. Yeah, urban centers, which are way more like modern western cities. Yeah. Some people who are super dislocated. Yeah.

People in mobile. Yeah. You have more niche vocations. That's right. You're not just a farmer. The main difference is that over half of the population were slaves. Well. Bond debt slaves of the population were slaves. Well. Bond debt slaves of different varieties.

But they are property of another. Well. And the main aspiration of over half the population is to gain your, purchase your freedom. That's the good life. And then one day purchase your own slave. Yeah, yeah, to be able to own your own slaves to have your own estate, business, and so on.

So that creates a whole set of dynamics. And so what do you see? Who are the vulnerable in the New Testament? Women, slaves, children. And who are precisely the people that Paul particularly goes after making sure that they have full participation and are cared for and nurtured in the early church community. That's the whole story and acts where...

The care for the widows? The care for the widows. That's right. That's the first thing that came up. It was like, man, this community's rocking, but widows are not really paying care of. Yeah, that's right. Let's fix that.

Yeah, so that's a good example. Acts chapter six, and a system didn't exist Yeah, they organized their own their own political system So I think that's it. It's depending on the community where I live who Because of the way things are structured. Yeah, who is it that through no fault of their own? They're just happened to born in some different socioeconomic position. And that is going to set them up to be, and this is where the debates come in, or the truly, how free is America, how upwardly mobile are things really?

Everyone has bootstraps and everyone can pull themselves up. That's right. So there's a lot of people have very different views and opinions about that. But there's no two ways about it. Like I think about this all the time, personally. You know, I grew up in Portland as whatever, just skateboard punk, almost failed out of high school. You know what I'm saying? My dad was a graphic designer sign painter working out of the shop in his garage. I was the first person in my whole extended family to finish college. I was the first person in my whole extended family to finish college. And somehow I've been able to ride this wave of education. And I was able to get grants or scholarships, work part-time jobs.

So I mean, I worked. But at the same time, my road has also been a pretty easy one. A pretty easy access to the resources. And it's just a hard fact. There are many people who are born into situations where their family environment won't set them up with that kind of opportunity. I mean, there's so many factors.

It's just a simple fact. And so the question is, should followers of Jesus be particularly aware of people who are in those situations and to help them in the name of Jesus? Yeah. Again, if this is the family of Jesus doing the Jesus thing, open up new opportunities to the good, to flourishing as an image of God that they wouldn't otherwise have. And so in that sense, that's going to differ

from community, community. I've been talking a long time now. Well, it is complicated because the list of variables of what can disadvantage you in life. Yes, that's right. And nuanced. And how do you prioritize those? and how do you assess those? That's right. You know like Logan this isn't really necessarily what you're getting at. Is there a litmus test right? I was saying this guy on the left or this person on the left? Yeah, disadvantaged. Disadvantaged. On the right? No. So let's take care of all the people on the left.

Yeah. And there's just so many variables. How would you begin to do that? And it's tough because the homeless population in Portland, the number one reason that people live on the street in Portland is because of opioid addictions. Yeah, in the second being mental illness. Mental illness. So you just look at those. And is that a vulnerability issue?

When you're prescribed opioids by your doctor and then you get addicted to them and then you start doing heroin because it's cheaper and more accessible, you weren't doing that because you were vulnerable maybe. Maybe you're doing that because you're vulnerable. I don't know. I mean, yeah. I don't know. How can you make formulas for these things, though?

I mean, that's what's so difficult. Because one person, but they live in a family environment that rallies around them. Yeah, and then they really get through it. And they get through it. Yeah. Now the person, like they just weren't born into that kind of family.

And so it will be infinitely more difficult for them to kick their habit. Yeah. And that's a structural, that's this social structural thing. Yeah. And you also, but you also can't legislate healthy families. But you can create policies that can shape the environment for healthy families to be more likely to flourish.

