Do you like poetry? I do (to some extent), but I find it hard to read. That is, poetry needs to be read slowly, and I don’t often take the time necessary to do so. And much poetry demands imagination and deep thought, often more than I have or am willing to exert. But I like the poem that sparked this post.
Gerard Manley Hopkins was an Oxford University student when he
came under the influence of John Henry Newman and the Oxford
Movement, which sought to reconnect the Anglican Church with its Catholic
roots. At age 22, Hopkins was received into
the Roman Catholic Church by Newman himself.*
Hopkins (b. 1844) took the Jesuit vows
in 1870, four years after converting to Catholicism, embracing the Jesuit
ideals of poverty, chastity, and obedience. For the next seven years, he wrote
no poetry, thinking it was contrary to his vows.
In the two years
following the 1875 shipwreck of the SS Deutschland, though, Hopkins wrote a
long, innovative ode titled "The Wreck of the Deutschland." A 2008
novel by Ron Hansen blends historical elements of that disaster with biographical
elements of Hopkins’s life and a detailed narrative of his ode.**
Hopkins died of typhoid fever at the
age of 44 in 1889.
“As
Kingfishers Catch Fire,” one of Hopkins’s most celebrated poems, was written around 1877, but it
was first published posthumously, in 1918. Here are the last six lines of that
noteworthy sonnet:
I say more: the just man justices;
Keeps grace: that keeps all his going graces;
Acts in God’s eye what in God’s eye he
is –
Christ. For Christ plays
in ten thousand places,
Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes
not his
To the Father through
the features of men’s faces.
Eugene Peterson, the esteemed author
of The Message (the popular paraphrase of the Bible), has also written Christ
Plays in Ten Thousand Places, a weighty book whose title comes from
Hopkins’s sonnet.
Peterson claims that Hopkins’s poem
presents the perceptive reader with a helpful view of the “end” of life: “The
vigor and spontaneity, the God-revealing Christian getting us and everything
around us in on it, the playful freedom and exuberance, the total rendering of
our lives as play, as worship before God.”
But this essay is primarily about the
words in the first line cited above: “the just man justices.” What does that
mean?
Hopkins creatively uses “justice” as a
verb. That word is
generally a noun, of course, although the phrase “doing justice” has a similar
meaning. And the latter harks back to Micah in the Old Testament. Verse eight of
the sixth chapter of the book that bears the prophet’s name says,
What does the Lord
require of you but to do justice?
It is
quite certain that the kind of justice Micah (and Hopkins) is talking about is
not what is usually called retributive justice. Rather, it is social justice,
seeking shalom for all people. As such, doing justice is something
that cannot be done alone or by just us. We must work with other people.
This past
Sunday, the worship leader at Rainbow Mennonite Church began by talking briefly
about the Justice Together meeting she and her husband had recently attended in
Wichita. That organization is “a multi-faith, grassroots coalition of faith
communities in Sedgwick County, Kansas.”
Citing
Micah 6:8, on their website (here),
Justice Together states, “Doing justice … addresses systems rather than
individuals. No single congregation has enough power to effectively do justice.
Thus, we act together as justice in action.”
Further,
if it is true that “Christ
plays in ten thousand places,” as I think it is, doing justice is often done also
by multitudes of people who do not claim to embrace any religious faith, such as
many among the millions of people who joined the No Kings protest on October 18.
_____
* Here is a link to
the blog article I posted about Newman in March 2020, which was a few months
after he was canonized as a Roman Catholic saint.
** Hansen’s novel is titled Exiles,
which I enjoyed reading many months ago, and it also includes imagined
backstories of the five drowned Franciscan nuns. It culminates in exploring
themes of faith, exile, and divine mystery in the storm. Hansen (b. 1947) is an
American novelist, essayist, and interestingly (especially for those of us who
live in west central Missouri), he is also the author of “The Assassination of
Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” (1983).

.jpg)
Thank you, Leroy, for introducing me to justice as a verb. So, we could read Micah 6:8, "What does the LORD require if you, but to justice." I haven't looked at the Hebrew recently, but I think that is what Micah was saying. We are required to justice.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments, Charles. What you wrote is similar to the translation of Micah 6:8 in the new (2014) Common English Bible: "He has told you, human one, what is good and what the Lord requires from you: to do justice, ...."
DeleteI was mistaken in "remembering" that Micah used a verb translated as "justice." Actually he used a verb which could be translated "do" or "make" and then the noun "mishpat" translated into English as "justice." I think a literal translation could be "to render correct judgement." But the most literal translation is not the best translation. Probably the best translation is "to do justice." Which is how NRSV does it
DeleteThanks Leroy for explaining Justice in a different way and I will continue to administer Justice in a way that GOD would want me too!
ReplyDeleteThanks again my Dear Brother in The LORD Leroy!
John 'Tim' Carr
Thanks for reading and commenting, John Tim. Yes, this is a different way than is common among conservative evangelical Christians. I asked GPT to summarize that position, and one part of the long response I received (in just a couple of seconds) said this about the usual evangelical view of justice:
Delete"Retributive or judicial justice — God’s righteous judgment against sin; God giving each person what they deserve according to divine law. This is the forensic sense of justice: God as judge. It underlies doctrines of atonement, justification, and salvation."
This is quite different from what the prophet Micah meant in declaring that God calls people to "do justice."
