Purity vs. Social Justice vs. Redemptive Love

[Bootstrap]

It’s a long trip from the New Testament to claiming I need to generally support the policy goals of the progressive left, though.

Of course. That’s not what I’m arguing.

In this thread, I’d really like to focus on what the Bible teaches, without importing contemporary political categories or culture-war framing. It’s easy for those to take over online discussions, but I’d rather we make room to look at what the Bible actually says together.

My post was about the meaning of righteousness (δίκαιος), Jeremiah 22, Matthew 23, and Matthew 25. If you see those passages differently, I’m glad to discuss them. What do you see in those texts?

[Bootstrap]

...
I became increasingly conflicted between the two 'extremes' - separation vs social justice. I realized that once I reached voting age - voting age was 21 at that time, and I was not yet there - I would fall neatly into both political extremes. It was the 'separation of the Christian from the State' that ended the largest part of the conflict. Now, at 70 years of age and never having registered to vote, Yes, I do still at time feel conflicted. Just plain empathy and the sad condition of the world does still put a draw on me, to attempt to bring about justice through political means. But I also understand where it would take me - no where good. I DO recognize that there are Christians, perhaps the majority, who feel that they can manage the conflict. I cannot, and am also convinced that it would be a sin for me to muddle into that mire in order to try.

I sympathize with this conflict, believing simultaneously that seclusion and activism do not reflect the true nature of the calling of the church, seeing the dangers inherent in both, feeling the gravitational pull of both while constantly looking to navigate between them.

The sermon this week at our church centered around the concept of purity and contamination in the old covenant and the the new. There is built in to the new covenant the reality that light overcomes darkness, that Jesus' and his kingdom overcome the sin and evil of the world. In the old covenant there was a degree of separation from sin, disease and the world that the righteous were obligated to maintain, like the priest and the levite in the parable walking by the man beaten and left for dead.

After giving his most powerful declaration of the new kingdom, Jesus walks down the mountain and meets a leper who kneels before him saying "Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean." I think the symbolism of Jesus' response is quite intentional, he moves to him, touches him even though this was forbidden by law and custom, says "I am willing, be clean" and the man was healed. He went on to eat with sinners and touch dead people and the women with bleeding to heal them. The law of purity and contagion seems reversed.

Blessed are those active on behalf of the needy and marginalized without falling into the trap of governance and control, for theirs is the path of Jesus.

I appreciate what both of you have written here.

I especially appreciate the image of Jesus touching the leper. That shows holiness moving outward to cleanse and reconcile instead of retreating inward.

I share the concern about becoming absorbed into partisan politics or trying to control outcomes through power. That is a real danger. But I’m not convinced that the New Testament teaches withdrawal from every civic responsibility either. Jesus spoke about Caesar, Paul appealed to Roman law, and the early church lived faithfully within public structures without confusing those structures with the kingdom of God.

If holiness moves outward to heal and reconcile, how does that affect the way we engage with other aspects of our culture as salt and light? I don't think this is easy, especially since the political systems and issues in the time of Jesus were different from our time.

But I think biblical justice and redemptive love should be at the heart of what we do. And I suspect God may call different people and different groups to live this out in various ways. The key question is whether our lives actually reflect the justice and mercy we see in Christ.

[JohnH]

It’s a long trip from the New Testament to claiming I need to generally support the policy goals of the progressive left, though.

Of course. That’s not what I’m arguing.

In this thread, I’d really like to focus on what the Bible teaches, without importing contemporary political categories or culture-war framing. It’s easy for those to take over online discussions, but I’d rather we make room to look at what the Bible actually says together.

When the conversation starts with a culture war framing of “plain Anabaptists focus on purity” (as if that’s a bad thing), and that only progressives care about justice and mercy, you’ve already improved everything you say you want to avoid.

Plain Anabaptists seem to care about mercy more than any other group I’ve been around, even if they don’t think the way to express mercy is to start NGOs with gigantic salaries that apply for billions in government grants.

[Neto]

I appreciate what both of you have written here.

I especially appreciate the image of Jesus touching the leper. That shows holiness moving outward to cleanse and reconcile instead of retreating inward.

I share the concern about becoming absorbed into partisan politics or trying to control outcomes through power. That is a real danger. But I’m not convinced that the New Testament teaches withdrawal from every civic responsibility either. Jesus spoke about Caesar, Paul appealed to Roman law, and the early church lived faithfully within public structures without confusing those structures with the kingdom of God.

If holiness moves outward to heal and reconcile, how does that affect the way we engage with other aspects of our culture as salt and light? I don't think this is easy, especially since the political systems and issues in the time of Jesus were different from our time.

But I think biblical justice and redemptive love should be at the heart of what we do. And I suspect God may call different people and different groups to live this out in various ways. The key question is whether our lives actually reflect the justice and mercy we see in Christ.

There may well be a passage I'm forgetting, but in the main case (where he is asked about paying the Roman tax) he turns the discussion away from that, and emphasizes the response they (and by application, we as well) ought to have; that is, to having been created in the image of God, and in turn giving to HIM that which has his image imprinted on 'it'.

Please do remind me of other cases I may have forgotten.

[Bootstrap]

There may well be a passage I'm forgetting, but in the main case (where he is asked about paying the Roman tax) he turns the discussion away from that, and emphasizes the response they (and by application, we as well) ought to have; that is, to having been created in the image of God, and in turn giving to HIM that which has his image imprinted on 'it'.

Please do remind me of other cases I may have forgotten.

Here's the passage, from Mark 22:

Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

I think there's more than one legitimate way to interpret that last line.

At minimum, Jesus refuses to be trapped in a partisan political debate. He reframes the issue around ultimate allegiance: the coin bears Caesar’s image, so it belongs to Caesar, and there's no harm giving it to him.

The word used for "image" here is εἰκών, the same word God uses to say that we are created in his image. The passage does not explicitly draw this out, but I think you are saying this: the coin bears Caesar's image, it belongs to him. We bear God's image, we belong to him. Who cares about the coin?

Understood this way, the point is that we are completely devoted to God, every part of us, and Caesar can have his coin.

[JayP]

I think you significantly under emphasize Jesus’ points out Caesar and the coin. I do not think the point is at all “forget about the coin, focus on God”. It is more about give Caesar his due within his framework, never forgetting you owe God his due.

This is one of my favorite passages NOT simply for his teaching about the place of secular government and God, but especially because I think IF we are honest, most of us probably would not have come close to that answer for the original question.

It always reminds me when folks are SO SURE they have this or that figured out, that unless Jesus’ direct teaching on the subject is clear, while I will listen to the argument, I assume it with great slowness and thought.

[Bootstrap]

I think you significantly under emphasize Jesus’ points out Caesar and the coin. I do not think the point is at all “forget about the coin, focus on God”. It is more about give Caesar his due within his framework, never forgetting you owe God his due.

I think that's clearly true in Romans 13, which was written to Christians in Rome.

In Mark, I think it's more complicated. Israel is under military occupation, and a lot of the controversy is precisely whether the authority of Rome should be recognized as legitimate.

Here, Jesus does not endorse Rome or reject their authority. He puts Caesar in perspective, emphasizing that our true allegiance is to God. But he also does recognize Caesar's authority to tax.

[JayP]

I think it’s a bit more than the Son of God chipping in on tax policy.