My wife and I share the great joy of overseeing and leading a community of people called the Justice League in my hometown of Concord, CA.  Put simply, the Justice League is a community in Concord, CA committed to the work of Justice. Our focuses (or “foci”) are Local Poverty, Public Schools, Human Trafficking/Responsible Consumerism and Global Poverty (with a select group of Global Partnerships). At a recent Justice League gathering, I shared a video of Gideon Strauss speaking at Gordon College on the topic of Justice.  His talk was entitled “Justice Is Not Optional,” but I highlighted something I found more intriguing about his talk; the idea that Justice is relational.

During his talk, Gideon defines Justice as “treating creatures according to how God created them; (forging) relationships with God’s creatures in such a way as to give them their due as what they are.”  Gideon is suggesting that Justice is relational; that in order to offer justice to someone, I must have a knowledge of who that person is intended to be in full bloom, unhindered by poverty, oppression or whatever obstacle lies in their path.

I find that idea very challenging.

Gideon goes on to say “Justice cannot be reduced to some kind of mute, rough equality.”  It is this “rough equality” I generally default to in my thinking about Justice.  Most often, even my most sincere emotional response to injustice amounts to something like “Let’s find some surplus money among us and throw it at this ‘situation’ in order to fix it.”  It is an easier kind of justice in the long run, since it costs very little.

I’m beginning to realize that the justice I normally envision is mostly a conceptual blanket which only hides the dappled, shifting landscape of creation and particularly humanity, but does nothing to legitimately heal and repair.  It’s the kind of justice that emotionally and eagerly responds to distress with the generalized idea that “we” (a word which also lacks clarity) have to make this “right” when we may not have spent the time to orient ourselves in order to know what “right” looks like in a particular place or for a particular person.

The kind of justice Gideon describes includes (in fact, requires) an intricate and even personal knowledge of the systems, cities and persons in need of justice, as well as a keen awareness of the limitations, needs and presumptions of those working for it.  A person living in Concord, CA, for instance, would need to know the city of Concord in order to do justice in Concord or for its people. But, knowing a city is an enormous endeavor; requiring great amounts of time and patience.  It is not the kind of thing one envisions doing in the moment he or she is moved to action by the sudden knowledge that Concord’s “Monument Corridor” is one of the fastest growing poverty traps in California…

(Continued in part II coming soon.  In the meantime… feel free to work on this.)

For those who caught the FEJMILRS webcast* last night, you were exposed to a new song. Note that I didn’t say you were “treated” to a new song. I would hardly be so assuming as to say that it was a treat… I can say that I liked it.  Below are the lyrics to the new song.  The working title is “What We Want.”  (no relation whatsoever to the 2000 film release entitled “What Women Want” starring Mel Gibson). It will be one of the songs that makes up my next project, which is a followup to the Untitled EP.

v1
It’s not about the drinking
It’s all about the being drunk
Like it’s not with whom you’re sleeping
It’s with whom you wake up

pre-chorus
It’s not about the wars you fight
it’s whether or not you win
Not so  much about being right
As not letting all the wrong ones in

Chorus
See, we all want that resurrection
But we don’t want to die
We all want that sweet salvation
WIthout the bitterness of sacrifice

v2
It’s not about forgiveness
It’s about making sure they know
You’re the one they’ve injured
You’re just too strong to let it show

v3
It’s not about believing
It’s about making it look good
So that when you lose your reason
You just keep doing what you should.

(**if you missed the FEJMILRS, there are rumors [and they are only rumors] that there will be further broadcasts.)

There were many responses at this blog to my “Open Letter to Anne Rice.”  A good bit over 100. I read all of them, though not every one of them was posted.**  I responded to most of those I read, particularly because I kept seeing the same set of basic assumptions popping up. I promise not to squeeze any more life out of this moment than there is, but below is a short(ish) response to two of the more prevalent assumptions underlying many reader comments. (PLEASE NOTE: this is not a further commentary on Anne Rice’s announcement; it is a response to common assumptions found in the reader comments on my initial letter)

The first prevalent assumption among those who commented on my previous post was that I am “an idiot.” Pffssst… chyeah, right.  Am not.

The second is that I am “a jackass.”  Now, that I can buy.

