Justice... not 'just us'

The ideas and viewpoints expressed in the posts on the Ideas and Creations blog are solely the view of the author(s). Luther College's mission statement calls us to "embrace diversity and challenge one another to learn in community," and to be "enlivened and transformed by encounters with one another, by the exchange of ideas, and by the life of faith and learning." Alumni, faculty, staff, students and friends of the college are encouraged to express their views, model "good disagreement" and engage in respectful dialogue.

For the last two weeks in my Religion 239: Clamoring for Change course, students and I have been reading the book "Occupy Religion: Theology of the Multitude." We have been discussing the issue of "justice," and playing with an image of God as one who works from the bottom-up on behalf of many rather than one who works from the top-down on behalf of a few.

A fundamental principle within this "bottom-up" theology is the idea of God taking sides (a view quite common in most of the "liberative" theologies). Many people, however, are often uncomfortable with the idea of God taking sides. They often assert that such an image contradicts the idea of an impartial and all-loving God who cares equally for all people.

A bottom-up theology of God asserts that God is a God who exists in relationship with all of creation at the same time every created thing is in relationship with every other created thing. While the relationships that involve human beings may be governed by several principles, I believe one principle that governs all such relationships is the principle of "justice."

The term "justice" often means different things to different people. A common understanding of justice in the United States is the notion of "punitive justice," which focuses on inflicting punishment for breaking laws. The obsession with punitive justice in the United States is reflected by the fact that the United States has the highest incarceration rate of all industrialized nations. With only five percent of the world population, the United States has 25 percent of the world's prison population.

While punitive justice might be one way of thinking about justice, it's not the dominant or prevailing understanding of justice promoted within most religious tradition of the world.

The authors of "Occupy Religion" write, "God's justice is about a struggle against injustice, which requires addressing the imbalance of power that leads to injustice rather than covering it up." They go on to write, "In situations of grave imbalances of power, a well-meaning effort to mediate is not enough; taking sides with those who do not benefit from the imbalance of power is the only way to change and to make things right."

A common understanding of "justice" within many religious traditions focuses on correcting imbalances. Many of these imbalances result in various forms of social inequalities, and these social inequalities can only be fixed by taking sides. To not take sides is in fact taking the side of those benefiting from the imbalance.

One example of an imbalance resulting in social inequality is the fact that the top one percent of Americans (approximately 400 people) possesses more wealth than sixty percent of all Americans.

In recent debates over increasing the minimum wage, arguments have been made that if companies like Walmart are forced to give employees a minimum wage of $15 dollars an hour it will force such stores to raise prices, making it difficult for "the poor people" whom they serve to afford their products. Very few (if any) of these arguments, however, mention the fact that six Walmart heirs hold more wealth than 42 percent of Americans combined.

This type of gross inequality is not the product of some people working harder than others. It is the product of an exploitative relationship.

Our lives are constituted by relationships. The question is, "what is the nature of these relationships?" As debates regarding minimum wage reveal, and as the authors of "Occupy Religion" assert, "People are 'less fortunate' not by accident but because others benefit from their misfortune, and they have little choice but to work for lower wages and fewer benefits."

Exploitative relationships result in situations of "just us" rather than justice.

When, over a 28 year period of time, income grows by 275 percent for the wealthiest one percent of American households and only 37 percent for the middle sixty percent and 18 percent for the poorest twenty percent, the wealthiest one percent represent the "just us" advantaged by this imbalance.

When the rate of drug use for blacks and whites in the state of Iowa is essentially identical, but the state arrests blacks at a rate eight times higher than whites for marijuana possession, black people represent the "just us" disproportionately disadvantaged.

When one out of every four homeless men in America has served in the U.S. military, veterans end up representing a "just us" disproportionately disadvantaged.

When nearly six in 10 poor adults are women, and nearly six in 10 poor children live in families headed by women, women become a "just us" disproportionately disadvantaged.