And so here we go. Right. It's a very complex debate. What was the first Thessalonians? Is that about everyone should work with... Oh, yeah, I'm with you Logan. That's just pulling a very sad context and using it as a weapon in my humble opinion. Okay. Yeah, they're a group of people in the Thessalonian house churches

who by Paul's definition of work weren't actually working. And there's two possibilities. He doesn't ever say why, they're not working. Either one, they think that Jesus's return is so close, they've nailed the date. They think they're ... yeah, right? Because that's a big theme in those letters. Another letter is that he says they don't work but they are busy bodies which is on this motif that in many it's the same, it's actually the same in any city. It's people who fought who, specifically again half of the population is slaves. So it's people, it's people, they're doing the work. It's people, it's right, but it's people who could kind of work the system and become personal assistants to wealthy estate owners

By essentially be kind of becoming Their assistance but for sketchy stuff. Oh interesting. We're kind of milking the system Yeah, and so it's is this weird form of work because what you do is It's not actually helping anyone. That's right. You're not actually contributing all you're doing is You know helping this person your parasite. You're kind of a parasite That's right. And so what you do is personal assistance can be completely Dore legit my form work. I'm not saying that. Yeah. Yeah. I'm saying in this particular system Especially an example the one we used actually in the video because it was extremely common was

The one he used to actually in the video because it was extremely common was ritual orgy parties at the local temples was that normal part of life, especially for Roman males. Okay. Friday nights, what do you do? My friends throwing a sacrifice at the Zeus party, a lot of wine, who's hiring the women who will provide the sexual repayment? Well, my assistant will do that. That's the kind of thing. Got it. And so these people would get involved in this layer of the Roman economy that was really sketchy, but it was, you can make a living at it. And some people think Paul's aiming at that and saying, oh, there are some jobs that you

just shouldn't do as a Christian. It's not actually work. So anyway, I agree with you that when you read the Bible out of context and take verses as a little independent slogans, you can turn the Bible into a weapon against anybody. It seems like one of the biggest fears is that if you reach out to someone who's vulnerable and try to help them, they could take advantage of your generosity. It seems like a driving fear. You're saying that's a theme you hear in conversations?

Theme in conversations, but even in my own heart. You know, like, why don't I give a dollar to a guy on the street? I don't think he's going to use it responsibly. So it's kind of this interesting thing where it's like, because if someone is using something you've done for them and taking advantage of you for it, they're not really being vulnerable anymore, they're making you vulnerable in a way. And so it becomes very this disjointed kind of flustering thing where it's like, well, I'm

trying to help the vulnerable, but it's not helping, and it's actually just making my life harder. I think that's one big apprehension that a lot of people have, and I think that's kind of an impulse behind polling versus like that out of context, and saying, let's just make it really clear. Like if someone's not gonna work, then we don't help them, or if someone, you know.

Yeah, that's right. I guess maybe the same reason that like a homeless shelter would be like, you can join the program. Yeah. But if you join the program, you need to contribute and take a job here at the mission and that kind of thing. Right, so there is some wisdom there, but then it could also get off the rails really fast.

Because it seems like we need to remember that at the base of all this is a God who let himself be taken advantage of. That's right. For others. Totally. And that's the example. Yeah.

Yeah, that's the- Just kind of chilling. Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, this relates to a set of themes. A book I found really helpful a number of years ago, addressing these issues of how to interpret any given community, see where the social structures tend to create cracks for certain parts of that population to be unattended to or to fall through the cracks, so to speak.

So development work. That means some people make their whole careers out of really honing that skill set of how to discern those cracks and address those issues. And there were a handful of guys, Steve Corbett and Brian Fickert, who wrote this book called When Helping Hearts. It came out a number of years ago, but man, it's so insightful. And it's really, I actually thought about this after the fact, when we accurately

described the biblical vision of justice as paying a special attention to the vulnerable in a given community, it's really important, however, to see that the primary identity of the people that are being identified isn't the vulnerable vulnerable? Like that's not their identity. That's their socioeconomic position at this moment in time. What they are is glorious image of God bearing human beings who are capable of so much. And so for them, it's about this paradigm shift of helping especially Christian people engage in developed community development to have that be very much the mindset And so it's not a helping paradigm. It's an empowering Mm-hmm paradigm. Yeah, how do you empower? That's right. We're creating opportunity in a given society

