Ch 3 The Whole Transition to Justice

The inaugural persons made the choice for self-autonomy and exercised self-determination under the assumptions of reductionism. In their choice, they exchanged the heart of their whole persons created from inner out for a reduced person fragmented from outer in, whereby they shifted from the created justice of their persons and relationship together to the condition of injustice. This self-determined condition generated fear that revolved around the quantified issues of their persons from outer in. With the fear of exposure in this condition of injustice, they simply hid behind a protective image (i.e. illusion or delusion). Their protective image symbolizes the images that humans construct from outer in (like an acting role or façade) to present a more favorable self. It was this protective image that set into motion the complicated process for persons and their relationships to minimize their vulnerability, so that they would not be exposed in any condition of injustice.

The shift from creation justice to any condition of injustice has been shrouded with protective images, which remain secured from exposure as long as persons and relationships are not vulnerable or made vulnerable. This complicated process minimizing vulnerability has ongoingly compounded the transition back to creation justice. And the most subtle aspect of this process has been the protective illusion of individualism that shrouds engaging in self-autonomy and efforts of self-determination. Such a condition lacking creation justice is commonly not made vulnerable, because vulnerability would expose the prevailing priority given to self that underlies individualism and its cunning normative practice—crafted notably by Christians in the practice of faith, even by those working for justice and peace.

Our first glimpse of the protective illusion of individualism took place with Cain (Gen 4:1-9). His brother Abel essentially responded to Subject God in relational terms to get right who was present and what was involved in his offering to God. This is implied when Subject God “looked with favor” (sha‘ah, v.4) on Abel’s person and relational response (as in Ps 40:6-7; Hos 6:6; Mk 12:33). In contrast was who was present and what was involved for Cain, which are implied in Subject God’s rejection of his action (v.5, cf. Isa 1:11-13). Cain in effect used referential terms (contrary to God’s relational terms) to quantify his offering to Object God, which didn’t get it right (yatab, v.7). Later in his anger and depression about not measuring up in a comparative process centered on self, Cain killed Abel. When God asked Cain where Abel was, Cain’s protective illusion emerged: “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” Yet, even before his gross act of injustice, Cain already had embraced the priority of self and protected his self from being vulnerable to his accompanying fear of being exposed in his condition of injustice by assuming the illusion of individualism. His illusion reinforced and sustained the injustice of the human condition, in which persons have no primary involvement in relationships and thus nor responsibility for each other.

Yes indeed, the human heart experiences a spectrum of emotions, and most of these feelings are screened, pushed away from consciousness, or denied existence by outer-in measures. In a process amounting to virtual reality, the protective images, illusions and delusions that we assume for our self (individually and collectively) today all keep us from vulnerably facing injustice in everyday life. We may not avoid such blatant injustice as Cain enacted, nevertheless we do not face the breadth, and depth of injustice composed everyday by the human condition. Whenever we explicitly or implicitly exchanged the heart of our persons and relationships created from inner out for their reduced condition fragmented from outer in, we have shifted distinctly from the justice of creation to the consuming condition of injustice. And our subtle attempts to guard our vulnerability to this injustice impede, misdirect, or simply prevent the necessary transition back to the created justice of all persons and their relationships.

Since creation constituted what is right, this justice of life is the only determinant for justice in life. Reductionism, however, countered right to redefine justice in life with anything less and any substitutes, and thereby constructed the injustice of life. These opposing dynamics are ongoingly interrelated, and thus they are not always distinctly separated, and at times are either conflated or confused as the other. Therefore, the reality facing us to get justice right cannot be avoided:

The transition back to justice goes through injustice—and this includes our own condition of injustice—which then requires that all protective images, illusions and delusions be made vulnerable in order to face the injustice in everyday life, so that we will get right the fragmentary heart of the human condition and thereby have right the created justice of all persons and the order of their relationships together.

The transition to justice will not unfold until we are vulnerable both with our human condition and to the human condition existing, pervading and prevailing in everyday life.

Recently, the right to free speech has been an issue of intense debate in the U.S., which has caused even traditionally liberal universities (e.g. University of California, Berkeley) to rethink their open policy on public speech (and all dissent). Of course, in many parts of the global community this right is not even an issue, where freedom of the press is not even allowed. This issue overlaps into the right to practice one’s own religion. What is your position on these rights?

Who has these rights certainly is relative in today’s world, converging with the relative status of human rights in general that partially composes the human condition and the variable justice of the human order. In this existing context and process, how do Christians get right the rights of human life that are applicable to all persons, peoples, tribes and nations? For the moment, let’s focus on the right of free speech.

Free speech, obviously, is never expressed in a vacuum, and more often than not it targets the opposition in its dissent. This has been consequential and yet perceived as part of a natural byproduct in exercising the freedom to dissent; thus, this right is assumed as necessary in order to participate in life and must be preserved whatever the fallout. And injustice is considered for any who prevent or are prevented this right. Even though the expressed speech may lack justice and its consequence also perpetrates an injustice, this right is considered basic to human life. We have to examine, however, if this right in reality becomes an obstruction to justice in human life and its essential order—not to mention how this right has fragmented the U.S. and balkanized its diversity into increasingly homogeneous contexts (notably in churches). We have to be vulnerable to this reality pervading our everyday life, which will require the recognition of an existing protective illusion of tolerance that presumes to accept others different from self.

The right of free speech is one of the fragments of justice that are labelled a basic human right. Such a fragment and the sum of all fragments of justice, however, do not add up to the essential whole of justice at the heart of human life, nor do they get right the fragmentary heart of our human condition. That is to say, such rights by themselves don’t get to what basically underlies human rights and encompasses the whole of justice that is essential to all human life and the primacy of its relational order.

