"Resurrecting Justice" by Douglas Harink. A Review

 

She was a young military intelligence officer who had recently become a Christian. I was about mid-way through my Air Force career and had been a believer for over a decade. We orbited in different constellations of friends and relations. Nevertheless, she invited my wife and I over to a dinner party she was having with her associates. The group was primarily made up of Democrats who were probably “centrists” and I was a Republican and committed conservative. But we played well together until the discussion came around to politics. The oldest guest and I began to have a vibrant discussion that loudly and energetically took over the dinner conversation, with our young host speechless and stunned. My dialogue partner was firm and thoughtful in his position, raised questions I had never thought of, and received rebuttals from me he had never considered. In the end, to the astonishment of our host and the other dinners, we shook hands and complimented each other, leaving the scene with “That was a most enjoyable discussion!” That’s what it was like to read “Resurrecting Justice: Reading Romans for the Life of the World” by Douglas Harink, professor of theology at The King's University in Edmonton, Alberta. This 248-page softback was an insightful read, opening doors into areas I hadn’t thought about, while presenting perspectives I strongly disagreed with. A most enjoyable discussion!

 

Harink’s whole agenda in the volume “is to show that Romans is a letter deeply concerned with justice and to explain what justice means according to the good news that Paul proclaimed” (18). To do this, the author offers a reading of Romans – not a full-bodied commentary, but more of a working through the entirety of Romans looking for what Paul says about justice/righteousness. He lands where classic Protestants want him to land but takes it into other areas and aspects. To work through all thirteen chapters was intriguing and effective, as he builds his case. Some of the questions his earlier chapters raised in my mind (for example, the place of the Law), came to be answered in the later chapters. One will need to stick with the whole manuscript before they come to final conclusions.

 

There were two areas, out of several, that stuck out positively to me. The first was the wrath of God. It seems to me that Harink gets it mostly right and doesn’t shy away from this controversial point. “The gospel arrives as judgment on the systems of the world for the sake of justice and life. We must see then that God’s wrath is God’s mercy; God’s wrath against systems of idolatry and injustice is good news for those who are enslaved, downtrodden, and destroyed by them. God’s wrath liberates! The apocalypse [revelation] of Jesus Messiah is the arrival of God’s justice, wrath, and mercy as a single liberating event” (39). As I have often said to my congregation, what’s good news for some, is bad news for others. And I think the author does well in presenting this same idea.

 

The second is the observation he makes – and sticks with throughout the remainder of the book – regarding God’s promise to Abraham, that he would inherit the world (Romans 4:13). As Harink points out, “Abraham received and trusted God’s word as a divine promise, but not as a divine mandate…Abraham refused inheriting the world and becoming the father of many nations as a mandate to be achieved through his own energy and might” (61). The author hits the nail on the head, and continues driving it in deeper in almost every chapter, because, according to the author, this “for Paul is the gospel itself: it is precisely in Abraham’s walking the way of trust and leaving the outcome to God that justice is done in the world” (63). As the writer fleshes this out, it keeps coming around to the followers of Jesus as the way we’re to follow our Lord. We have a promise of the new heavens and new earth in which justice dwells, darkness being done away as the true light is dawning, and we receive it and live in it as a promise, not a mandate. It’s not ours to concoct or construct by our own muscles or machinations. Well done!

 

My disagreements were many. For example, much of the author’s perspective on sin sounded like Critical Theory: systemic sin, systems of sin, etc. It looked to me like we could blame the system for our troubles and excuse our own actions. Whether Harink intended it this way, it is how it slowly came across. Further, the wrath of God takes on a more impersonal, “systems” texture (69). And if God’s wrath isn’t personal but technical/mechanical, then that hits me as really bad news for all, because it is heartless by being impersonal and mechanical. Additionally, I got the feel that the author leaned in a Universalist direction. And finally, it struck me from early on – and seemed to be confirmed all the way through – that he was standing in an anabaptist perspective. I am not using this as a pejorative, but more noting the pacifist, no involvement in civil government, perspective he promotes numerous times. There were other areas, but these will do.

 

In the end, I argued with Harink all the way through “Resurrecting Justice,” and what a most enjoyable discussion! I am certain pastors, theologians, seminary professors and students of the Scriptures will find this work useful in stretching their horizons, while they have a most enjoyable discussion with the author as well. I recommend the work.

 

My thanks to IVP Academic. I asked them for a copy of the book used for this evaluation, they freely sent it, and only asked I give an honest review. Therefore, my assessments are all mine, given without duress or disgrace.