In American society, justice is most often achieved through the adversarial assertion of competing rights. In other words, our country was founded upon the visionary principle that we all possess certain inalienable rights—both as individuals and as groups. And of course, in a perfect world, all of those rights would peacefully co-exist and be equally enjoyed. However, since the world is far from perfect, even inalienable rights sometimes come into conflict with one another.

Hence, the necessity of a legal system. At some point, if there is truly to be justice for all, a verdict must be rendered as to whose rights will take precedence. For example, consider the highly volatile issue of abortion. In this case, the rights of the unborn child are being weighed against the right of a woman to make decisions regarding her own body. And therein lies the dilemma—whose rights are more important?

Or to look at the issue which has embroiled our own denomination for the last forty years—namely, the ordination of avowed homosexuals—whose rights should take precedence: the right of a particular presbytery to ordain whomever it sees fit, or the right of the General Assembly to establish authoritative perimeters as to who can or cannot serve as a Presbyterian minister?

In both cases, the bottom-line issue is one of competing rights. And in our society, justice has usually been achieved by allowing each of those rights to have their day in court and be properly adjudicated. However, while this understanding of justice may be an essential feature of American democracy, I sometimes wonder whether it is what the prophet Amos had in mind when he called for “justice to roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream.”

I am beginning to believe that framing our ethical discussions in terms of competing rights is a surefire recipe for endless debate and disagreement. In other words, if the church continues to accept the culture’s view that justice is best achieved through the adjudication of rights, then we will also find ourselves accepting the inevitability of adversarial relationships.

Thankfully, there is a different and better way of understanding justice. In the New Testament, the Greek word for justice—dikaiosune—is usually translated “righteousness”—or “right relationship” with God. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus said, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for dikaiosune [justice/righteousness],” he is not inviting us to assert our individual rights. For Jesus, justice is not a matter of competing rights; it is an opportunity to live in full relationship with God and with our neighbors. Thus, rather than forever arguing over whose rights should take precedence, perhaps the church would be better served by looking less toward our own interests, and instead singularly pursuing the righteousness of God.