Rev. Tom Lenhart
Sermon September 28, 2008
“Is God’s Justice – Our Justice?”
Amos 5: 21-25, Matthew 5: 38-48, and Matthew 20: 1-1-16

Let us pray.

Gracious God, open our hearts and minds by the power of your Holy Spirit, that we may hear your Word with joy. Amen

Amos tells the Kingdom of Israel at the height of its power that God doesn’t care about its acts of homage. What God desires is that “justice roll down like water, and righteousness like an ever flowing stream.” (Amos 5: 24) The Magna Carte promises “to none shall we sell, or to none deny or delay right or justice.” The preamble to our Constitution declares the goal of this nation --of “we the people” -- is “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”   In 1945 the Charter of United Nations first declared that its purpose was “to establish the conditions under which justice and respect of the obligations arising from treaties … can be maintained.” And finally the prophet Micah wrote “what does the Lord require of [us] but to do justice, to love kindness, to walk humbly with your God?”[1]  There is no question that the pursuit of justice is a central aspect of our faith not simply of our secular, political world. It seems pretty clear that when it comes to justice, we should -- as the Nike ad says -- “just do it.” But is it so simple? How do we “do” it? What is real justice?  Does anyone ever forfeit their right to justice?

            I started my first real job in September of 1972 as a law clerk to a federal judge in Manhattan. He was an experienced judge who had been appointed to the bench ten years earlier by President Kennedy. He had been an accomplished lawyer – a named partner in one of the city’s great firms and Alger Hiss’s trial lawyer in the famous spy trial of the early 50s. He was a charming, friendly man with a brilliant and progressive legal mind. Several weeks later the Judge had his first sentencing of that term. The case was a modest crime involving a postal worker who had stolen a few hundred dollars from a letter. Stealing from the US mails was a federal crime only because the postal service was a government agency at the time. Over lunch my co-clerk and I asked the Judge what sentence he was going to impose. The judge with a twinkle in his eye responded with a limerick “you steal from the mail you go to jail.” “Fellows,” he said, “the mail system is safe and reliable because everyone who works there knows that if they do anything wrong they will go to jail.” Later, that afternoon, I sat in my first sentencing hearing and listened to the defendant receive a sentence of 15 to 18 months in federal prison for having stolen less than $1000.

            Sadly, just a few weeks later the judge died. But shortly thereafter a newly appointed judge asked me to become his clerk. The differences between the two judges were significant. The second was the youngest federal judge in the country -- a mere 12 years older than I was. He was appointed by President Nixon and was a conservative. He was also a warm and compassionate human being.  Wouldn’t you know it one of his first cases   involved a postal worker stealing from the mail? Again, only a small amount was at issue less than a thousand dollars. And within days we learned that the defendant was going to plead guilty. A sentencing hearing was scheduled. I was now three months into clerking, a seasoned veteran -- I knew it all. I did not need to ask the judge what sentence he would impose. If you stole from the mail, you went to jail. That was the right and just way to deal with this crime.

The morning of the hearing the Judge out of the blue came into my tiny cubical of an office and said “Please research and let me know if I can sentence the postal worker we are seeing this afternoon to one’s days probation. I want her to check in today with the probation department and then be done. Can I do that?” Needless to say I was surprised. But I was the law clerk and so off I went and did the research and concluded that the Judge could do as he had wanted. Later that afternoon he sentenced this woman to one’s day probation.

Was justice done in both of these cases? In light of the second sentence was the first one just. Was the second one too lenient so as to undercut the concept of justice?

Let me add a few additional facts to the mix. The first case was pretty non-descript. The record revealed no special reason for the crime other than the defendant’s desire for money coupled with the belief that he could get away with it – perhaps he had before! The postal service at the time, and I suspect still to this day, is a remarkably secure system. Surveillance is extensive and punishment generally sure. Yet, the second case was different. The woman involved had a child with a serious medical condition. She had gotten behind on her rent because of her daughter’s medical expenses. Her crime was – the record suggested -- the desperate act of a mother at the edge of a terrible abyss with seemingly no other options. Does that change how we feel about the justice of these sentences? If you think -- given the additional facts -- that both sentences were just, would the answer be the same if we reversed them? Would justice have been “done”, if the woman had gone to jail and the man had got off with a slap on the wrist? And let me add to the mix the reality that being convicted of a federal crime, no matter what for and no matter how long the sentence makes future employment extremely difficult. That was part of the judge’s rational for the second sentence. That woman postal worker was never going to work for the government again and was going to find it difficult to get any job as a convicted felon. She had in the judges eyes been severely punished already.