When one child or teen dies or is injured from guns every 30 minutes, and when more children and teens die from guns every three days than died in the Newtown massacre, and when the number of children under five killed by guns in 2010 was higher than the number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty that same year, it should be obvious that children are a "just us" disadvantaged by irresponsible gun laws, practices and policies in America.

When imbalances result in certain groups (i.e. "just us") being grossly advantaged or disadvantaged over other groups, then there is a lack of justice.

Justice is about removing the root causes of gross imbalances and fostering relationships that are mutually beneficial for all and not for "just us."

It seems that much of the world's injustice is a result of focusing on "just us" rather than justice.

I'm grateful for the opportunity this semester to reflect, wrestle, contemplate and struggle with my students as we think about the differences between a top-down and a bottom-up theology. I'm also inspired because while uniformity of views is rarely attained or promoted in my class, it seems most of us agree it's time to "take sides" and to advance justice rather than situations of  "just us." 

Guy Nave

Guy Nave

Guy Nave, professor of religion, has been part of the Religion Department faculty since 2001, focusing on the topics of Christianity, biblical studies, religion and social justice, the social construction of religious meaning, and race-religion-and-politics. Professor Nave is currently researching the power, politics and meaning behind the rhetoric of "change," as well as the role of Christianity in bringing about social "change." In addition to writing for Luther College's Ideas and Creations blog, Nave is the founder of the online social media platform Clamoring for Change and is a guest contributor to a number of online sites, including Sojourners Commentary blog series.

View all posts

{ Return to Ideas and Creations for more posts. }


  • November 13 2014 at 9:39 pm
    Jen Clougherty

    wonderful - thank you.

  • November 13 2014 at 9:43 pm
    Lily Brondyke
    As a student currently in this course I read this and was reminded of how taken aback I initially was when we began discussing God taking sides. A traditional teaching in many Christian faiths is a God who loves everyone. I did not see how this loving God could possibly take sides. But then I thought about the implications of this God. This God is passive, more of a moderator than an activist. I think that through the life of Jesus we see a God who is not at all passive but rather takes the role of an activist constantly working against this "just us" way of thinking. However, I do have to say I see the battle and the struggle people could have accepting this view. If God is on the side of the oppressed how could things have gotten this bad? How do you tell someone experiencing the crippling injustice imposed by society that God is on their side?
  • November 13 2014 at 10:31 pm
    Guy D. Nave

    Thanks, Lily, for the honest and transparent sharing.

    Activism on one's behalf doesn't always means things are going to "work out great" for you, but I do think it is always empowering to know you're not alone in your struggle. I think this is at the heart of the gospel message that God in Jesus is also "Immanuel" (i.e. "God with us"). I can't begin tell you how many times as a kid growing up facing racial discrimination I found strength in knowing that I was not alone in my struggle. I believe the idea of "God on your side" when "the facing crippling injustice imposed by society" is a major source of hope and internal strength that allows one to resist despair and to continue to fight against injustice.

  • November 13 2014 at 10:38 pm
    Guy D. Nave


    I hate the fact that you can never go back and edit a comment. It looks like I transposed two words in my last sentence. I'm sure you figured it out, but the last sentence should have read, I believe the idea of "God on your side" when facing "the crippling injustice imposed by society" is a major source of hope and internal strength that allows one to resist despair and to continue to fight against injustice.

    Thanks, again.

  • December 4 2014 at 4:05 am
    Fay from Anderson
    Dr. Guy Nave. Excellent!!! I will be discussing this with all I'm in dialogue with. I going to now read your succeeding blogs right now. Love you & I Praise God for what He has put in you. Keep speaking Truth & I will pass on.
  • May 13 2015 at 12:41 am
    Bharathi Baskar.B

    Thanks for your valuable posting, it was very informative. Am working in Erp Software Company In India

Add a comment

The following fields are not to be filled out. Skip to Submit Button.
Not Comment
(This is here to trap robots. Don't put any text here.)
not URL
(This is here to trap robots. Don't put any text here.)
(This is here to trap robots. Don't put any text here.)