The Definition of Justice: Love or Revenge // Howard Thurman v. Michael Bell

Last updated on: January 29, 2020 at 1:06 am by Jeff Hood

The Definition of Justice: Love or Revenge // Howard Thurman v. Michael Bell 2020-01-29T01:06:52-06:00 Jeff Hood

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Unsplash / Chick McClure

The Definition of Justice: Love or Revenge // Howard Thurman v. Michael Bell

Howard Thurman, in his Jesus and the Disinherited, and Michael Bell, in his God Hates Fags, have different ways of talking about the construction of oppression, enemies, and what one should do after the construction of such enemies. Such constructions determine if the work will actually lead to a sustainable peace or if the work will lead to the continuation physical and emotional violence. How one defines and treats their enemies speaks to whether or not they see their enemies as human or not. If the enemy is not seen as human, then there seems to be little hope for lasting solutions where people learn to love each other and live together. Understanding the author’s construction of oppression, formulation of enemy, and response to enemy are important to understanding the ethical points that the author is making, either implicitly or explicitly.

In Jesus and the Disinherited, Howard Thurman argues that the religion of Jesus must respond to “the poor, the dispossessed, and the disinherited” (36). Previously in the text, Thurman beckoned, “What does our religion to those with their backs against the wall?” (13). Judging from his time, social location, and some textual clues, one must assume that he was speaking to black people during the Civil Rights Movement, but the text is broad enough to apply to all people with their backs against the wall. In my opinion, this is where the beauty of Thurman lies, in the broadness of his message and the ability to apply it to both the oppressed and the oppressor. In the message of a Jewish Palestinian peasant, Thurman found salvation and argues that those with their backs against the wall can find their salvation in his message as well. Thurman calls the religion of Jesus, where one is taught to ‘love their enemy,’ “a survival technique for the oppressed” (29). Thurman’s survival technique is both practical and spiritual in its application for people of all oppressed backgrounds. “Wherever theSpirit appears, the oppressed gather fresh courage…” to ‘love their enemies’ and their self (29). The Spirit speaks to liberate all. For Thurman, “loving your enemy” is a step toward liberation.

In God Hates Fags, Michael Cobb uses the hate speech of Westboro Baptist Church (i.e. God Hates Fags) to speak to larger problems and trends in public policy in the United States. “It is important to recognize the public, doctrinal, and political gains opposition to ‘homosexuality’ has provided for Christian organizations, not to mention the Republican Party” (3). The hate speech also speaks to a larger fight over what it means to be ‘American.’ “Strong religious words about such an uncomfortable topic such as queer sexuality not only unite sexually conservative people across economic classes, ethnicities, and races, but are part of a tradition of collective rhetorical expressions of what it means to be an ‘American’” (6). Cobb argues that hate speech is helpful for constructing enemies. “Religious language…serves the United States as it continues to evolve into a coercive, extralegal empire that needs enemies inside and outside its borders” (30). For Cobb, identifying the enemy is the core ethical starting point. Next, working to gain power over your enemies is the next step and ultimate goal. Learning how to “love your enemies” is not part of his calculus.

Besides the difference in genre, I would contend that the reason that these two books sound very different in tone and outcome is because they take two different paths to construct the oppressed, the formulation of enemies, and responses to oppression. Howard Thurman constructs the oppressed as the people with “their backs against the wall” (13). This definition allows for great inclusivity as to who the oppressed are. Michael Cobb identifies the oppressed as queer folk, which he never really defines. This definition is assumed to speak to a particular group, but we don’t know who that group includes. Speaking to a particular group is not the problem. Speaking for one group to the dehumanization of the other group is the problem, because you are doing the same thing you are accusing others of. When constructing enemies, the authors speak differently as well. Howard Thurman grants wide latitude to who the oppressor is and therefore who the enemy is. The ambiguity of Thurman’s work leaves space to imagine the oppressed and the oppressor inhabiting the same person. Michael Cobb states that the enemy is Westboro Baptist Church, the Republican Party, Christian organizations, the United States government, and a few other entities. Cobb is very interested in cohesive enemies that all seem to flow from the language of Westboro Baptist Church. Howard Thurman encourages a “love your enemy” response to instances of oppression. Michael Cobb encourages a winning at all costs perspective, including lying if necessary (148). The texts seem to point in starkly different directions and toward starkly different responses with regard to the construction of oppression, formulation of enemies, and response to enemies. Judging the texts based on ethics one must ask, which conclusion seems to point to a more lasting justice and peace that values both the redeemed oppressed and oppressor as human? For me, the answer is obvious.

Howard Thurman: Jesus and The Disinherited

Michael Bell: God Hates Fags

Jesus and the Disinherited

love

Michael Bell

The Definition of Justice: Love or Revenge

Previous Post

January 26, 2020

The Power of Social Ethics / On Robin Lovin

Next Post

January 31, 2020 A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF RACIAL INCLUSION

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Danny & Jeff fresh writings latest poetics north texas fellowship of reconciliation Sermon theology from death row Thoughts Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 July 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 May 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which king of Israel reigned the longest and led Israel into great wickedness?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Ahab Manasseh Joash Jehu