Generous Justice, as the title would imply, is about justice. Keller argues that Christians must be just--it is ingrained in the grace that God gives; it is the response to the person of Christ. He does not argue that justice and a passion for helping those who need it is solely a Christian endeavor, but he does argue that all of that passion is from God (through grace common to everyone). Further, he says that if we are going to follow God for who he is--not as some manifestation or some image that we create--we must do justice out of merciful love. (3)

The question, then, is what constitutes justice. He uses two Hebrew words to point to different aspects of justice; both can be translated justice, but one is also translated righteousness. Through them, he points to the ideas of primary justice and rectifying justice. Rectifying justice is the more traditional idea of punishing wrongdoers and putting things back as best we can. Primary justice, on the other hand, is behavior that, if it were prevalent in the world, would render rectifying justice unnecessary. (10-11) In other words, making things right in the first place. Thus, he argues, justice must include charity; it is not just a negative response, but a positive action to improve our community or society.

But if we were really going to get at the cause of injustice and all of its effects, it would be important to know what the cause was, right? Well, Keller wades into that, but not too deeply. He says that your opinions on the causes of injustice, poverty, etc. will be based on your perspective. And, he points out, scripture can support many different perspectives. Poverty can be caused by (a) oppression; (b) calamity; and (c) personal moral failures. (38) But he goes back to the source of the problem, a social disconnect with God. And that does not mean American society, but humanity.

Our response, then, is clear:

[O]ur problem in society today is not that people don't know they should share with others and help the poor. Most people do know and believe this. The real problem is that, while knowing it, they are insufficiently motivated to actually do it. (79)

The answer is that we should be motivated to do it out of (a) joyful awe before the goodness of God's creation and (b) the experience of God's grace in redemption. In other words, we do it out of a love for God, rather than as a requirement that we must or should obey. When we keep everything in perspective--and see God as closely as we can to who he truly is--then we can't help but be merciful, gracious, loving, etc. In other words, just.

The final question, then, is how we do this. He has three layers of help: relief, redevelopment, and social reform. In this, we see both rectifying (immediate relief) and primary (redevelopment and social reform) justice. He goes into some detail about aspects of each of these, and has some examples of how others have pursued this; but he notes that there are no straightforward answers. Different people are called to different places; we have different means and abilities, and will therefore have different missions. The key, he says, is to keep the mission of the church as a church: to preach the gospel. But the people of the church have no choice but to pursue justice in response to God, but not as a means of forcing the gospel on someone.

His position on the role of the church seems to waffle at times. But I find myself not disagreeing with him. He notes that social justice is not the mission of the church; rather, the mission of the church is evangelism and bringing the message that God is reconciling the world to himself through God the Son. But, Christians cannot ignore the plight of those in need of justice. So, while it is not the mission of the church, it is at least part of the mission of Christians (and will therefore spill over into activities of the church).

And how do Christians interact with a world that has common grace but no willingness to hear the morality of Christians? He makes the point that it is impossible to talk about social justice without talking about morals. Regardless of how secular an idea becomes, it all has to revolve around the value of a human life, which comes from some moral framework. It is all about what religious or moral framework we use. So, while having discussions about justice and not talking about morality and religion and partnering with groups that have the same surface goals as we have might get things accomplished, we will never get at the root of the problem. Instead, he recommends a strategy of humble cooperation and respectful provocation.

It's a good primer on biblical social justice. The reader has to engage to follow what he is saying, but it doesn't feel like it has to go over everyone's heads. In other words, it can be useful. And, if nothing else, it is a good reminder--like a prod--that we can't be inactive; we have to live out the grace that we have been given.