Thanks Leroy! Once again you have given attention to a theme that evokes a deep gut response: Justice!
ReplyDeleteHopkin’s lines are wonderful. Perhaps he was channeling a little William Blake: “And all must love the human form, / In heathen, turk, or jew; /Where Mercy, Love, and Pity dwell, /There God is dwelling too.” [“The Divine Image”] And perhaps Blake (1757-1827) was channeling someone before him; and on and on . . . 😊
“[T]he just man justices” is an apt way of rendering participial forms in biblical (and other) translation into English. ‘Justicing one’ becomes ‘the one justicing,’ or ‘the one doing/practicing justice,’ for (a poorly formed) example. When thinking about participles I think of the final line of William Butler Yeats (1865-1939) in “Among School Children”: “How can we know the dancer from the dance?” [‘dancing one from the dancing?’] [‘justicing one from the justicing?’]
At Micah 6:8 the NRSV has “to do justice” for Hebrew ‘asah mishpat.’ I think that means ‘to do/practice fair/equitable-judgment,’ or ‘just-leadership.’ At Deuteronomy 16:20 the NRSV has “Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue” for ‘tsedeq tsedeq tirdof.’ [‘Justice, justice pursue’]
I continue to spend time wondering about the relationship between ‘tsedeq[ah]’ and ‘mishpat.’ What is the nuance? How do they differ?
Perhaps Isaiah 32:17a is onto something: “The effect of righteousness [‘tsedeqah’] will be peace [‘shalom’].” [“The result of justice is well-being.”]
Thanks again for pushing the buttons of reflection!
Shalom, Dick
And thank you, once again, Dick, for gracing me and most of my readers with insights that exceed my/our understanding of Hebrew and of words/ideas of literary giants.
DeleteI appreciate the following brief comment by a Thinking Friend, who is also a personal friend and a former student who later received a Ph.D. in a seminary graduate school:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy. This piece touched me deeply."
The first comments I received this morning were from Thinking Friend Bob Hanson in Wisconsin:
ReplyDelete"Wonderful, needed, thanks!
"I thought of the Parliament of world religions that Karen [his wife} and I have participated in six or seven times. In one of their initial parliaments they created an ethic, which certainly should be read today again and again when talking about justice. It is interesting when all different kinds of spiritual communities gathered together in one place for a week."
Thanks for your comments, Bob. -- I appreciate you mentioning the Parliament of World Religions. I wrote about their 1993 meeting in an August 2011 blog post. It was in that 9/93 meeting that they drafted a document titled "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic." Here is part of what I wrote in that blog article:
Delete:Mainly drafted by Hans Küng, the German theologian, the Declaration identifies four essential affirmations as shared principles essential to a global ethic.
Commitment to a culture of non-violence and respect for life
Commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order
Commitment to a culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness
Commitment to a culture of equal rights and partnership between men and women."
Thanks, Leroy, for this post. It is provoking a lot of thought on my part. Yes, justice from the broader view of humanity as a whole is a matter of social justice. It seems to me that Paul Tillich once defined justice as "love distributed." Your piece also has me thinking about whether what we're seeing in this country is a contest between two poles of social vision. On the one side is a view of collective humanity and welfare for all, a vision of cooperation, inclusiveness, and mutual care. This is an American vision running through 19th-century anti-slavery and social gospel movements and continuing through labor union activities, progressivism, socialist parties, the New Deal, Civil Rights, women's rights, and LGBTQ+, and so on. On the other side is a vision of the world as individuals and groups in contest, a vision of competition, exclusiveness, and each person and group for oneself. This is a view of the world as a place of scarcity in which some must lose and others win. It lies behind our culture's excessive emphases on individualism, laissez-fair capitalism, and winner-take-all political system. Hm... I've written this quickly and know it's a too-brief and inadequate expression of what I'm thinking about, as I spin off of your blog entry into further thought.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thought-provoking comments, Anton. Actually, though, it was Joseph Fletcher who wrote, “Justice is love distributed, nothing else” ("Situation Ethics," 1966, p. 87). (I had remembered the words as being Fletcher's. ChatGPT confirmed that and gave the details.) But "it" went on to say, "Fletcher built on Niebuhr’s and Tillich’s insights, but simplified them into a single maxim for his ethical system: Niebuhr: “Justice is the instrument by which love seeks to realize itself in a sinful world.” Tillich: “Justice is the form in which love becomes the power of the historical reality."
DeleteWhat you went on to say reminded me of what Heather Cox Richardson so often says in her "letters": the first view of society is what we see in the progressive view of liberal Democrats, the latter is the position of many/most of the MAGA Republicans.
Thank you, Leroy, for introducing me to Hopkins, and to the wonderful way his poetry connects justice with the way Christ continues playing in ten thousand places through human limbs.
ReplyDeleteThere are those who value freedom so much that they reject justice. Unfortunately, this is a popular view among the very powerful, now as always, as they think they do not need justice. As Thucydides wrote in his account of the Peloponnesian War, an Athenian general demanded the surrender of a weak state by claiming that right and wrong only matter between equals, and otherwise the strong do what they want and the weak do what they must. Not surprisingly, the hearers did not go easily, but in the lopsided battle the followed all of the Melians were either killed or enslaved. Freedom for the masses is based on justice, but freedom for the few means being "masters of the universe." It's sort of a God versus mammon thing.
ReplyDelete