The issues of injustice and ethnicity in our country appear to have reached a watershed moment in wake of the murder of George Floyd. With this come various issues which many may prefer not discuss. Can’t we just move on? We’re all equal under the law, what more should we do? Phil Vischer tried to communicate a compelling narrative with a video on various injustices in the black community. The end application of that video? Care.
I find arguments like this uncompelling not because I am not moved by the tears of my brothers and sisters in Christ who have suffered, but because I find them mysteriously absent of gospel application. This is why I am thankful Dr. Bryan Loritts recently shared his thoughts on reparations and the gospel. Dr. Loritts is someone whom I deeply admire. His thoughts after my friend Darrin took his life were some of the most comforting and truthful remarks on the issue I found. Dr. Loritts is trying to help us think through what the gospel in action could look like. He is right that we should be willing and able to talk about these issues and a lack of willingness to do so might reveal something about our hearts that would be unChristian.
Just as Dr. Loritts discussed his desire to discuss these at the table, I would like to throw my two cents on his arguments as he presented them. I would hope that by showing areas of agreement and areas of concern, I am in line with his vision of having a conversation. A chief concern of mine is how these discussions are presented at all. Or to put another way, how the table is being set. It would seem that having concerns or serious disagreement with the gospel demanding societal reparation could be interpreted to be denying that I care or that I am willing to consider the idea. Far from it, by engaging on this issue with a man I deeply respect, I am trying to consider the idea very clearly.
One non-starter with the idea of reparations for the history of slavery and even Jim Crow in our country is that it would be too complicated to carry out. While this pragmatic line of thinking is a legitimate and necessary means of moral reasoning and cannot be dismissed outright, what should chiefly concern us is if reparations are what biblical justice demands. If it is, then we can move on to implications and the limitations regarding the pragmatic implementation of what biblical justice demands. Sometimes what biblical justice demands isn’t fully possible on this side of the return of Christ. But, we must have the conversation before we should simply refuse to discuss because it seems too hard to implement.
Does the gospel demand reparations? One biblical example Dr. Loritts mentions is that of Zacchaeus in Luke 19:1-10. This is a wonderful story of Jesus’ love for sinners and the response of someone who has encountered the radical and revolutionary hospitality of Jesus. Zacchaeus is moved to restore to those from whom he has stolen four fold. Dr. Loritts takes this to be a form of reparations. Zacchaeus’ heart is moved by Jesus and his love for Jesus to restore from those he has stolen. Zacchaeus is part of a system of corruption in tax collecting for Rome and he has participated in systemic injustice. Therefore, after encountering the good news of Jesus he works against the systemic injustice in which he has participated.
I am trying to consider reparations in the light of the gospel. It’s important to bring clarity to the potential limitations of this example and others regarding the broad based application that because Zacchaeus was moved to practice a form of personal restoration or reparations for the wrongs he committed, there therefore should be some form of communal or societal or national reparations. It could be argued from this that reparations for slavery are a natural outworking of the gospel. This is essentially what Dr. Loritts argues in saying “a mature believer places love for neighbor over arguments of silence, the law, questions of culpability and logistical details of who gets the money.” It could also not be argued. In fact, it could prove to be an overreach of what the Bible expects.
As an example, there is an absence of evidence that Jesus desired his disciples to implore the government to divest itself of Gentile-ness and recreate a more equitable Roman system. To read back into the gospels these kinds of implications or even imperatives would be to create a false gospel of sorts. Is it exegetically sound to take this passage which deals with an individual walking in repentance and then make a political demand that the same is expected of a nation, country, or empire? To be certain, the United States has certainly paid reparations and continues to do so. But the line of reasoning I am arguing for is not political but biblical in this situation. There is a difference between a government deciding that reparations are justified and claiming that the gospel demands them and are therefore required.
There are legitimate political and economic arguments for reparations to be made because of slavery and/or Jim Crow. It could be a legitimate means of restitution for injustice. But my question is: are we making the Bible say something that it doesn’t wish to say? While the Bible does lay out an ethical system as a formational tool for God’s people and then those people in turn shape society at large, to claim that the Bible demands governments act in line with it’s ethical system is questionable. Could we make the argument more appropriately utilizing economic and legal precedents for such reparations? Could we argue from natural law that reparations are a legitimate means of correcting a past injustice against a people group? I believe so.
Another example of reparations biblically could be found in Numbers 5:5-9. In this passage, when a person commits a sin against another, the person is not only to confess the sin he has committed but must pay full compensation with interest. Some translations refer to this act of restitution as reparations. This is a legitimate example of biblical reparations. But, consider what verse 8 says, “if the man has no next of kin to whom restitution may be made for the wrong, the restitution for the wrong shall go to the LORD for the priest, in addition to the ram of atonement with which atonement is made for him.” This creates some sort of biblical limit for reparations. It does not say go find someone who is a distant relative and give them the money. It says no next of kin. I take that to mean no immediate living family related to the aggrieved party (my Hebrew is rusty enough such that this brief interpretation could very well be mistaken).
This brings up a legitimate concern regarding the conversation regarding reparations. And, lest we forget how the table has been set, I am not saying that any talk of reparations is on its face illegitimate. I am trying to biblically reason through the issue. Is there a point at which justice unserved, or an injustice, has passed a feasible point of biblical restitution? It’s even hard to type that question because it puts the legitimate pain of people into a category which would seem hopeless for justice. But if we want legitimate biblical justice, we must ask if there is a ‘statute of limitations’ to some issues of justice? Might there be a gospel to be preached amidst situations where injustices persist for which minimal earthly justice can be done? Are there some historical atrocities for which restitution cannot be made? I am not saying that slavery or Jim Crow would be an example of something like this. I am saying that it seems that there could be an argument, biblically, for a statute of limitations on some historical injustices. In the case that the injustice has passed a point of legitimate justice being done, what alternatives to reparations could be explored?
All of this is to add to the conversation not to detract. There are and continue to be legitimate grievances and injustices towards people of color in the United States. This bring us to the question of the gospel. Because I do not believe “care!” is a sufficient application to injustice biblically. If we want to execute justice well, we must know the greatest injustice in history. The injustice of Jesus dying for sins he did not commit on the cross. This paradigm shattering act flips the script on how conversations of justice should go. God used the greatest injustice in human history to restore us to relationship with him. Conversations on justice apart from that reality will invariably drift into conversations about “who deserves what.” And in light of the cross, Jesus Christ got what I deserved. Because of that, I am free to give and be generous and consider reparations for wrongs committed, even if I did not necessarily personally commit the injustice. And because of that, I am free overlook wrongs and not “get what I deserve” because I have been forgiven by Christ. To make gospel demands where the gospel might not demand is dangerous territory (worth considering but dangerous territory nonetheless). In our efforts to explore what the gospel demands, let’s make sure we don’t add to the gospel itself.