Ted Grimsrud—Peace Essays #B.3
[Published in Ted Grimsrud and Loren L. Johns, Justice and Peace Shall Embrace: Power and Theo-Politics in the Bible: Essays in Honor of Millard Lind (Telford, PA: Cascadia Publishing House, 1999), 64-85]
When I was a doctoral student in the mid-1980s, I had the privilege of taking a year-long seminar on justice from Professor Karen Lebacqz of Pacific School of Religion. At the time, Lebacqz was in the process of writing a two-volume theological study on justice. As we read and discussed works such as John Rawls’s classic, A Theory of Justice, and Robert Nozick’s critique and alternative, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, I found myself increasingly disenchanted with these modern philosophical theories.
I was uneasy with both points of view, and I saw them having many problems in common—things that were particularly troubling to me in light of my own faith commitments. They both share certain assumptions (or faith commitments) that are problematic. I will mention a few, in general terms, not so much in an attempt to criticize them significantly, but more as a means of expressing part of my immediate motivation in seeing if an alternative might be constructed.
Briefly, these assumptions (sometimes more true of one than the other, but largely applicable to both) include:
(1) a fundamental rationalism, an assumption that we can come up with a notion of justice which all “reasonable” people can accept;
(2) an emphasis on self-interest, a kind of faith that a balance of self-interest can lead to the common good for society;
(3) individualism, a locating of the basic unit of moral discernment with the autonomous individual;
(4) an emphasis on what seem to be quite abstract principles such as “equality,” “fairness,” “liberty,” “entitlement,” etc.;
(5) a utopianism (in the sense of utopia = “nowhere”) which is ahistorical and not closely tied to historical developments concerning genuine injustices and genuine practices of justice;
(6) a bracketing of any discussion of religious and faith and rejection of any notion of “particularlism;”
(7) a focus on western consumptive goods and notions of liberty as if these are the ultimate human values.
Out of my unease with this general approach to justice, I decided to look at the Bible to see if it might contain something that might provide help in formulating an alternative approach. I wrote a letter to my seminary Old Testament professor, Millard Lind of the Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary, asking if he had any help to offer. Professor Lind kindly sent me several papers, including a most helpful unpublished (at that time) essay, “Transformation of Justice: From Moses to Jesus.” Lind is one of the few pacifist theologians and biblical scholars I am aware of who has accepted the challenge to attempt to rethink justice. A pacifist theory of justice that would serve as an alternative to the problematic approaches mentioned above continues to be an urgent need.
This essay is only one more fragmentary attempt to point toward a thorough-going Christian pacifist approach to justice. One of my main arguments, following Lind, is that the Old Testament is a crucial resource for such a resource. In fact, if we can get beyond what Canadian social theorist George Grant called “English-speaking justice” (or, said in other words, beyond the western philosophical tradition represented in recent years by Rawls and Nozick) and look at the biblical materials concerning justice (including the Old Testament) on their own terms, we will find that they are a tremendous resource for a pacifist approach to justice. Continue reading