The right of free speech as simply a fragment of justice emerges when seen in the whole context and process of justice. There are different layers of justice that must be understood, and the deeper the layer the less fragmented justice is that provides a fuller picture of justice for human life. At the outer layer—which is the most visible and has the most attention—there is justice revolved around human rights. As important as such rights are, they neither get to the roots of justice nor resolve the cause of injustice. Yet, unless you are part of those opposed to using the language of rights for one reason or another, rights are central to the call for justice.[1]

How do we need to see rights and to think in their use in everyday life? As discussed earlier, how we see and think are shaped by the language we use, which must be understood in the language of rights. Nicholas Wolterstorff has this view of rights:

A right is always a right to something. Having the right consists of standing in a certain relation to that something…. Specifically, to stand to something in the relation of having (a) claim-right to it is to stand to the “something” in the normative relationship of having (a) legitimate claim to it. …Rights are normative social relationships; that to which one has a claim-right is always to the good of being treated a certain way. It takes at least two to have a right—with the exception of those cases in which one has a right to being treated a certain way by oneself. Rights have sociality built into them. …Primary justice is present in society insofar as the members of society stand to one another in the normative social relationship of being treated as they have a right to be treated.[2]

By at least using relational terms, Wolterstorff composes the language of rights in a deeper context and process of justice. This points to a deeper basis by which rights can claim legitimacy. He comments on this:

My own view is that rights are grounded in the worth, the value, the dignity of human beings. We all have worth on account of some achievement on our part, some capacity that we possess, some property that we have, some relationship in which we stand.[3]

Rights represent the interweaving between, on the one hand, ways of being treated that would be a good in our lives, and, on the other hand, the worth that we ourselves have. The recognition of rights requires the recognition of ways of being treated that would be a good in our lives. But it requires, in addition, recognition of the worth, the dignity, the estimability of persons and human being themselves. Any ethical theory that works only with life-goods, and not also with the worth or dignity of persons or human beings, is incapable of giving an account of natural rights.[4]

Unfortunately, Wolterstorff’s estimate of the worth or dignity of human beings is based on a reduced theological anthropology, which defines persons by the quantity of what they do and have. This reduces persons to a fragmentary condition, persons who may have rights but not the right basis for justice in the primacy of relationships. Moreover, this compromises the relational language of rights with referential terms that may appear the same as relational terms (e.g. the term social justice), but which have neither the presence of persons from inner out nor the involvement of subjects in reciprocal relationship. The transition to justice needs to go deeper and not stop at even compelling fragments of justice as presented by Wolterstorff, in order to get right what is essential for all persons and their relationships in everyday life—without the distinctions of what they do and have, and the inevitable comparative process stratifying their relationships (as experienced by Cain).

The rights of human persons, being and life emerge from a deeper layer of justice; and this layer reveals some authority granting rights by using its set of laws, precepts, stipulations or commands. Such authority and its laws have operated with relativism in human life, composing a fragmentary basis influenced and shaped by the human

condition. Stated simply: While any rule of law may prevent anarchy, it does not guarantee function with justice and thus for justice. The basis on which rights are based commonly signifies further fragments of justice at best that are insufficient for how to see and think about rights and justice. The most common and encompassing fragment is social justice, which is an insufficient lens and inadequate mindset yet what prevails for justice. Social justice is a generic term that is neither whole nor unifies all aspects of justice. Moreover, the sum of all these fragments still doesn’t add up to the essential whole of justice necessary for human life in order to get right the human condition.

When we go down to the roots of justice, the authority of the Word is revealed in relational language—whose commands, precepts and stipulations only in relational terms composed the irreducible and nonnegotiable rule of law for all creation from the beginning. In the Word’s rule of law, the depth of human life is reciprocal relationship involving the heart of the whole person at the innermost. This person is not a simple object, shaped by the surrounding context and who re-acts to situations and circumstances by the obligations of the law. Rather, this person is a complex subject whose presence and involvement respond according to the relational terms of the law in the complexity of relationships together. How do these two persons differ in how they function? Let’s go back again to the right of free speech.

Persons are free to discriminate against others, and they may have this freedom in their speech, but do they have the right to do this? Persons also are free to choose to be abusive with words and may have this freedom in their speech, but do they have the right to such action? That is, persons have free will to decide to lack justice but do they have the right to be unjust, the right for injustice? For Christians, this question also applies to the freedom of religion and their practice of faith. The answer—which applies to all rights—depends on the authority base used and its rule of law practiced.

Consider the reality that racism is alive and well in the U.S. (the leader of the free world); and recent high-profile accusations have exposed the prevalence of sexual abuse in the upper levels of government and culture in the U.S. Both these pervasive conditions in the U.S. are reinforced and sustained by the complicity of a majority practicing its rule of law—which, on the one hand, promotes a culture of exceptionalism (or exclusivity and entitlement) while, on the other hand, strains under the illusion of tolerance. Christians are not only a major part of this complicity and at the center of this practice of the law, they also thrive in this culture with their protective illusions and delusions. This practice of rights reveals the relativism of the authority base and its rule of law that prevail in human life and that fails to get right the human condition, no matter how much justice is claimed and injustice is contended. At best, what justice is claimed is only the fragment of social justice, and any injustice contended is a simplification (as in reductionism) lacking justice. All this calls for the depth level of justice at its roots.

