Miscellaneous Monday: “Social Justice: Famished for Rightness” - Ben

 Matthew 5:6

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled.”

 

This passage comes at the beginning of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. And the first twelve verses act as an introduction to themes he’ll expand on later in his message. Commonly referred to as the ‘Beatitudes,’ these verses are essentially a political manifesto for the Kingdom of God. 

As any commentator will tell you, throughout the Beatitudes, Jesus uses common examples to explain uncommon principles. And in Matthew 5:6 it's not hard to see how effective this tactic becomes as everyone can relate to the idea of being hungry or thirsty. Every time I wake up to the glorious sound of my coffee machine or notice the smell of bacon, I experience these desires firsthand. In fact, there are severe consequences should I ignore these urges as I find myself becoming “hangry” to the point that even Bruce Banner would blanch at my hunger-fueled-fury.

But Jesus isn’t talking about wanting a piece of bacon, or a cup of coffee, is he? He said to be hungry and thirsty for “righteousness.” That word “righteousness” isn’t the kind of righteousness we receive from Jesus when we get saved; what is often referred to in theological circles as ‘imputed righteousness’ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:7-9). Instead, as Benno Przybylski’s demonstrated in his book Righteousness In Matthew and His World of Thought the kind of righteousness Jesus was referring to is better understood as justice[1], or what D.A. Carson called “practical righteousness.”[2]

Practical righteousness is a value maintained in our private life as well as a virtue defended in our public life. It will do the right thing for no other reason than because it is the right thing to do. This means it takes responsibility for both communal and personal actions. And unlike imputed righteousness, which primarily deals with our spiritual condition before God, practical righteousness primarily deals with our conduct before God and men.

We know that Jesus is referring to practical rather than imputed righteousness because every time Jesus used the word in Matthew, he was speaking about correcting some injustice (cf. Mat. 1:19; 3:15; 5:20, 45; 6:1, 33).[3] What’s more, every time the Greek word Matthew uses here for righteousness is used in the Greek translation of the OT, it is translated as either “deliverance,” “salvation,” or “victory;” concepts which specifically refer to God making right a wrong.[4] So, whenever we read ‘righteousness’ in Matthew’s account, we must think of it as an impartial judicial decree in which rightness is upheld and wrongness is upended. In this way, practical righteousness could also be considered “functional godliness” or even “social justice.”[5]

Now, while I know “social justice” is fraught with a wide array of implications, if looked at in the best possible light, the connection between it and Mat 5:6 is undeniable. Social justice tries to uproot inequality and address past injustices at the cultural level. In this very narrow definition, a believer would be hard-pressed to explain why they wouldn’t be involved in such a venture. After all, Jesus himself came to right many wrongs in this world. And throughout the Gospels, we see him meeting both practical and spiritual needs, as well as calling out the injustices and hypocrisy of his day. So much so that his enemies had him crucified for it.

But the term “social justice,” as it is used today, is only half of what the Scriptures advocate for when they talk about righteousness (cf. Isa. 1:16-20). It often elevates the wrong of a community but fails to address personal responsibility. Sadly, social justice has become more of a bludgeon wielded by human depravity to amass more power than a beacon built on Godly morality to defend the weak. If what passes for social justice today were rooted in the Scriptures, it would encourage us to take responsibility not only for our communities but also for our specific role in that community. It is not one or the other, but both. We must not only “visit orphans and widows,” but we must also “keep oneself unspotted from the world” (Ja. 1:21-27). Our actions are, first and foremost, our responsibility. Just because we are dealt a shorthand in this life does not give us a free pass to break the law. And contrary to what so many seem to believe, a bad situation does not excuse us from making good decisions. Anarchy, violence, and destruction in the streets ought to distress the believer just as much as the injustices which prompted those kinds of responses.

Conversely, the failure of social justice does not give the disciple cause for inaction. Too many Christians use this excuse to quiet their conscience. But it is nothing more than a deflection tactic that helps them avoid confronting the ugliness within their own neighborhoods and, quite possibly, their own hearts. When we see those less fortunate than ourselves, we have a responsibility—a divine directive—to act and speak up on their behalf. It’s not enough to virtue signal about injustice. We must also peacefully oppose them and try to make right any wrongs we see. After all, we’ll be held directly responsible for whether or not our faith impacted the community around us (cf. Mat. 25:31-46). Loving God with all heart, mind, and strength, as well as loving our neighbor as if they were our very own flesh, ensures that when that final accounting does come, we can stand with our heads held high (cf. Mr. 12:28-34). We must be shepherds who are not satisfied with the majority but who actively seek out the minority (cf. Lu. 15:3-7).

