I met Daniel Bell at a NPTS Symposium on Justice a few years ago, where he presented a more lengthy paper on this topic of Jesus as the Justice of God. It was great work, was biblically grounded, reframed the atonement theory, and located justice in the historic acts of mercy/charity of the church. Bell represents a voice I appreciate and am considering as I try to work out my own theology of justice (with legitimate discussion partners suitable for the academic world) – although I have to say that I still desire more evangelical voices on justice, and on how it relates to race and class, especially. (Bell is arguing from a more ‘liberal mainline’ assumption, btw, that ‘justice’ can be a buzz word or a PC term worthy or skepticism.)
Anyway, this is an interesting and worthwhile argument – an excerpt from his position published in “The Other Journal” is below; his full article is here:
“What, then, is the problem? What is the source of the scepticism regarding the appropriateness of The Other Journal’s bold and uncompromising commitment to justice? The problem is one of priorities. The problem lies in the way that the church has believed and taught that works of justice are distinct from works of piety (summarized in terms of the “Great Commission,†belief, conversion, fostering a personal relation with Jesus, etc.). The problem lies in the division that runs through much of the contemporary church between two parties with different priorities. On the one hand, there are those who give priority to confession over social action. These are the folks who think that while the work of justice is important, it nevertheless takes a back seat to the most important thing, which is piety, belief, “personal holiness.†On the other hand, there are those who give priority to social action over confession. These are the folks who think that the work of justice is more important than fostering piety and belief.
At this point it is important to be very clear. Having briefly sketched this division in the church, I am not going to suggest that the problem lies on one side or the other of this divide. I will not be arguing that one side is right and the other wrong, that justice should take priority over piety or that piety has priority but should include justice.
No, the problem is not one side or the other. The problem is the division itself. We could put it this way: Both parties are wrong insofar as they put justice or piety second and both parties are right insofar as they put justice or piety first.”