Actual Assumption #1:
The “Human Element” of Religion

There was, present in many of the comments posted, the assumption that one can remove the “human element” from religion.  It’s an immensely problematic idea and here is why I think so:  Many, if not most, would agree that religion is a human construct; that we made it up. Religion is either the way we go about seeking some Divine Source we can only hope and believe is really there underneath it all or it is our poetic and philosophical effort to make lemonade from the lemons of life.  Therefore, if one ascribes to this idea of religion, then all there is to it is the human element.  We are either reaching out for “God” who couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with this circus of dogmas and funny robes or we’re deluding ourselves in order to cope with the absurdity of life.

In that light, let’s suppose that one’s entire religious practice was made up of silent meditation alone in a room in an empty building in an abandoned city whose residents had been eaten by zombies who then, themselves died from side effects of the 5-Hour Energy Drink stored in the blood streams of the very alert people they had eaten (I’m just trying to paint a picture of isolation here… stick with me). Even in that very isolated scenario, the practice of meditation would have had to be learned from someone else.  Be it face to face or in written form or by instructional video, the transference of religious knowledge or spiritual practice is always a human process; People teaching people to be (ostensibly) better people. Religion is people.

So, if religion is a human construct and you remove the “human element” from it you are left with nothing.. which would make many among us just as happy… until the zombies show up.

But what if you are just crazy enough to believe that The Divine communicates directly to people?  Luckily, I am just such a nut. So is Anne Rice. We’re nuts, Anne and I!  You see, I believe, along with Anne Rice, that God has revealed Himself to His Creation over many, many years.  We believe that the pinnacle in this long history of revelation is the Incarnation of Jesus Christ; God becoming man.  This tradition makes the elimination of the “human element” problematic in that God, with every phase of revelation over the course of history, has intentionally and consistently chosen the human element; even to the extreme of becoming human. Prophets, Priests, Teachers, Guides, Rulers, etc.. all human, as was Jesus of Nazareth.  So while we might be a ripe mess, it seems that in some strange way we are the mess God wants.

Furthermore, this same tradition shuns the individualistic practice of faith in which religion is “just between God and me.”  The instructions or teachings that have accompanied each phase of revelation are communal instructions and teachings.   The teachings of Christ in particular are teachings spoken to crowds of people rather than to individuals.  They were/are designed to create a culture of forgiveness, generosity and hope rather than just individuals marked by those traits. Christ’s methods were and are communal: He called a group of twelve people to himself and taught them as a collective. He taught the masses who followed him.  Meanwhile, despite his deep criticism of Judaism, Jesus nonetheless continued to teach within that system; in its synagogues and to the communities gathered there around Torah.  I think it’s safe to say that, even if one is unsure as to His “agenda,” Jesus sought (and seeks) to accomplish his goal by reshaping the way people live, not as individuals, but together… until the  zombies show up.

Actual Assumption #2:
The “End” of Religious Practice

Lastly (I promise) throughout the comments, there seemed to be a further assumption that the practice of religion is intended for the improvement of ones self.  Agreed… but.  That is not it’s end.  A better self is particularly better insofar as that better self can then help other selves become better selves.  There is a responsibility that comes with health, blessing and wisdom; the responsibility to pass it on. The healing of our own lives becomes a gift we have the privilege and responsibility to offer others.  But even that is not the end.

The better self helps others be better selves and they, together, become better communities which, in turn, create better neighborhoods, better cities and better cultures which eventually, hopefully and prayerfully transform the face of nations and the globe into the shape and pattern of what Jesus called “the Kingdom.” Christ’s “end” from the very beginning was to redeem all things and all people, reconciling them to the Father and instating His Kingdom on earth as a dwelling place for all of God’s creation. A dwelling place with the foundations of Justice, Mercy and Love.  Any religious (or irreligious) idea which excludes an entire people group from this vision is out of line with that vision and its Architect.  In this light, if someone really “gets it,” the last thing one ought to do is disconnect themselves from those who don’t get it. George Bernard Shaw said it thusly: ”I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community and as long as I live, it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can. I want to be thoroughly used up when I die.”

DISCLAIMER: All this is only my opinion, which I will continue to force down peoples’ throats by posting it here on my own blog where you are all morally and legally obliged to click and scroll until I am through controlling you; after which point you are free to move on and linger at the far more entertaining and informative Daily Show page.. That is, of course.. until the zombies show up.

**(comments I did not post were generally those that were only insulting without offering content… also ignored were any comments submitted by Yankee fans.)