The prevailing relativism opened the door to relative interpretation of a rule of law and its variable practice. This door has been open from the beginning, even when the authority Source was not relative; yet the original rule of law was relativized. Later, the authoritative Subject formalized the rule of law, which was composed only in relational language and terms for subjects in covenant relationship together. Judaism, however, simplified (as in reductionism) God’s law to quantified terms from outer in, which led to variable practice of the Subject’s irreducible and nonnegotiable rule of law essential to the wholeness of persons and their primacy in relationship together. The law became an end in itself and its practice a means for self-determination (individually and collectively), and the consequences fragmented the wholeness of persons and relationships. The authority of the embodied Word, however, clarified and corrected this often subtle relativity from reductionism in order to get right the roots of justice at the heart of human life—which we cannot ignore or avoid to get right our own theology and practice.

Jesus summarized this clarification and correction in his Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7). For now, we will limit our discussion focused on the right of free speech. In his focus on God’s rule of law, he brings out the rights of justice and what is essential for its practice. He first clarifies the law against murder and this blatant abuse of human persons. Encompassed in this physical abuse, however, is also verbal abuse transmitted by speech, which discriminates against the integrity of others and/or abuses their dignity (Mt 5:21-22). In the created justice of God’s authority and under its rule of law, persons are free to speak but do not have the right of speech that discriminates and abuses. Furthermore, Jesus also made unequivocal that persons who presume to have this right are accountable for overstating the law and will be prosecuted for violating God’s rule of law. The freedom of speech, and related freedom of religion, is always qualified by the roots of justice that cannot be relativized, or else the rule of law undergoes variable practice.

As a further example of the relativism of the rule of law and its related rights, Jesus turns to the law of sexual misconduct (Mt 5:27-30). Relative interpretations of this law have opened the door either to ambiguity about misconduct or to complicity of such misconduct. Yet, what Jesus clarified is that few could be guiltless of sexual misconduct. Adultery, for example, is conducted both in the physical act and merely as a desire conducted in the mind, and both are consequential of sexual misconduct. This includes reducing persons to physical objects in our mind, which we are free to conduct but no one has the right to this misconduct or is guiltless in it. Critically then, Jesus grounds the rule of law in the complete view of sin, which an incomplete (weak in understanding and application) view of sin allows for variable practice. Thus, if the rule of law were enforced on all those guilty of the true depth of sexual misconduct, who would remain without the burden of injustice (cf. Jn 8:3-7)? The roots of justice expose the relativity of those implicit in or complicit with any form of injustice.

With the irreducible and nonnegotiable authority of God, Jesus clarified and corrected any relative rule of law with the invariable rule of God’s law. At the heart of God’s authority is the wholeness of God, by which all human persons are constituted irreducibly from inner out and their relationships are composed in nonnegotiable primacy. Whole persons from inner out are complex subjects who cannot be reduced to simple objects from outer in. Objects simply function as those subject to and re-acting in their situations and circumstances, which reduce who is present and fragments what is involved in relationships—contrary to their inherent wholeness. Accordingly, Jesus establishes this whole theological anthropology at the root of justice and makes it essential for the rule of law to unfold right.

Therefore, the wholeness of persons is central to the invariable rule of God’s law; and this wholeness must not be compromised, for example, by oaths that redefine a person’s integrity from inner out to outer in (Mt 5:33-37). The primacy of relationships in wholeness is at the root of justice, thus must not be engaged relative to situations and circumstances by giving them priority, or justice is reduced and the rule of law is relativized to a fragmentary practice of relationships (5:38-44). Social justice falls into this relativism because it is not composed by the roots of justice. The unavoidable consequence for all this relativism is injustice—the inescapable condition of reductionism at the fragmentary heart of the human condition.

In contrast and conflict with reductionism and its pervasive yet subtle relativism, the relational purpose and outcome of Jesus’ definitive terms for justice are “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (5:48). That is, be complete, whole (teleios) in your persons and relationships, because anything less and any substitutes for justice and the rule of law fragment your person and relationships—a condition lacking justice and living in injustice. Accordingly, by his relational purpose and outcome the authority of Jesus continues to integrate all rights into God’s rule of law, whereby they are rooted in the whole relational context and process of justice as created by its Subject Source.

Jesus clarified and corrected that the transition to justice is whole, and only the wholeness of persons and relationships constitute the roots of justice and its invariable outcome for everyday life in uncommon peace distinguished from any common peace found in the world.

The innermost depth of human life is relational, and in this relational context and process the Subject created subjects in likeness to live together in nothing less and no substitutes of this relational primacy. The whole transition to justice unfolds only in the Subject’s irreducible relational context and nonnegotiable relational process. Any variation fragments the transition to redirect it to injustice, which could be composed subtly by fragments of justice (including social justice). The name of justice has less significance the further it is removed from the relational context and process forming the roots of justice. This distinction certainly is critical for those calling for justice, and is indispensable for the sentinels of human life.

When the inaugural persons constructed outer-in barriers between their whole persons in relationship together from inner out, and then between their outer-in selves and Subject God, they set in motion any and all secondary matter (notably quantified by situations and circumstances) to substitute for who is present and what is involved in the primacy of relationship. To substitute such barriers (e.g. as in social media today) prevents a depth of relational connection beyond merely an association together (e.g. as in many churches today), the connection which establishes the relational involvement necessary to truly know and understand each other.

