Chapter 8 of Generous Justice covers peace, beauty, and justice, and it is the final chapter in Tim Keller’s book. This has been an arduous task, and if you’ve persevered through the whole series, kudos to you.
With this being the end, I look forward to moving on as I have much other reading and writing awaiting my attention. Before moving on, there are three issues in chapter 8 that demand attention. First, we will revisit how Keller’s redefinition of justice is problematic. Second, we’ll see Keller distort Scripture again to make his case. Third, we will look at Keller’s final parting shot to those who disagree with his argument.
There is one item I desire to mention before moving into the critiques. While I sharply disagree with Keller’s redefinition of justice, this does not mean I disagree with the Christian need to show mercy. Mercy is a praiseworthy virtue all Christians should cultivate, but it is not justice. Definitions are important. I praise Keller for his apparent heart for the poor, but his flawed thinking about justice is both dangerous and unhelpful.
Redefining Justice
Throughout this series, I’ve traced Keller’s redefinition of justice and how he contradicts himself with his various definitions of justice. Keller defines justice as everything from charity to giving someone his due. He’s argued for Marxist ideas such as redistributing wealth and implying justice is found in equal outcomes. All of this comes to a head in chapter 8 as Keller adds even more confusion to his definition of justice. Keller claims, “In general, to ‘do justice’ means to live in a way that generates a strong community where human beings can flourish” (177). Then he adds that doing justice is marked by individuals “disadvantaging themselves” (179). Justice is now about building communities and disadvantaging yourself. This is a long way from “giving someone their due.” Definitionally, justice cannot be two contradictory things.
Keller gets the phrase doing justice from Micah 6:8. As I explained in an earlier post, that passage has nothing to Keller’s proposed redefinition. He ignores this verse is a call to covenant faithfulness. In Micah 6:8, God calls Israel to return to him by keeping the covenant. It is a call for Israel to give God his due according to who he is, and according to the terms of the covenant. Doing justice in Micah 6:8 has everything to do with wholeheartedly walking with God, and nothing to do with giving mercy to the poor.
Despite this reality, Keller argues justice is actually about building communities and disadvantaging yourself. So not only is justice not giving someone their due, but it is about you not getting your due. Keller has turned the meaning of justice on its head so that he can use it however he desires to advance his argument. The problem is, using justice in contradictory ways makes the term meaningless. What could possibly motivate this distortion? Keller has told us, charity must be a justice issue because otherwise, he can’t require it of people. Keller desires the authority only God possesses, to command the human heart.
The Distortion of Scripture
Another common theme continues in this chapter, as Keller distorts Scripture passages to make his case. In earlier chapters, Keller ignored the plain context of the Sabbath year laws to argue for the redistribution of wealth and the relativization of private property. His arguments were baffling as they display egregious interpretive errors. In chapter 8, Keller similarly asserts, “the principle is that God personally identifies very closely with the widow, and the immigrant, the most powerless…in Proverbs we see God identifying with the poor symbolically” (185). He justifies this argument by pointing to Proverbs 19:17 and 14:31.
Both of these passages stress that God will honor those who treat the poor righteously and punish those who don’t. Does this establish God identifies with the poor in a special way? No, as even a cursory reading of Proverbs displays that some poverty is earned as the result of foolishness (Prov 6:6-8, 12:27; 15:19; 20:4; 21:25; 24:30-31; 26:13). In this way, some poverty is a judgment from God through the natural process of sowing and reaping. Consequently, God does not identify with the poor just because they are poor. These two different strands of verses in Proverbs must be held in tension, but Keller refuses to do so.
The passages Keller cites are more about the reality that it's easy to treat the powerless as less than human. Christian doctrine teaches us that every human, of every status, race, income, etc. bear the image of God. To sin against that image, whether it be a rich or poor man, is to sin against God. It is tempting to forget the vulnerable are image-bearers, but these Proverbs rightly remind us that every human bears God’s image and has certain rights.
This week, I was reading Donald Macleod’s Christ Crucified, and he explained the biblical idea of justice when it comes to wronging others, including the vulnerable. He correctly states, “Another is the fact that every violation of human rights is a violation of a right conferred by God; additionally, every crime against a person is a crime against that image of God in which every creature is made. Every sin, therefore, is a defiance of God’s majesty” (186). Macleod’s analysis is much closer to the biblical standard than Keller’s. The verses cited by Keller demonstrate that even the poor bear God’s image, and therefore no one is to take advantage of them. This is wonderfully true, and it is far from suggesting that God prefers the poor simply because they are poor.
The End of the Matter: A Parting Shot
I understand the desire of a writer to end on a succinct point, but Keller oversteps this practice with his final sentence of Generous Justice. He declares (emphasis mine), “A life poured out in doing justice for the poor is the inevitable sign of any real, true gospel faith” (189). This is the concluding application of this entire work—the sign of any true faith is doing justice. It is safe to assume that what Keller means by doing justice is the definition laid out in the pages of this book. Keller asserts the one surefire fruit of saving faith is living out his redefinition of justice. As such, this statement draws a line down the middle of evangelicalism. By implication, Keller asserts any Christian who does not dedicate his life to serving the poor, as Keller defines it, does not have a real, true gospel faith. This is the new measuring stick of salvation. According to Keller, the end of the matter for Christian faith is pouring out your life to the poor.
I do not find biblical warrant for such a sweeping statement. True faith bears fruit, but not all Christians are called to serve in the same areas. The one fruit which is inevitable for all Christians is growth in holiness. The process of sanctification is often slow and messy and takes different twists and turns for every individual. Nonetheless, holiness is the mark of all true faith and is thus necessary to see God (Heb. 12:14). So while showing mercy to the poor is a natural outworking of the Christian faith, it does not follow that every Christian must dedicate his entire life to serving the physically/financially poor.
By asserting such an extra-biblical standard, Keller flirts with legalism. He adds a stumbling block between men and God that the Scripture simply does not. Salvation comes by grace through faith, which leads to good works. There are a variety of good works that aren’t contained in Keller’s narrow and distorted view of justice. The end of the matter is found in a living faith, which manifests itself in a growing personal holiness lived out in a myriad of ways. Unfortunately, Keller dismisses this truth as he swings and misses on his attempted knockout punch. Keller’s final shot about justice is ironically rather ungenerous.
Levi J. Secord