They'll be which is a type of helping that's right it it is but when you conceive of it is helping it creates what they call the Messiah complex. I'm the helper. Yeah. They are the vulnerable dependent and they're just like that's just not the biblical story. The biblical story is glorious images of God who because we're screwed up we create even without knowing it create and participate in these social structures disadvantaged some, whatever. And so if the state doesn't do it, then the family of Abraham and Jesus creates a community where at least within this community, those people are given unique and new kinds of opportunities and empowered. You know one of the really disgusting ways that society takes advantage of

vulnerable is predatory loaning stuff. Oh, dude. And we were talking about this yesterday. Yeah, because I was reading, I've been reading about it a little bit. But yeah, I mean, if you're, if you're short on cash, you don't have any money in the bank and you need to fix your card to get to work or you need food or you need rent, paid, or any of these things, you can go to these places that just charge you a ridiculous amount of interest to get the cash today. And then you're just in the cycle.

And then it gets worse from there because now there's this whole industry of people making up fake loans. And these people who now have all this money due to other people, it's confusing, it's hard to keep track of. And then they get these phone calls of people like making up loans and bullying them and extracting more money. And it's crazy. And it all operates under legal business policies. Yeah, well sometimes.

Sometimes, sometimes illegal. But there still can function within our economic system for long periods of time without getting flagged. Yeah. It's crazy. It's crazy. And I just maybe think about loans. You know, you know, like isn't there a verse in the Bible about Don't loan its interest. Oh, yeah, again, this is yeah, this is a good

Mishpot and Seticy thing where it is realites weren't supposed to Exact interest from loans and then the whole Jubilee cycle and then every cycle of you know of yours those loans so crazy. It's such a crazy but yeah, that's right. Israelite couldn't charge interest on Israelite. Yeah, at least ideally. Yeah. Yeah. I just was starting I was reading the story of these predatory loners and the whole thing and it just got me really just in a dark place. But I started to imagine what I just have had this like daydream of someone taking wealth and saying, I want to loan this out interest for you to my community and these micro loans. And just trust that some people take advantage of me and some people won't. And

like, just I was just doing the thought experiment, what would happen in a neighborhood? If all those people who need that 200 bucks, 300 bucks, 500 bucks for those things, they knew you could go to this place. And I just pictured this line of people, pictured coming, and you just talked to them because you want to know about their situation. And then here's the money, let me pray for you and go, and that's it. And like, what could that do to society?

I don't know, maybe it would screw up and nothing would happen. Yeah. I'm sure people have done it. I'm sure people are doing it. I bet people are doing it. Yeah. Yeah. It would be amazing stories. I bet people are doing it. Yeah. Those would be amazing stories. That's good.

That's a good example. This not just doesn't fit into the typical categories, the people tend to think of. Right. We'd be people who don't have homes, people who aren't employed. But as people who do have homes, who are employed, they're just strapped. Yeah, they don't have any savings. Which is a lot of the populace. It's huge.

It's the working poor. Yeah, it's the working poor. You're one thing away from the dollar traveling. Yeah, so yeah, totally. So there's a good example, and I'm sure, I'm sure. Again, this is where we're. I bet someone's doing that. If you know someone doing that, I wanna hear.

All right, let's wrap this up with Vic. Hey Tim, hey John, my name's Vic. I'd love if you could shed some light on what the Bible says about the relationship between justice and power. I'm a chaplain and an addiction recovery program in Baltimore, Maryland. And we talk a lot about power and powerlessness

in a number of different ways. And we'd love to hear your thoughts on that. Thanks. You know, it's interesting because there's so much you can do for someone and then someone has to at some point decide, I'm worth taking care of myself too. I guess there's some people who they've given up on themselves. They don't think they're able to accomplish things. They don't think they're able to accomplish things. They don't think they're worthy of good things.

This is what I deserve. I can't do any better. And there's this just mentality that will keep you in this like cycle of self-sabotage almost. And I think it's really interesting that he's a chaplain. I'm sure he has to deal with that mentality a lot This kind of self-sabotage mentality. It's interesting and The same mindset but for somebody in a different

socio-economic position can drive them towards accomplishment In other words a low self-worth Like I need to prove myself. Yeah, but it depends on what opportunities you have. So depending on whatever, just depending on somebody's unique story, that same low self-worth can drive somebody, right, into a really destructive set of patterns. It can also drive somebody into hyper-productive,

that is it's also. And just themselves emotionally, and spiritually. And in that sense, both people need to have their self-worth reshaped by God's love and generosity, shown through Jesus. And for some people, that means elevating. Right? They're worth and value in realizing, like, I am worth a better kind of life. Yeah.