Subject God vulnerably revealed his wholeness in this relational context and process in order to be known and understood in the primacy of relationship together (e.g. Jer 9:23-24; Jn 14:9). Yet, the Subject disclosed can only be distinguished by subjects vulnerably involved in reciprocal relationship, which cannot have barriers for this relational involvement and outcome to unfold in its primacy. Likewise, the converse is true for subjects to be distinguished by the Subject. In contrast to an omniscient God in referential terms, in relational terms the Subject only knows other subjects based on what they vulnerably reveal from inner out in relationship together, without substituting secondary matter for who is present and what is involved. This is crucial for those in particular who work for justice and peace, who thereby focus on what they do and their related resources as subtle secondary substitutes for the who and what in relationship together. And the Subject’s reciprocal experience in the primary relational context and process is “I don’t know you—no matter what you have done in my name and however you have been associated with me” (Mt 7:22-23; Lk 13:26-27).

The transition to justice is incomplete until it converges in the outcome of wholeness for both persons and relationships. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus clarified and corrected the self-autonomy (in Mt 5), the self-determination (in Mt 6) and related self-justification (in Mt 7) that interfere, interrupt and prevent the whole transition. Why and how so? Because these self-revolving efforts (both individually and collectively) signify, promote and sustain the injustice composing the human condition. These human practices need to be transformed in order for the outcome of wholeness to emerge as experiential truth (not merely doctrinal truth) and unfold in invariable reality (neither virtual nor augmented). The existing reality facing us, however, is that such human practices pervade Christian practice and shape many efforts for peace and justice—if not directly then indirectly by complicity with the status quo. His Sermon on the Mount is the key to countering our existing reality.[5]

In relational terms, persons who distance themselves in relationship—explicitly or more subtle ways of not being vulnerable—lack the justice intrinsic to the primacy of relationship together at the heart of both Subject God and human life. This relational distance could be even unintentional merely by practicing the common norms for relationship. Thus, such persons increasingly live in injustice as they are removed from the relational context and process forming the roots of justice. Such distance is often not apparent to persons helping others, and any further appeal to their work in the name of justice merely reinforces and sustains their reduced persons and fragmentary relational condition. They cannot claim to be doing ‘kingdom work’ when their identity is not rooted in the invariable authority of God’s kingdom and his righteousness involved in its primacy for relationship (as in Mt 6:33). Jesus clarified the pivotal juncture between the secondary and the primary, between the variable and the invariable, between the fragmented and the whole (Mt 7:13-14). The former must not be considered lightly because it has heavy consequences for the latter, all of which transition either to injustice or justice. Jesus doesn’t provide subjects the latitude of a both-and option, or else they are rendered as objects by the former and thereby disabled to live right, much less be the sentinels of human life.

This pivotal juncture directly relates to the gospel we claim and proclaim. Consider, how have we claimed the gospel when Jesus says “I don’t know you”? The experiential truth and reality of Jesus’ gospel is that (1) it emerges only from the “narrow gate,” and (2) its trajectory unfolds just on the “difficult road.” This irreducible relational context and nonnegotiable relational process composing the gospel are essential for its outcome to get right the human condition and to restore the created justice for all persons and their order of relationships in wholeness. Jesus’ gospel constitutes “the gospel of peace” (Eph 6:15), whose wholeness Paul made imperative to be the only determinant for our persons from inner out and our relationships together as church family (Col 3:15). Anything less and any substitutes prevent the essential outcome of justice from Jesus’ gospel—with far-reaching consequences. Consider further, how do we proclaim the gospel of peace that has no wholeness?

First of all, we must understand that peace as wholeness is inseparable from righteousness—they “kiss” (Ps 85:10). God’s righteousness is more than an attribute; it defines the whole of who, what and how God is, whose wholeness can be counted on by others to function in relationship together because “righteousness will go before him and will make the integrity of his presence and involvement” (85:13). Righteousness is always a relational term involving a relational context and process; yet, without this wholeness, righteousness has no relational significance worthy of response. How would this lack affect God’s authority? The integrity of God’s authority is grounded unequivocally in “righteousness and justice as the foundation of your throne” (Ps 89:14). There is no justice without righteousness, since there is no wholeness that God’s authority constitutes for persons and relationships, and that the Word enacts for the gospel and its outcome. In what condition does this render the gospel and those who claim such a gospel?

“I don’t know you” is an indictment of injustice, yet the relational distance, disconnect or separation composing this relational condition has become the “new” normal—in contradiction to the new wine and new creation. This so-called new signifies life not only on the internet but in our churches—among those who “prophesy in your name, and drive out evil in your name and do many deeds of empowerment for the common good in your name,” not to mention who “had table fellowship with you, and you taught in our midst.” The gospel they presumed to claim amounts to a different gospel on a different trajectory and path, composed without righteousness and its integral partners peace and justice—which is consequential for not having right their relational condition. This injustice will continue until it returns to the roots of justice by its transition “through the narrow gate…and on the difficult road that leads to the heart of human life” (Mt 7:14).

The return to the roots of justice requires a turnaround from the variable paths (“wide gate and easier road”) our theology has defined and our practice has determined for our persons and relationships. Without this turnaround, the transition to justice cannot be completed, leaving the existing condition of injustice unchanged at its fragmentary heart. Yet, this turnaround doesn’t emerge from self-determination (in all its variations by works), nor is it a singular moment (notably by faith). The Subject is present and involved to bring the redemptive change necessary, so that the old can be reversed (notably from the “new” normal) and transformed to the truly real new—otherwise called salvation but not always known and experienced in its whole relational context and process of the Subject.

There is no essential justice without salvation. There is no salvation when we are relationally distant, detached or disconnected from the whole relational context and process of the gospel of peace. The only outcome that unfolds from this variable relational condition is “I don’t know you”—and “you do not know me” (Jn 8:19; 14:9).

In Jesus’ definitive manifesto for his followers (outlined in the Sermon on the Mount), he continues to put into juxtaposition the either-or condition engaged in everyday life. This either-or process should not be confused with a Hegelian dialectic because the two conditions cannot be synthesized for a whole outcome.

