Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

     I think the quote, "an eye for an eye", is the simplest expression  of
     "pure  justice".   But  in its simplicity it overlooks much, like, for
     example, mitigating circumstances, or motives, or that  a  perpetrator
     may  feel  remorse  for  the action and be able to make up for it more
     completely if left unharmed.  The aim of "pure justice" is punishment.
     The aim of justice applied with charity is to recognize the complexity
     of human interactions and to seek reform wherever possible.

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

Alvin,

	I possibly didn't make my basenote clear enough.

	Let's say you work 2 hours a week at the local soup kitchen.
This is a service of charity; that is, a gift of unselfish love.  But,
suppose after a while you start wondering why the number of patrons
at the soup kitchen begins to grow or you starting seeing a different
variety of patron; young families, for example.  And say you begin to
identify systemic causes for the new influx of people frequenting the
Soup Kitchen.  Addressing those causes becomes a matter of justice, rather
than of charity.

	Another way to look at it:  The work of Mother Theresa is clearly
charity.  But is the work of Amnesty International the work of charity or
the work of justice?

	The "eye for an eye" formula of justice was intended to put a
ceiling on retribution, rather than a mandate to be fulfilled.

Peace,
Richard

.2>     I possibly didn't make my basenote clear enough.

     Since no one else answered, guess we don't have any way of knowing  if
     you weren't clear or I just misunderstood.  :^D

.2> identify[ing] systemic causes for the new influx of people frequenting the
.2> Soup Kitchen.  Addressing those causes becomes a matter of justice, rather
.2> than of charity.

     If the new people don't fit the original mandate of the Soup  Kitchen,
     do  the  organizers change or enforce the policy?  I suppose it's just
     to ask people to respect the stated goals of  the  Soup  Kitchen,  but
     it's charity to alter those goals to include these new applicants.  So
     I'd say addressing those causes could be either depending on the final
     decision.

.2> ............. is the work of Amnesty International ........... charity or
.2> ........... justice?

     Depends on your point of view.  If you believe people have the  rights
     that  Amnesty  International  says  people have, it's justice.  If you
     don't believe people have those rights, but that what AI does is noble
     just the same, it's charity.  Personally I believe it's the former.

.2>      The "eye for an eye" formula of justice was intended to put a
.2> ceiling on retribution, rather than a mandate to be fulfilled.

     Picky, picky.  :^D

     Good point, though.  However I would be interested to  know  how  many
     people  use  this expression in same sense I did, i.e., as primarily a
     definition of justice.

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

    Good thoughts, Alvin.
    
    It seems to me, though, that the greater good is accomplished by the
    one who seeks to eradicate the need for the existance of the Soup
    Kitchen (justice), rather than simply perpetuating the service provided
    by the Soup Kitchen (charity).
    
    Peace,
    Richard

     Going back to your base note, I take it the original  topic  meant  to
     deal  with  justice  and  charity generally.  As such, I think that as
     long as there are people, the higher goal would be to mix justice  and
     charity.   But  you  raise  an  interesting thought.  Could it be that
     wherever we find the application of charity is necessary, we've  found
     the symptom of a problem?

     Peace,

     Alvin

    Alvin .5,
    
    	Now you're on to it!
    
    Peace,
    Richard

I believe the word 'agape' is the Greek word which Paul used here,
and is translated 'charity.'

Retrieval rating: 100, Document: bible$disk:[BIBLE.NT]07-ICOR-13.-KJV;1
***********************
13:4  �Charity� suffereth long, [and] is kind; �charity� envieth
not; �charity� vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
13:5  Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is
not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
***********************
13:7  Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all
things, endureth all things.
13:8  �Charity� never faileth:
***********************
13:13  And now abideth faith, hope, �charity,� these three; but
the greatest of these [is] �charity.�
***********************

Peace,
Richard

    This is the wrong note for quotes, this is one I've always
   liked:

      "One who receives a benefit should never forget it; one who
      bestows should never remember it."

                                         -Pierre Charron


                                                               Mike

    Interesting topic - it touches on many issues I am in the process of
    sorting out in my own faith walk these days.
    
    I've been working with a soup kitchen for 4 years now, and I am
    increasingly aware that we (the local church, in this case) are simply
    putting a band-aid on a ruptured artery.  Our numbers have grown from
    35 on the first night 6 years ago to between 100 and 150 each Saturday
    night now.  Many of us who have worked at the ministry throughout those
    years see the greater justice would be working for the systemic changes
    in a society that has allowed some to fall through the cracks.  Each of
    us, in our own way, is pursuing some way to do just that.  The larger
    question, I suppose, is 'what is the church (feel free to define church
    from your own perspective - I read it as 'body of Christ') doing about
    issues of hunger, poverty, violence, etc.?'  _Should_ the church do
    anything as a corporate body?  Or should it remain totally separate,
    doing the day-to-day acts of charity?
    
    re: an eye for an eye
    
    I agree with one of the previous replies.  The Hebrew Bible's
    admonition is that the punishment should never exceed the crime.  If a
    person blinds another in one eye, the victim may not, for example,
    blind the other totally, for that would be a greater crime.  It was
    Jesus' teaching on this matter that basically said 'forget retribution
    of any kind.  In fact, turn the other cheek - this is following the 
    higher ground.' [paraphrase mine :-)]
    
    
    Still thinking as I ctrl/z outta here...
    
    
    Sue
    
    

>    The larger
>    question, I suppose, is 'what is the church (feel free to define church
>    from your own perspective - I read it as 'body of Christ') doing about
>    issues of hunger, poverty, violence, etc.?'  _Should_ the church do
>    anything as a corporate body?  Or should it remain totally separate,
>    doing the day-to-day acts of charity?

Sue .9,

	Yes, you've got it exactly.

	The church does a tremendous amount of good in the world, but I am
of the opinion that, more often than not, the church does not take a bold
stand in addressing the systemic causes of issues such as hunger, poverty,
violence, etc..

	The typical church has an annual Christmas food drive or perhaps a
barrel in which non-perishables may be placed on an ongoing basis.  The church
might also collect warm clothing and blankets, or have some other program
of benevolence for those in need.  These are good and charitable things to
do.  I have no problem with any of this.  I contribute to such efforts myself.

	At the same time, it concerns me that most churchpeople never get
beyond the dropbox or the collection plate when it comes to charity.  Many
times, even the people who work at the Soup Kitchen wouldn't dream of sitting
down and breaking bread at the same table with those whom they serve.  It just
seems like such things are kept at a safe and comfortable distance for most
people.  Oh, we know about the issues.  We've seen them on TV from the safety
of our living rooms.  I'm concerned that charitable giving may sometimes
salve the conscience and render it impotent.

	Addressing the causes of poverty (and the causes of wealth, for that
matter) opens up a whole new can of worms.  Some people may become offended
because of the way they find themselves directly or indirectly contributing
to situation.  Some people may fear and resist the changes which might accompany
any disruption of the status quo.  And I'm afraid too many times the church
is guilty of "going along to get along."

Peace,
Richard