“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5)
Roughly speaking, righteousness is the character, revealed in Jewish and Christian holy scripture, of being just through moral correctness that meets with God’s approval. For Christians, its fuller meaning is explored by examining Jesus’ word and deeds and by paying attention to how it was taught in the first decades of Christianity. But what is righteous or not and how it’s measured has other meanings in other contexts.
Most people and nations claim to be righteous, and liberal democracies strive with more success in pursuit of it, but none are, and all fall short. Particular failures become righteous causes in the minds of activists intent on correcting them. They often run afoul of accepted social norms and political inertia that have no intention of changing what seems to be working OK.
Holy scripture and Christian ethics can influence the debate but never direct its outcome. For one thing, what is righteous and just is more often defined by political ideology, secular philosophies, and emotional reactions. Secular and godly ideas about what is righteous are sometimes the same, sometimes overlap, and sometimes are far removed from one another. Appeals to religion or God are trotted out as auxiliary tools to gain public approval. Christians are commanded to follow in the way of Christ, but social norms and political pressures are hard to resist, especially if they are camouflaged by religious language.
Injustices are real and they need to be identified, made known, and resolved in favor of greater justice. What could be more righteous than that? Injustice is not named because it is not recognized. When it is named by some, the majority is likely to disbelieve it as a few agitators upsetting the equilibrium of acceptable social norms. The process of making an injustice known, understood, and then mobilize public support to force change is a drawn out messy affair. It challenges the patience of those most committed to addressing it. Peaceful assemblies to demand correction of injustice, a right guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, can easily be corrupted by self-righteous zealots who turn to threatened and real violence. Self-righteous indignation tries to clothe itself in the language of righteousness, but it’s a flimsy veil.
Self-righteous indignation is solipsistic. It offers no room for consideration of other views. It assumes anyone not in full agreement is an enemy to be defeated. Assemblies legitimately protesting real injustice in non-violent civil disobedience can easily tip over into self-righteous destructive civil disobedience, especially on college campuses, because “hot heads” can be more persuasive in firing up a crowd than can cooler heads promoting non-violence. When destructive protests break out, reserved adults, liberal and conservative, will blame a failure of public morals, undisciplined entitled youth, schools, leftist agitators, communist agitators, MAGA agitators, outside agitators, anyone other than themselves or the issues at hand. It is not unique to America. I can think of no nation in any time of history that has not experienced the same.
What about righteous indignation? There were times when Jesus showed righteous indignation: when disciples refused to let children come to Jesus, when Peter told him not to go to Jerusalem, when he drove the merchants out of the temple. His indignation was righteous because he was righteous. You and I are not Jesus. Speaking only for myself, my own occasional bouts of righteous indignation were always triggered by an injustice that had to be faced, but later reflection forced me to admit it was driven more by anger than understanding and did nothing to make things better.
Searching for a contemporary model for how Christians should respond to injustice? Martin Luther King, Jr. comes to mind. He proclaimed boldly but with humble conviction and was non violent even when civil disobedience was called for. While accepting the consequences of civil disobedience, King used it as an opportunity to continue making injustice known. The Indian Gandhi, the Russian Navalny, the El Salvadoran Bp. Romero may be other examples. Wait a minute, weren’t they all killed for their efforts? Yes. It’s not the price most of us will ever pay, but they followed in the way of Jesus, as must we.
There is more to be said. A better conclusion. Readers can provide it in their own words.