A critical either-or is between a good tree and a bad tree, which will determine the outcome in everyday life (Mt 7:15-20). This critical disjunction is the basic either-or of good-bad, a distinction which became ambiguous in the primordial garden with the illusion of “good and evil” and the deluded hope of “knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:5). From this basic good-bad disjunction are the either-or extensions of right-wrong, fair-unfair, just-unjust, each of which may have variable definitions relative to their root source or authority base. Jesus’ metaphor of a tree makes unequivocal that a tree’s fruit depends on its roots. Bad roots yield only bad fruit and cannot be expected to yield good fruit, though good fruit is not always distinguished from bad fruit. This is where the disjunction with a good tree becomes unclear, because it could be made ambiguous with variable alternatives from a bad tree constructing illusions and cultivating delusions of good fruit.

Jesus clarified and corrected the disjunction between the trees and the outcomes their roots determine. Critical to the outcome are those “trees” who augment or hybridize the “fruit” to create illusions about reality, such as false prophets who whitewash the reality of peace (as in Eze 13:10) and promote false hopes for justice (as in Jer 23:16-17). These false narratives (or ones lacking justice) continue to be advocated today by Christians operating under illusions, a condition which grieved Jesus about God’s people in the past and still today (Lk 19:41-42). After over two millennia since the Word embodied the gospel of peace, here we are still apparently lacking his gospel’s relational-language composition for our theology and practice—even when the gospel appears referentially right in our theology or practice. This faces us with the uneasy reality of Jesus’ “difficult road” and his gospel’s “narrow gate.”

Whenever we live explicitly or implicitly with subtle illusions, we are in a critical condition needing urgent care. Unknowingly living in and promoting such illusions could be shocking feedback for those working for peace and justice. Hopefully it is uprooting feedback, since the issue here goes down to the roots and the potential delusion of either evolving from bad (false, variable or incomplete) roots under the assumption of being good, or thinking a hybrid of roots is a good basis to work from. How can we know the specific roots of the tree from which we are working?

If we are willing to suspend our assumptions and biases, we can exercise a hermeneutic of suspicion (an honest examination of our views and actions) about the so-called fruits of justice and peace in order to get to the roots of their tree. This is the indispensable purpose and outcome for Jesus putting into juxtaposition the either-or disjunction composing the reality of everyday life and related illusions and delusions. Central to his relational process to distinguish his whole-ly followers, Jesus dispels such illusions and exposes any delusion by getting to the heart of our identity and function.

Who, what and how we are emerge from and unfold with the state of our righteousness. Righteousness is not an attribute, which is how Christians usually think of it. Rather righteousness is the constituting root that bears the fruit of our identity (ontology) and function, determining the reality of who, what and how our person is in everyday life—the ontology and function in likeness to the God of righteousness. Thus, righteousness is integral for the integrity of our person and our involvement in relationships—just as it is for God’s presence and involvement—which produce the underlying basis for justice and its outcome of peace. Accordingly, the state of our righteousness is crucial, and any illusion about its roots or its fruit is deeply consequential for the nature and extent of justice and peace we can engage in. This is the basis for the psalmist declaring for the LORD that “righteousness composes the wholeness of his presence and involvement” because “righteousness and peace kiss” (Ps 85:10,13) and “righteousness and justice are the foundation for your authority and rule of law” (Ps 89:14, cf. Isa 11:3-5).

Righteousness, however, has been one of the key terms whose understanding has eluded much theology and practice, with direct consequences for peace and justice. The central either-or disjunction around which Jesus’ manifesto for his followers revolves is this:

“Unless your righteousness exceeds [goes beyond to be full] the so-called righteousness of the reductionists, you will never be whole in God’s kingdom, be right with God’s authority and just by his rule of law” (Mt 5:20).

The reductionists (segments of Judaism) simply constructed a new normal for righteousness, which reduced the wholeness of God’s authority and fragmented the justice of God’s rule of law. This “new” normal righteousness emerged from a reduced theological anthropology that objectified persons to the outer in by fragmenting the law to simplified identity markers, by which they quantified their practice in secondary matters for their self-determined function in what amounted to self-justification (sound familiar?). The relational terms for the primacy of covenant relationship together in wholeness (as in Gen 17:1; Ps 119:1) no longer were the basis for righteousness as defined by God (as in Gen 15:6; Rom 4:1-3). Notable in this reconstruction of righteousness to the “new” normal were the administrators of God’s law (priests, Levites), who lived in and promoted their selective bias shaping the rule of law in human terms for peace and justice—all contrary to and in conflict with Levi (Mal 2:5-9). YHWH dispelled their illusion and exposed their delusion, subsequently replacing them with the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek (king of Peace) to constitute the true righteousness of the new covenant relationship together (Isa 11:3-5; Heb 6:19-20).

Yet, a “new” normal for the identity and function of who, what and how we are subtly prevails today—quantified by the internet and amplified by social media—and perhaps is more embedded with our illusions and entrenched in our delusions of peace and justice. Along with its adaptation by technology, this so-called new normal evolves in one way or another by the selective bias (1) expressed in reverence of status and prestige, (2) exercised with idolization of power and influence, and (3) demonstrated by the glorification of wealth and resources. In all their forms at all levels of human life, this composition of an assumed new normal has reflected, reinforced and sustained our human condition and has interfered with its redemptive change—shortchanging or retarding the basic outcome of Jesus’ gospel.