And then for others, it's saying, I need to stop taking myself so seriously and allow myself to fail. Right. Yeah, some people, I have more power than I realize. Yes, yes. And I need to exercise that. And other people need to go, I have more power than I realize, and I need to exercise that. And other people need to go, I have less power than I think I do, and I need to, like,

cumbly just kind of chill out. It doesn't matter what I, yeah, that's right. Yes, self-worth issues manifest themselves in so many different ways. I'm not a psychologist but I know people are experts on this kind of thing. It's so fascinating. It is fascinating. Yeah, what I thought of VIXX question at first about justice and power was going to be about what types of people should take the initiative. But that's a different kind of question. But is it it is interesting? Like the prophets never, Amos and Micah and Isaiah never call out to the poor. They always call

Israel's rulers and priests, public leaders to account. And even in the church, you know, when Paul account. And even in the church, you know, when Paul takes the Corinthians to account, what he calls is the Corinthians who have enough money to hire lawyers against each other. In first Corinthians 6, it's like you guys, or Paul calls Philemon, a slave owner and an estate owner, to use his position of influence to benefit one of his slaves and treat him like an equal. Ah, that's a good example where Paul calls Fy Lehman, both to kind of disadvantage himself, but he calls Onisimus the slave to a greater sense of value in the community, and his past doesn't have to define him as a future in the community. So both people kind of take, his future in the community. So both people,

kind of take the spectrum of the term. Yeah, are empowered, but in different ways. Yeah. And it seems like the true source of your identity that should be empowering you is this image of God, identity, of being co-rulers. Like we're all, we're all in this to make a good world and to rule over this on God's behalf. And so that might mean stepping up and that might mean not hoarding so much power. I mean different things for different people.

Yeah, that's right. Yeah, I'd think that's right. There's never formulas. That's why I want formulas. Yeah. And what the Apostles say is you what you get is the Holy Spirit. Yeah. Where you get a spirit. Yeah. To show you the way to bring Jesus's teachings to your mind. And to reveal new truth and insight to you about how to apply his teachings to your specific situation. Spirit power, man. It's the New Justice. And Vic has the Holy Spirit. The New Justice. Cool. Alright, that's it. Yeah, you guys, thank you for your great questions. Yes. We're going to do another one of these Q&Rs on Neffesh.

Yeah, on the soul being. Yeah, so send those questions in still we're collecting those and This is the end of the year for us. It's the last podcast of the year of 2017. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah It's been an incredible year. It's been a great year. I've talked to John about this multiple times. I'm so Surprised at how many people enjoy listening to John and I talk to him. Yeah, I know. Theology. I actually don't understand it. It's interesting to me. Yeah. But I just automatically assume that what's interesting to me is not interesting to

you. I read his two-a-guy yesterday last night. I was at a playing soccer and he was there and he goes, oh hey, you're John, I listen to your podcast. I'm like, I'm sorry, man, I'm in your head all the time. That's horrible. You're like, I'm trying to get out of my head. Yeah, so thank you. We're having a wonderful time learning together and these conversations all contribute to videos

and projects that we're working on. So it's a great privilege. Thank you for listening. And you know it's actually really encouraging to me to see all these questions from Chaplains and philosophers. Yeah, people just like working this out. You know, like we're in this together. And yeah, that's what we're doing. We're working it out to you. And so we're and so all of you. So thanks for listening. Yeah. And we für unsere Konferenzen zu kommen. who is the leader of the German Bible project. Hi, my name is Philip, and I came from Lamego, that's near by Colourne in Germany. I love this Bible project,

and I love to put it into words to mention the Bible to explain what Jesus Christ can learn. I'd say it's part of English. Okay. I love the Bible project, because I love to train people in Germany to laugh Jesus Christ.

We believe the Bible is a unified story that leads to Jesus. We are a crowdfunded project by people like me. Find free videos, podcasts, study notes and more at thebibelproject.com. you