Guest commentary by David Moe
If I were asked to choose one of my favorite Bible verses, I would choose Psalm 85:10b, not because it is a verse to be memorized easily, but because it emphasizes the integral relationship of justice and peace: justice and peace will kiss each other. There are, of course, plenty of Bible verses that discuss justice and peace, but they discuss the two separately. But the psalmist stresses the need of connection between justice and peace. While the connection between justice and peace is of much concern for Christian scholars and politicians, some prioritize peace over justice while others prioritize justice over peace. But I would follow the latter: Justice has to be prioritizes over peace.
In making the latter case, let us consider this: Justice brings peace; peace does not bring justice. There is no peace where injustice rules, even when law and order are used by force. Injustice creates inequalities and causes violence in different parts of the world. If we want peace, we have first to struggle for justice. But what kind of justice and peace? It is not clear what kind of justice and peace the psalmist meant. According to Gerard von Rad, the Hebraic concept of justice and peace are the standards not only for humans’ vertical relation to God, but also for their horizontal relationship to their fellow humans and the world. Justice in the Hebrew Bible is never blind justitia, it is always defined as an aspect of open-eyed compassion and divine demand for human compassion toward the oppressed (Psalm 146:7-9, for example). Likewise, peace means living a blessed life in communion with God, with humans and with nature.
What kind of justice?
In our present context, scholars speak of two types of justice. This does not mean that there are two or three or more justices. If there were two or three or more justices, justice would struggle against justice, and no justice will be done. Justice must be one and universal so that justice would struggle against injustice. When we seek for justice, one must be wrong and the other must be right (see “Justice” by Nicholas Wolterstorff). In a postcolonial world, the oppressors are seen as the wrongs and the oppressed as the rights. So by “two types of justice,” we mean “distributive justice and restorative justice.”
John Rawls defined “distributive justice as fairness.” His theory is based on two aims: maximizing of the liberty of the individual and providing disadvantaged people with the best opportunities. I focus on restorative justice. When it comes for implementing justice, restorative justice plays a crucial role. To speak of restorative justice, let us first speak of divine justice. God’s justice is a model for us. God is never neutral. God always sides with the oppressed and resists the oppressors who rob the rights of the former (Psalm 146:7). It is through the justice of divine compassion that those without rights came to receive their rights and the unjust are converted to justice.
Luke applied this type of justice of equality in such a way that “God has brought down the mighty [oppressors] from their thrones and lifted up the lowly [oppressed]” (Luke 1:52). God is just because God restores the democratic principles of rights for those oppressed and seeks to set rights those who are unrighteous. The highest form of God’s justice is the justice of compassion toward the oppressed and the weak. Thus, the psalmist prays, “in your justice of compassion, deliver me” (Psalm 31:1b). It is through the justice of compassion that God destroys inequalities and restores justice of equality between the oppressed and oppressors. God’s justice is not vindictive or reactive, but creative or transformative justice, which leads to lasting peace.
What kind of peace?
Thus, justice is a precondition for peace. But what kind of peace? Like justice, there are “two types of peace.” In peace studies, the distinction is made between a negative peace and a positive peace. Negative peace is defined as the absence of war and conflict. Positive peace, on the other hand, is defined as the presence of justice with the democratic principles of conflicts. My focus is on the latter without excluding the former because a Christian concept of peace combines both definitions. Both approaches could be implemented because they each have strengths and weaknesses. In my military country of Myanmar, the problem of negative peace is that it is often confused with “ceasefire.” Without the negative elements of peace in terms of conflict, the positive elements of peace do not function either. Since peace is not a synonym of passivity, conflict is required to correct the wrongs of oppressors.
Thus, it is fair to note that a Christian concept of peace could combine both definitions, giving the positive definition of peace precedence through the ethics of struggle for justice. It follows from this fact that peace is not a state of affairs but a process of struggle against injustice and violence. More importantly, violence can only be overcome by nonviolent means, and peace can only be achieved by peaceful means. Paul said, “Overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21b). Echoing Paul, in 1957 Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” Similarly, the Buddha said, “Hatred cannot be appeased by hatred; hatred is appeased by love. Violence cannot be appeased by violence; violence is appeased by nonviolence.” This is the eternal law of Buddhism.
Overcoming violence nonviolently is possible. But it may require martyrdom and torture. We may think of Gandhi and Dr. King. We may also think of Aung San Suu Kyi, the Lady of Myanmar, who is on her way to overcoming militarism nonviolently. We all know that her party National League for Democracy (NLD) recently won the military-led party Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) last November (see my blog for more). We can think above all of Christ who overcame violence nonviolently and commanded us to overcome violence nonviolently by being the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9).
Where there is justice, there is peace
In sum, the psalmist says, “justice and peace will kiss each other” in a right order, not “peace and justice will kiss each other.” His right order of saying “justice and peace will kiss each other” implies two inseparable aims: the two should be implemented simultaneously; the two should not be divorceable from each other. But if one had to prioritize between the two, it is fair to say that justice-seeking had to be prioritized over peace-building because peace is the fruit of justice. This does not mean that justice goes before peace in isolation. When we struggle against injustice and violence, our aim is to achieve justice and peace simultaneously. Where there is justice, there is peace. Justice and peace bring mutual benefits to the oppressed and oppressors – not as winners and losers that promote hatred, but rather as new humanities that promote mutual acceptance, living side by side with each other. Universal peace rests upon universal justice.
Questions for discussion:
- Does God’s solidarity with the oppressed not contradict the impartial nature of God’s love for everyone?
- Do you think the oppressed is “right” and the oppressor is “wrong” in the contexts of oppressive injustice?
- If God in the cross of Christ has conquered the devils, which cause injustice and violence in the world, why do injustice and violence still occur?
- Are two characteristics of justice (distributive and restorative justice) and of peace (negative and positive peace) helpful?
- What is your understanding of the psalmist’s statement, “justice and peace will kiss each other”?
DAVID THANG MOE is a Burmese Presbyterian scholar, currently working toward a Ph.D. at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He has published several articles in peer-reviewed journals, including forthcoming “The Significance of Karl Barth’s Political Theology for the Politics of Myanmar” in International Journal of Public Theology.