Illusions and delusions from the “new” normal have seduced Christians and preoccupied us with the secondary over the primary in our everyday priorities (as Jesus outlines, Mt 6:19-32). But, Jesus counters any “new” normal for righteousness, peace and justice with “seek first and foremost his kingdom and his righteousness” (Mt 6:33). That is, not to “strive” (as in NRSV) for an attribute called righteousness but “pursue” (zeteo) the whole presence and involvement of who, what and how God is and can be counted on to function in relationship together. If God’s integrity is not accountable in relationship, what significance does “his righteousness” warrant to pursue? Likewise, in this primacy of reciprocal relationship composed by God’s authority and rule of law, the who, what and how we are can also function in likeness to God’s righteousness; and in this mutual accountability, the relational outcome will include the secondary necessary for wholeness of life in its created justice. Those who pursue his righteousness “will be filled with satisfaction” (chortazo, Mt 5:6)—not necessarily happy in their outer-in secondary matters but satisfied with the whole integrity of their person from inner out, enacted integrally in the primacy of relationship.

This is the only righteousness that distinguishes the whole ontology and function of who, what and how we are as his followers—those who belong relationally (not referential members) in his family and thus “I know you.” Furthermore, contrary to common priests of the “new” normal, from this High Priest also emerges “a holy [uncommon] priesthood” to constitute the whole identity of all of us in his likeness to function as “a royal priesthood” (1 Pet 2:5,9) in order to be right as his whole-ly sentinels of human life. This is the uncommon righteous priesthood of followers who administer justice only by the nonnegotiable relational terms of God’s rule of law and thereby who make the irreducible peace of wholeness.

True righteousness in likeness to the Trinity’s is indispensable for completing the wholeness of peace and having right the justice of the invariable rule of law from God’s authority. We can neither replace this righteousness with a variably new normal nor substitute for it with any form of self-determination, and then expect to discern any illusions of peace and justice. Righteousness is essential to distinguish the integrity of the whole who, what and how we are, by which others can count on to be whole from inner out and thus who will be right and bring wholeness to relationships. Without righteousness in his likeness this relational process doesn’t emerge and its relational outcome doesn’t unfold—only illusions and delusions of them, which Jesus dispels and exposes for the redemptive change necessary to be transformed from these ontological simulations.

Ongoingly, he challenges his followers to understand their roots from their theological anthropology and to know the basis for their everyday practice, so that they can be distinguished whole from any subtle new normal of reductionism. He faces his sentinels with this unavoidable reality:

The transition to justice is complete when it is made whole by the Subject’s salvation—the salvation composed just in relational terms for subjects in likeness to live right in the primacy of reciprocal relationship together in wholeness.

In the manifesto definitive for his uncommon followers, Jesus begins by outlining the essential process of identity formation, by which our person and relationships will be transformed—known as the Beatitudes (Mt 5:3-10). The pivotal step in identity formation from inner out is the fourth beatitude: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled with satisfaction” (5:6). This life-essential pursuit of righteousness goes beyond pursuing character and a code of ethics, even so-called Jesus ethics or kingdom ethics.[6] Righteousness is the integral integrity of the person from inner out that defines who is present and determines what is involved, which is essential for the everyday function of human life at its right depth and whole capacity. These persons are fully satisfied as the “blessed” (makarioi) only because the ontology and function of who, what and how they are is made whole from the innermost; and this emerges and unfolds from the previous three beatitudes in this essential process.[7]

The full satisfaction of persons from inner out was first observed with the inaugural persons in the primordial garden. In the relational context and process of creation, “the man and the woman were both naked, and were not ashamed” (Gen 2:25). That is, they were neither ashamed of their whole persons nor disappointed (bosh) with the other person and their relationship together; and the relational outcome was that they were fully satisfied. Why? Because in God’s created justice (1) the integrity of both persons was defined by their whole person as subjects from inner out and not reduced to objects fragmented by outer-in distinctions, (2) whereby the gender of each person was equalized as a subject without a false distinction for the other gender—which would render them to objects in fragmented relationship (demonstrated in Gen 3:7)—and therefore (3) their whole persons were involved right in the just order of their relationships, the relational order which was created to be integrally equalized and intimate together.

Who wouldn’t be fully satisfied if this were the condition of their person and relationships? Only those who compromise the integrity of who, what and how their person is, and consequently engage in illusions of “good and evil” and labor with delusions of knowing good-bad, right-wrong, fair-unfair, just-unjust. Sadly, this was the compromise initiated by the inaugural persons and perpetuated by those whose life-sustaining pursuit is not righteousness in God’s likeness. For them the full satisfaction of the created integrity of their persons and relationships in wholeness continues to elude them, and it will remain unfulfilled until redemptive change brings transformation.

This is the critical junction at which theological anthropology and sin as reductionism converge. Our theological anthropology should be at disjunction with reductionism, but having the right theological anthropology depends on our view of sin. How we view sin defines what salvation encompasses, whereby our persons and relationships are determined. A truncated salvation does not save us from the depth of sin composed by its roots of reductionism, consequently this limited salvation does not make right our persons and relationships by saving us to wholeness. This consequence impacts the peace and justice of our everyday life, and it likely promotes a variably new normal for how we see and think about them.

Therefore, we are faced with this unavoidable reality: Justice is never whole without the full salvation that conjointly saves us from reductionism and saves us to wholeness. This reality interfaces with this inescapable reality: The roots of justice definitively emerge in creation, but because of the invasion of reductionism in human life to construct its human condition, justice unfolds only with this full salvation.