What would you have done in each case?

                        X                     X                     X

What is justice? Many minds for centuries, indeed, for millennia have grappled with this question. It seems to me that justice involves the following: first, fairness in the process of determining guilt or innocence or who is right between those in a dispute. Justice is not for sale and should be determined without regard to anything other than the facts related to the issue at hand. Thus, race, gender, religion, and financial wherewithal should be irrelevant. The classic symbol of justice blindfolded -- as on the cover of our bulletin -- captures this aspect of justice. This is, of course, the ideal. Sadly justice is tainted at times by all of these influences, perhaps most pervasively by financial worth. Second, justice requires that the result be correct as far as is humanly possible. Thank God for fingerprint technology and DNA testing. Finally, justice also requires that the penalty be proportional to the crime – that the award reflect the injuries and damages sustained. 

Why do we care about justice? Quite simply, without it our world would be ruled by the strongest and the most powerful. Think of those places in the world where there is no real justice --  life is capricious, unfair and unpredictable, violent and usually short. The existence and reality of justice makes life livable, predictable and enjoyable. The desire for justice is thus an extension of the Golden Rule – which counsels that we “do unto others as we have them do unto us”or treat others as we would want to be treated. In other words we believe justice is done when we can put ourselves in the place of the people involved and say yes that’s fair.  

But is that how God would have us understand justice? What of the parable of the workers in the vineyard, we heard read a few moments ago. Is it just and fair that the workers starting at 4 and 5 PM in the afternoon are paid the same as the workers who started at 9 AM? I don’t know about you but if I were the morning worker I am not sure I would like this at all.  Or maybe I would plan to start work every day at 4 PM instead of at 9 AM.

It is an odd parable. What is interesting is that Jesus likely took it from an earlier story in wide circulation. When the early Rabbis were asked to explain this same story they suggested the late arriving workers got the same pay because they had done as much in two hours as those working all day. The payment was proportional to the work.[2] Doesn’t that sound a whole lot better? Isn’t the outcome more just and fairer understood that way? Certainly, it is.  But I am sorry to say that’s not in the story as Jesus tells it. No, the late workers get the same pay without reference to the amount they picked.

Jesus challenges conventional notions of justice and fairness here. But he is not unfair by any means. Remember that the workers starting at 9 AM get what they negotiated – a full day’s pay. They were treated fairly. No -- Jesus is saying that proportionality is not alwaysenough. In Jesus time a day laborer got one denarius a day for work. That was just enough to live on. What Jesus is suggesting that in deciding how to treat another justly we must never forget mercy and grace. That the just goal was to insure that all the workers could subsist and, thus, the owner gave each enough to live on.

Similarly Amos admonishes the Israelites to do more than be pious and fair. Amos is writing during one of the high points in the Kingdom of Israel’s history. Times were good for many. But Amos reminds them that justice requires that they reach out to those for whom the times are not good.

Our faith is a radical faith. What does that mean? It means that we are challenged at times to go beyond convention. Several weeks ago we reflected on the challenge of faith to forgive those who are seemingly unforgiveable.  Today we are examining how as people of faith we need to go beyond simple fairness and proportionality when we administer justice. Why, because of the fact we are all God’s children, all beloved by God. Remember those words of the Sermon on the Mount, Jonny read,

But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brother and sisters what more are you doing than others?  

God wants us to go further. We are asked when we seek to do justice to always remember that the person in the dock is a child of God. And therefore justice should be tempered with mercy.

Moreover, Jesus is making it clear that no one ever forfeits their right to justice? When I was at Harvard I spent some time reading the transcripts and the exhibits from the Nuremberg war crimes trials after World War II. It was hard going as the crimes were unspeakable and the defendants were monstrous. And yet the trials were fair, indeed, beyond fair. These men who embodied injustice got a full measure of justice. And it was right that they did.

Just as it is easy to love those who love us, it is easy to be just and fair in normal times. But when the times are not normal when fear lurks and security is a concern being just is sometimes difficult. In fearful and frightening times our human instinct is to do everything possible for our security. And we want vengeance to get those who would or have harmed us. But our faith says our enemies must be treated justly, no matter what they have done. God’s justice and mercy, like forgiveness, are not earned but freely given.   God’s sun shines on the evil and the good and the divine rins fall on both too. Thanks be to God.