What if your idea of righteousness is wrong?

I really hesitated to write this blog because it is typical for readers to think I am being judgmental. I am not. The Greek's have several ideas of judging. One is simply a examination according to some standard, another is to determine error and thirdly to condemn (punish) when one is found guilty. I try to practice the former. It is not my place to determine anyone's error. Yet, I am troubled by the way our human nature can rob us of the proper idea of righteousness because of any error in understanding. In doing so, there are several consequences. I'll discuss these at the end. But first, let me share with you what we know about fundamental human nature from the study of psychology. This is where the head fake begins.

One of the core influences on the human condition is the desire to be LEGITIMATE. Legitimacy is conformity to expectations of others so we feel OK. Each person chooses which constituency determines this for them. Regardless of the source of the acceptance, some standard is used as the basis for being OK. These norms are often referred to as morality. In early childhood your family sets the moral code. As you mature your peers establish "rules" as the factors that determine whether you are OK or not. For most people when the family is loving and supportive, the family remains a source of acceptance. However, your family's standards can be challenged when you identify more with friends, employers and even gangs who fulfill the role of determining if you are OK. Often, just being different can make you not OK.

Throughout history, religion provided divine guidelines that some people have associated with right behavior. Righteousness then becomes the proxy for legitimacy. You become aware that God has rules for what is acceptable. If you become a religious person, then your need for legitimacy is your conformity to religious morality. Many Christians believe this conformity is their righteousness. This view makes it difficult to differ Christians from non Christians, who also seek legitimacy often appearing to have the same virtue, just from some other source. The moral code may vary, but seeking legitimacy is common to everyone. People may differ in what set of standards establishes their legitimacy, but the need for legitimacy is fundamentally satisfied in the same way - CONFORMITY. Often Christians claim their standard is "a better way" by pushing forth the notion that their view is the only truth. This argument typically falls on death ears. People generally feel its up to them to decide which standard they wish to pursue. Thus, non Christians see no distinction in Christianity when it comes to virtuous living, or being OK.

The pursuit of legitimacy within a Christian context may look and feel like righteousness, but it is not. It is just a religious form of the pursuit of legitimacy, a pursuit that resides in everyone's human nature.  

So, what then is righteousness? Why the confusion? If we look at the current meaning of righteousness from Webster, we get, "acting in accord with divine or moral law." In this case we would be hard pressed to see righteousness as anything different than legitimacy in a religious setting. So, this may explain why so many Christians see righteousness as their form of religious legitimacy.

If we go back 200 years, we find that righteousness meant "conformity of heart to divine law." This is a little different as we see righteousness is about motive, not behavior. However, it is still a conformity we must execute to be made acceptable. It is still a form of the human need to seek legitimacy.  Let's go way back to when the word righteousness was used by Jesus. What did it mean then?

The classical Greek word is dikaiosynē. 

Here we see a subtle, but profound twist. Righteousness still relates to the notion of Divine acceptance, but the focus is shifted. The original use of the word is really about the judge. Righteousness is "judicial approval." It's about the judge's will, not our actions. If our righteousness is not about our actions, then it is not about our conformity, and it is not associated with our desire for legitimacy. My righteousness is God's action as the judge on my behalf. My righteousness is not anything about my pursuit of legitimacy. It's about the nature of the judge and His Sovereign desire and provision for my acceptance.

Wait, you say, that does not feel right. Surely my righteousness is based on my conformity. Surely my need for conformity is critical to my acceptance. It's only natural that this be!

That is right. It is natural. The need to solve our legitimacy problem by our actions is built-in to our human nature. 

BUT wait, isn't our human nature what got knocked off kilter at the fall?

Yup, and that's my point.

Is it possible that one's notion of righteousness is just a natural need for legitimacy wrapped in religious garb?

Maybe we need to see righteousness is about the judge, not the judged!


Oh, btw, the Greek word for justice is the same as for righteousness. Jesus only views justice through the role of the judge. For Christians to think Jesus' calls us to do justice, He is not referring to our natural instincts to be the judge of right and wrong. Rather, God calls us to act from the righteousness of Christ, which is the basis of His approval of us.

Back to the consequences of a natural view of righteousness vs. God's view.
1.   the world sees no real difference between their way to satisfy their need for legitimacy and those of a Christian.
2.   the Christian, who is saved but sees their righteousness through the lens of human nature, lives beneath the privileges they inherit in Christ Jesus.   

That is what I wish that you ponder .....