The irreplaceable key that unlocks the transition from reductionism to justice is Jesus’ gospel of peace. The gospel’s wholeness was enacted by his righteousness (they kiss) in order to constitute our righteousness in likeness to his. However, a new normal has pervaded theology and practice with an incomplete Christology and a truncated soteriology—notably composed by an interpretive lens of Scripture in referential language and terms (demonstrated by most evangelicals, as in Jn 5:39). Not surprisingly, this has left many persons in churches without the full satisfaction of true righteousness, the fourth beatitude (Mt 5:6), and thus without its integrally connected peace in a condition lacking justice. In contrast, condition of justice is not whole merely from redemption (or deliverance), that is, being saved from sin. If we are indeed saved from the injustice of sin as reductionism, we can only be saved from reductionism at the point when we are also saved to the justice of wholeness for persons and relationships. Injustice always remains as long as its reductionism is not transformed to wholeness. This transformation emerges only from what Jesus saves to; and from just this whole relational outcome of his gospel is the transition to justice complete, and can the whole of justice unfold for persons and relationships in their new creation of wholeness. This outcome already (not just in the future but in the present) is the whole and just condition of righteousness in his likeness; and this new condition (not new normal) of righteousness constitutes the primary identity and function of his followers as subjects who counter the “new” normal of righteousness shaped by reductionism.

For those whose righteousness is in his likeness, their full satisfaction in the primary frees them from any self-concern (or self-autonomy) about the secondary or from the need to secure some benefit from their achievements (or self-determination). This freedom opens up opportunities for more vulnerable relational involvement, for example, to extend compassion to others in relational terms and not merely to do things for others (the 5^th beatitude for identity formation, 5:7). Most important, this freedom clears the person’s heart from the distraction of the secondary in order for the vulnerability of one’s full involvement to be in the primary of relationship together, foremost with God; these vulnerable persons are the blessed (fully satisfied) who “will see God” face to face and thereby intimately know each other (the 6^th beatitude, 5:8). It is from the primacy of intimate relationship together that persons are transformed into the new creation of God’s family, from which emerges the wholeness of persons and relationships—the relational outcome from the gospel of peace. Those claiming this wholeness are the persons completing the transition to justice—whose whole ontology and function distinguish them to be “the peacemakers of wholeness, for they will be known as the daughters and sons of God” (the 7^th beatitude, 5:9). This is the right and essential outcome of the whole identity of Jesus’ uncommon followers.

The transition to justice is incomplete without wholeness; and peace is inseparable from righteousness. Without the integrity of righteousness and its full satisfaction in his likeness, true righteousness cannot be distinguished from any assumed new normal. Accordingly, peace will not emerge and justice will not unfold. This integral process further reveals the roots of all rights, which then distinguishes the good tree from simply a variable bad tree.

Underlying all rights in human life is the inherent need to fulfill and to be fulfilled in the created make-up of the human person, functioning in the primacy of relationship together in likeness of the Creator. Contrary to the theory of evolution, persons don’t merely survive as their fitness warrants. Rather persons thrive as their created make-up is fulfilled. This integral human need basic to all persons is at the heart of justice—the justice by which the human person is created, the created justice of all persons and their relationships. The need for fulfillment is the basis for the rights that all persons (individual and together) have legitimate reason to expect to experience in human contexts of interaction. Stated differently:

The inherent worth (neither ascribed nor achieved) of all person constitutes the justice required for all persons (without distinctions) to experience their equal position in the human order; and the rights of the persons belonging to the human community are determined by the fulfillment of their integral human need.

Therefore, the integral human need—invariable for all persons (both individually and collectively)—composes the rights (the human need-rights) for all persons to have their inherent need, which is invariably designed by God and created in God’s image, respected, honored and allowed to be fulfilled. The inherent human need antecedes what is considered ‘human rights’ and forms the irreducible and nonnegotiable basis for human need-rights.[8]

Human need-rights emerge from the inherent human need in this relational dynamic:

1. Vested rights from God that are inherent to all persons created in God’s image, irreducible rights which cannot be revoked to prevent fulfillment of the human need.

2. Privileged rights unique to all persons created in God’s image, who can claim these nonnegotiable rights just in their created uniqueness, unless the rights are withdrawn or denied only by God.

3. Permissible rights available to all persons to the extent that their enactment either doesn’t disrespect, abuse and prevent the fulfillment of their and others’ human need, or that isn’t allowed access to that fulfillment by the normative enforcement of others.

Only permissible rights support a measured autonomy for the individual, which some nations, cultures and even families don’t even allow. It is within the sociocultural and politic-economic contexts of the human order that the scope of human rights is pursued in order to enact permissible rights. Whether human rights lead to privileged rights, however, depends on the created uniqueness of persons’ identity; and human rights should not be confused with privileged rights. Only privileged rights can be claimed as an entitlement by persons identified in the image of God, which cannot be renegotiated by human terms or reduced by human distinctions. Only vested rights provide the authority to empower and enforce the human need-rights of all persons for the fulfillment of their integral human need. The relational outcome from this relational dynamic unfolds the whole transition to justice in the everyday life of persons and relationships, which ongoingly involves nothing less and no substitutes for their wholeness in likeness of the Creator, Subject God, the Trinity.

Justice unfolds from the defining theological trajectory since creation and it continues unfolding on its determining relational path. Being compatible with this defining theological trajectory and congruent in this determining relational path are essential for justice both to maintain its integrity to be whole and to assert its uncommon wholeness (whole-ly justice) to the common world. In the relational purpose of this wholeness and for its relational outcome, this theological trajectory and relational path integrally converge in the critical battle against reductionism. The depth and scope of this battle is more comprehensive than spiritual warfare, thus it should not be constrained to the limits of spiritual warfare. Why is this battle not optional? Because reductionism ongoingly seeks to reduce persons and fragment relationships, typically in subtle or seductive ontological simulations. This is the ongoing fight that justice’s relational path must engage ongoingly and intrusively in order to get right the human condition.