This means if we ever see an authority use undue force, we should be among the first to call foul. If we notice that the family unit is deteriorating at an alarming rate, we should be like first responders providing much-needed aid. If we come to realize that an entire people group within our borders is seemingly trapped within a system that actively works against them, we ought to be the first to offer them a way out. And if we witness a brash prejudice working against our religious freedom, we should not remain silent while we still have the right to speak up. This is not because we want to be on the right side of history but because we are eager to live up to the requirements that God has set. This is not because we want to support our political camp, but because our allegiance is to Christ alone. 

When Jesus talks about hungering and thirsting for righteousness, he’s talking about an insatiable desire for an upright lifestyle both from within and without. He was speaking about individuals who yearn for righteousness in their personal lives and who strive to bring about that same righteousness in the world around them.  Mr. Rogers, America’s grandpa, famously said, “We live in a world in which we need to share responsibility. It’s easy to say ‘It’s not my child, not my community, not my world, not my problem.’ Then there are those who see the need and respond. I consider those people my heroes.” Those who are famished for rightness in this world—those who want a social justice that’s guided by the Word—are not only blessed by God but are the heroes Mr. Rogers was referring to.  And though it might sound a little cheesy to say, this 34-year old adult still wants to be a hero. 

---

[1]                Przybyliski, Benno, Righteousness In Matthew and His World of Thought, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, (Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, 1980), p. 97-98.

[2]                Carson, D.A., Matthew, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew and Mark, Volume 9, Revised Edition, General Editors Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, (Grand Rapids; Zondervan Academic, 2010), p. 164.

[3]                Turner, David L., Matthew, The Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids; Baker Academic, 2008), p. 151.

[4]                France, R.T., The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 2007), p. 167.

[5]                Morris, Leon, The Gospel According to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1992), p 99.

Redefining Love - Stephen

 “And they lived happily ever after.”

“Oh, Mr. Darcy ... Yes, I Said Yes!” 

“And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved:”

One of those doesn’t seem to fit in our catalogue of heart-warming and, for us guys, slightly nauseating love story endings. But in looking at that misfit (hint: it’s the last one and probably my favorite) what can we infer about the circumstances surrounding this guy’s situation? 

 

His emotional response allows us to assume this guy’s circumstances were bad, awful, and almost certainly devoid of love. On the same hand, we might also believe that the person who shared “that saying” was mean, derogatory, arrogant, or just plain bad himself. Because even if it was a revealing of bad news, we have found ways in our modern culture to “soften the blow” of such information— “This hurts me more than it hurts you,” “She wasn’t a good dog anyways,” or, in all seriousness, “They are now resting in peace.” Whoever shared this “saying” must not have cared for this person to whom he was speaking, right?

 

“Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved:”

Mark 10:21-22a

 

“Loved him?” That’s not what our 21^st century hearts and minds were programmed to expect was it? “It’s just like the Bible,” some might say, “to have misprints, errors, or stories and encounters too unbelievable to be true. Didn’t Jesus, who claims to be an all-knowing God, realize this man ‘had great possessions’ (vs. 22b)? Surely Jesus wouldn’t ask someone who is wealthy to sell all of their stuff for the sake of eternity…especially if it was someone He claimed to love.” 

 

And yet as that last statement leaves our lips while still ringing in our ears we know it’s possible, don’t we? We know it is possible and maybe even probable that love and harsh honesty of consequences can go hand-in-hand. As an adult we now understand that it was love that caused our parents to ground us from the house phone with the 39-and-a-half-foot cord (aka our connection to life) because we were home past curfew. We understand it was love or at the very least concern that caused our teachers to put an “F” on our report card because we had failed to do the work and effort required. And we are beginning to understand that it is our love that compels us to punish our children when they are young so they won’t keep running towards the road or stealing the candy bar from the ever-long line at Walmart. 

 

It is so easy for us to believe that love is simply the feeling of butterflies in the stomach, kisses on the cheek, and rainbows in the sky. But that day Jesus was redefining love as something more for us all including this young man who needed to know the truth about his eternal soul before it was too late. Jesus could have lied to the young man and told him he was good just the way he was—but since when is lying a sign of love? Jesus could have told him that he could worry about eternal life and things of that nature when he was older—but since when is promising a tomorrow when tomorrow may not come a sign of love? 