Whole-ly justice is neither a concept nor an ideal but the relational reality that is subjected to the invasive workings of reductionism—subtly even rendering justice subject to it at times (past and present). Therefore, in this ongoing fight both for justice and against the injustice of reductionism, our justice must not be passive, deferring or apologetic, because reductionism certainly is not as it seeks the advantage at every opportunity—the advantage gained in everyday life more than is recognized in our theology and practice.

Fragments of justice are the prevailing way most see and think about justice. This lens and mindset have evolved variably to compose authority and the rule of law in relativism. Christians may not have relativism in their theology—though variable theology certainly exists between Christians—but have this relativism in their practice. Relativism is found both in their understanding of injustice and in the lack of justice in who is present and what is involved in their practice. This widespread condition leads to inconsistency and contradiction, the dissonance of which we’ve managed to ignore, drown out (even by the volume of our worship), or simply displace with an appealing “new” normal. However, any illusions we have about justice are dispelled and their delusions are exposed when we get to the roots of justice, and thereby are able to distinguish the good fruits of justice from the bad fruits—that is, that which emerges from the bad tree of injustice.

With the theological trajectory from creation, God defined the parameters for human life, and these relational terms set limits for the function of the human person—notably limiting self-autonomy but not precluding it (Gen 2:16-17, cf. Ps 119:73). Self-autonomy has become an illusion that counters the created order of human life. Yet, humans have the free-will to construct their own human order, and this order by self-determination counters the social order of human life constituted by God. This often subtle countering constructs a biased order quantified by the achievements (as in “knowing good and evil”) and related distinctions (as in “you will be like God”), all centered on the primary priority of self (as an individual or a collective). This certainly has biased how we see and think about justice.

Revolved explicitly or implicitly around self, social justice becomes only relative if based on a social order constructed by a biased human order such as above and not the created order by Subject God (including the order of the whole universe, Ps 147:4, cf. Gen 15:5). When social justice is not based on the roots of whole-ly justice, it is a variable fragment that in reality may lack justice and may in fact serve the injustice of self-autonomy and self-determination. This is what Christians need to listen for carefully in any call for social justice; or else the sentinels of human life may not be distinguished by their compatibility to the defining theological trajectory and their congruence with the determining relational path essential for justice to be whole and distinctly uncommon from the common composing the human condition.

The integral whole of justice unfolds from the integrity of righteousness, which is inseparable from the irreducible nature of peace. Any compromise of peace compromises righteousness, and conversely, with their compromise directly compromising the flow of justice. The main issue in any compromise is not injustice, though injustice is certainly the unavoidable consequence from compromise. What compromises the integrity of righteousness, the nature of peace, and the whole of justice is simply reductionism. The dynamic of reductionism encompasses the following:

Starting with reducing the theological anthropology defining the primary identity of persons and determining their primary function, and then subtly obscuring the view of sin at its roots, reductionism has promoted, propagated and prevailed with ontological simulations, epistemological illusions and functional delusions to compromise persons, relationships and every level of human life in order to pervade, entrench and enslave us in the human condition.

As the sentinels of human life, we cannot be misled by the common of our surrounding contexts and their influences shaping human life. Our critical battle is not with injustice but targeted solely against reductionism and its workings constructing the common. From the beginning, reductionism has been the sole cause of injustice. Therefore, in our ongoing fight conjointly for justice and against injustice, we must first and foremost engage the battle against reductionism in all its subtle forms and at all its explicit and implicit levels. If we don’t, we (1) cannot ensure the integrity of who is present and the depth of what is involved in how we live, thus can (2) neither have assurance of being compatible with the defining theological trajectory and congruent in the determining relational path essential for justice to be whole and uncommon, (3) nor have confidence that our work for justice and peace has not been compromised by the common (even as the common good).

Accordingly, in this critical battle the fight for justice unfolds right only as the fight for wholeness.

“Blessed are the peacemakers who fight for wholeness, for they are distinguished as the daughters and sons of God,” and “Fully satisfied are these persons who suffer reaction in this fight because of the integrity of their righteousness, for this is the whole-ly identity of the subjects belonging to God’s kingdom family—the complex subjects uncompromisingly embodying and enacting his justice” (Mt 5:9-10), whose identity formation as his whole-ly followers has emerged and unfolded right just as Jesus outlined in irreducible and nonnegotiable integral terms.

Let the sentinels of human life fight ongoingly in the critical battle—with nothing less and no substitutes in clear disjunction with anything less and any substitutes!

[1] Nicholas P. Wolterstorff discusses those opposed to rights talk in Journey toward Justice, 37-41.

[2] Wolterstorff, 43-44.

[3] Wolterstorff, 47.

[4] Wolterstorff, 49.

[5] I discuss the complete Sermon on the Mount in The Gospel of Transformation: Distinguishing the Discipleship and Ecclesiology Integral to Salvation (Transformation Study, 2015). Online at http://www.4X12.org.

[6] For example, see Glen H. Stassen and David P. Gushee, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003).

[7] I discuss the complete identity formation from the Beatitudes in The Gospel of Transformation: Distinguishing the Discipleship and Ecclesiology Integral to Salvation (Transformation Study, 2015), 204-225. Online at http://www.4X12.org.

[8] Wolterstorff also comments on confusing human rights with the rights that human beings have. “But…human rights are just a species of the rights that human beings have.” Journey toward Justice, 129.