 

Before we think that Jesus merely changed the definition of love for us in the New Testament because it wasn’t working out so well in the Old Testament consider this verse—

“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”

Proverbs 27:6

This verse shows clearly that it is not God’s definition of love that has changed and fallen short over the years but ours. God always knew that truth and love not only made good partners but were inseparable components even in friendship. For a friend who loves enough to wound is a friend you can trust to help mend as well. He knew that without the two together true love would not be complete in any relationship. And if God truly is love (i.e. 1 John 4:8) who are we to argue? 

 

As Ron concluded last week God says love involves truth even when it hurts, and I submit He not only has the right as our Creator but even illustrated what that looked like in Jesus. We may never find Jesus’ honest words to this young man on that Hallmark card playing “My Heart Will Go On” when opened but it makes no less a beautiful picture of what love sometimes requires. And if God also says true love beckons a willingness to sacrifice on behalf of someone else as Ben proposed in his post, He has the right to proclaim that as well. And I for one am eternally grateful that, because of His proper definition of love, He acted upon that one too—

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.”

John 3:16a

Redefining Love - Ron

The aptly named “Elephant Love Song” from Moulin Rouge has much to say about love. In it, Ewan McGregor croons lyrics from some of the most cliché love songs of all time. His first are, “Love is a many splendored thing; love lifts us up where we belong. All you need is love!” The song elevates into a truly epic ode to this thing called love. Or does it? You see, while McGregor is singing, the woman of his affection, played by Nicole Kidman, is offering her own take. At one point, she replies, “There’s no way of loving me, baby, unless you pay a lovely fee.” Not to be deterred, the powerfully sung reply is, “Just one night! Give me just one night!” If you haven’t heard the song, stop reading and give it a listen. I’ll wait.

In my opinion, this song, which is meant to be a climactic coming-together of two hearts, shows best what every Christian must know: the world knows nothing of love. I say must know not because the fact is too obvious (for certainly many are living as if they’ve missed it completely); rather, I say must know because the cost of seeking the love of the world doesn’t bear thinking about. After all, 1 John 2:15-17 states, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.”

It is vitally important that we do not miss two prominent words in that passage. The first is love and the second is lust. The Bible teaches that these two things are different. In Ben’s post from last week, he wrote truly that love is acted outwardly. Contrarily, lust is about what I can get for myself. If you were now to go back and read the lyrics to “Elephant Love Song,” the word love seems out of place. In the world, the word love is wielded like the weapon of a drunken knight. The appearance is chivalrous enough, but the reality is a letdown. The usage of love is haphazard, sloppy, and not at all worthy of its station.

Don’t get me wrong, the world knows love, but only by its own definition. Perhaps this is most easily seen when those in the world are decrying the intolerance of Christians who attempt to live out biblical morality. It is then that those who care nothing for Christ wield His love as a weapon against His followers. The battle cries are loud: “Jesus loves everyone,” or, “Jesus loves sinners but hates the sin!” To an extent, these things are both true. But they fail to capture the full picture of the love of Christ. The same Jesus that told the woman taken in adultery that He did not condemn her, also instructed her to discontinue her sin (John 8:11).

But the world claims that love is love and all loves are equally valid. Our society is quickly moving to erase gender, marriage, and even the family. The legalization of and widespread use of pornography has evolved into a push to legalize prostitution and sex work. Women are encouraged and applauded for killing their unborn children if it is in their best interest. Divorce is rampant, often simply because the marriage isn’t working out for one or both spouses. We are coached to chase our own happiness.

All these things are done in the name of love. “Only a truly intolerant bigot could fail to see that,” culture screams. But these are the results of people drunk on the phrase “love yourself,” and too blind to see that they are using the wrong “L word.” Love as the world sees it is nothing more than a slavish desire to the lust of the world and the flesh—to the pride inherent in our lives. But the Christian must know this is not the way of true love. A Christian must speak out. And what must he speak? Truth.

Ephesians 4:15 admonishes us to speak the truth in love. To speak the truth without love is mean-spirited. To love without truth is no love at all. First Peter 1:22 gives the same order. Peter says that since believers “have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently.” It is obedience to the truth that leads to love. It bears mentioning that this follows closely on the heels of his admonition to holiness (1:13-16).

An old song says, “they will know we are Christians by our love.” For this to be true, I submit that we must be people obedient to the truth. Any other kind of selfish love, or love that is afraid of confrontation, will appear just like the world. It is the gold standard of the day. People love one another so much that they ignore harmful behavior, destructive tendencies, and lifestyles not based in reality. But this is not love, and people know it. Remember the old slogan, “friends don’t let friends drive drunk?” True friendship, true love, speaks up for truth.

I close with one last verse. 1 John 3:18, “My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.” Last week, Ben brought out that love finds its outlet in our deeds. Today, I pray that we hold fast to the truth. If we truly love, we must be willing to speak the truth. Speak it in love, of course. But speak it all the same. When Ewan McGregor sings, “love lifts us up where we belong,” I agree. But only a scriptural love does this. One that speaks the truth.

Redefining Love - Ben

However well-intentioned a person may be, love devoid of a biblical basis to guide its definition becomes, at best, nothing more than a shadow of itself and, at worst, a twisted perversion. This is why trying to find an objective description of love apart from God’s Word is a practice in futility. 

Some would say love is in the eye of the beholder, and, no matter how it is expressed, it is good. But this isn’t the case. As with most things, God has clearly defined what love is, where it should be directed, and how it should be displayed. Any affection which is not governed by His Word becomes an end in and of itself, or, what the Bible calls, an “idol.” And any substitute for God is ultimately empty, devoid of satisfaction and lacking in any substance. God is love, after all, and any “love” without Him is one in name only (cf. I Jn. 4:16). 

So how does God define love? Well, type the word ‘love’ into a concordance, and you’ll be treated to over 300+ instances where love is mentioned in Scripture. Rest assured, we won’t be looking at all of them. However, I feel a good starting point is to look at the founding of a nation and then move to the founding of the church. With any luck, these two passages will help us define what love really is.

AN UNDILUTED DEVOTION

Deuteronomy 6:4-5

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.”

This passage is commonly referred to as the Shema; named as such because shema is the Hebrew word for ‘hear,’ the first word in our passage above. The Shema stands as THE foundational principle to which all of the OT laws are built. 

It is easy to see why God would make this passage so central to their relationship. He wanted Israel to have an undiluted devotion to Him and Him alone. Jehovah did not like for them to share their affections. He did not want them to run to other gods and serve them. He wanted them to be faithful to Him. So singularly focused was their love to be that they had no choice but to devote their heart, soul, and might to Him. No part of the Israelite would be permitted to wander. They would love God and God alone would they love.  

So, love is, first and foremost, an affection we have for God. This is not to say we cannot love our friends and family. But in the hierarchy of our desires, God stands at the top with all others below. Anytime a person or thing dethrones the Lord, we make ourselves into a people of passions controlled by feelings rather than a passionate people guided by God. 

AN UNEQUIVOCAL ACTION

John 15:12-13

“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.”

John 15 is my favorite passage in all of Scripture. In it, Jesus lays out many foundational principles that help define what his followers should look like. Admittedly, there’s a ton to unpack in that passage, but probably the apex of the whole chapter comes when Jesus explains what the purest expression of love is: sacrifice.

Jesus says that there is simply no better way of showing love than to willingly give up your life for another. If love were a mountain, dying for another would be like summiting Everest. And, as we know, Jesus himself summited Calvary’s mount to die for all humanity, for those who loved Him as well as for those who hated Him. If the truest expression of love is laying down your life for a companion, what kind of love propelled Jesus to die for friend and foe alike?  

But Jesus’ point in explaining that sacrifice is the pinnacle of love shows us that love isn’t a feeling but an action. True love is best defined by what we do rather than what we feel. No matter what we think about someone, the easiest way to find out if we truly love that person is to see if their presence affects our conduct. Do we look for creative ways to show our partiality for this person? Do we set aside a substantial portion of our income to support our loved one’s addiction to Starbucks? The burden of proof for love is deeds before feelings and actions before words. Before anyone feels like we love them, before anyone believes us when we tell them we love them, they must first see that we love them.   

If I could redefine love, I’d say that it is an undiluted devotion to God and an unequivocal action for the wellbeing of others. God must be first before any other, and our so-called “love” must be well-defined by selfless acts for another. On these two hinges swing all other expressions of love. They alone bring meaning and purpose to what can sometimes be an overused and undervalued word. 

We are never more like Christ than when we put Him before all others and when we put the needs of others before ourselves. Any love that is removed from this foundation falls short and risks becoming a mere platitude. But a love which stands upon this foundation knows no limits and gives all who see it a glimpse into the Divine.