Header bar for section loads here.
Search
Recent comments
- Anonymous on Barefoot and Pregnant
- Daniel Meyer on Why Masculine Worship Matters
- Tabitha on Bitter Just Like Charbuck’s Coffee
- B. Hart on Rotten Eggs
- Tabitha on Standing in the Gap: What Does It Mean?
Monthly archive
- December 2009 (1)
- January 2010 (9)
- February 2010 (12)
- March 2010 (6)
- April 2010 (10)
- May 2010 (7)
- June 2010 (12)
- July 2010 (4)
- August 2010 (1)
- September 2010 (14)
Social Justice is Unbiblical – Part 1
Fri, 2010-04-23 11:42 — Joseph Bayly
Let me be very clear about this: Justice is biblical. Social justice is not...
“He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8)
To understand why social justice is not biblical requires us to see that the words “social justice” have come to mean exactly the opposite of what they should. What does “social justice” mean today? The first definition I found describes it this way: “[Social justice] refers to the concept of a society that gives individuals and groups fair treatment and an equitable share of the benefits of society.”
Look up some definitions for yourself. At least take a minute and read two or three of them from this list.
I can sum up all the current definitions of “social justice” with one word: egalitarianism.
But egalitarianism is not the same thing as justice, and actually it's completely different. Justice is giving somebody what he deserves; egalitarianism is giving every person the same thing, regardless of what he deserves. How did we get so confused? How did we come to equate egalitarianism and justice? There are a number of things that contributed to it.
In our culture we care a lot about “fairness.” If somebody has something you don’t, it doesn’t feel fair, does it? So to be fair, we have to give everybody the same thing. In other words, to us, fairness is being egalitarian. But we also think that justice is the same thing as fairness. So we are confused. We think that justice = fairness = egalitarianism. It doesn’t. But we are so convinced they are the same thing, that it is hard to conceive of how to challenge it. My wife says I may as well try to convince people that the grass isn’t green.
Yet at its heart, egalitarianism and social justice remove God from his throne. When we equate justice with our conception of fairness we are denying God. We are sitting in judgment on Him and declaring him guilty of injustice.
God doesn’t give everybody the same things. He is not an egalitarian. In this life, some of us have healthy bodies; others have major physical defects. Some are born into rich families in rich countries; others are born into poverty. Some are naturally smart. Some are naturally stupid. Some the Holy Spirit will work in, and others will be left with hearts of stone. Some will be saved, and some will be damned. In the next life, some will rejoice in the presence of God for all eternity, while others will depart from him in misery to the flaming pit of Hell forever. God isn’t fair. He is just.
Until we give up our own notion of fairness, we will never understand true justice. Until we repent of social justice, we will always be judging God and accusing Him of evil.
I know what the objections are going to be. You will say that the social justice movement is doing good things for people, and that I just don’t understand its goals. Next week I will explain how social justice actually does the opposite of what it claims. It is not loving or merciful. It does not help the helpless. It oppresses the weak.
Comments
Joseph, I have little doubt
Joseph,
I have little doubt that some of what goes by the name of “social justice” is unbiblical. I also have little doubt that your next post will reveal specific sinful activity masquerading as social justice.
Nevertheless, I have objections to this post.
First off, I think you're being uncharitable to the egalitarian. You say: “I can sum up all the current definitions of “social justice” with one word: egalitarianism. But egalitarianism is not the same thing as justice, and actually it's completely different. Justice is giving somebody what he deserves; egalitarianism is giving every person the same thing, regardless of what he deserves.”
But of course a non-strawman-egalitarian will defend his system as one that is just (in the sense of distributive justice, which is the sense at issue here) because such a system is one in which people get what they deserve. Now clearly he will have a different conception of what constitutes a just system (i.e., what constitutes a system where people get what they deserve) from the conception of a utilitarian or a libertarian on distributive justice. But he’ll have reasons for preferring that conception to one of these rivals. Better to articulate his view properly, list his reasons for that view, critique those reasons, and then defend a rival view, than to caricature his view and draw conclusions from that caricature.
Second, not all egalitarians hold that a just distribution requires that everyone get exactly the same set of benefits and burdens, full stop. Thus, you have egalitarians that defend a multiple-tier health care system, where everyone is guaranteed a basic minimum of care but the wealthier can purchase additional services, and you have others that defend single-tier systems, where everyone gets access to exactly the same care.
Third, I don’t know what I’m supposed to conclude from the considerations about God’s distribution, even apart from considerations about egalitarianism versus other systems of distributive justice. Antebellum slaveholders could have raised similar considerations as yours against abolitionists who claimed that the system in the South was unjust (e.g., “God doesn’t give everybody the same things---in this life, some of us are born free; others are born into slavery”), but surely (say I!) this would be a poor argument against the unjustness of that system. However, if we buy into the idea that people ought to be treated equally in some ways, then the real question is to what extent people deserve such equal treatment, which is just one of many questions about the extent to which we ought we to try to correct the present state of things. (Please note that libertarians and utilitarians with respect to distributive justice can endorse the claim that people ought to be treated equally in some ways—endorsing this claim doesn’t automatically make you an egalitarian.)
Dear John, First of all,
Dear John,
First of all, there is no such thing as "distributive justice." You're introducing a rhetorical nuance into this conversation that does not exist in God's economy. The Bible never speaks of equity with respect to the distribution of God's gifts and mercies (including life circumstances, opportunities, etc.) in terms of "justice." God's gifts and mercies are only spoken of in terms of gifts and mercies. Framing God's gifts and mercies in terms of "justice" is an under-handed way of accusing God of being unjust in their distribution (which He is not) as opposed to being unfair (which He is). And on your part, it's a high-handed and patronizing way of trying to control this conversation.
Second of all, you mischaracterize Joseph as arguing that all egalitarians want total equity in the same way, and introduce nuances in the current healthcare debate to substantiate your point. This is more sleight of hand. Joseph's point does not hang on the nuances of how egalitarianism is expressed. It hangs on the underlying mentality: "God has unjustly restricted the opportunity of some to achieve happiness to which they are justly entitled by the laws of [me], and it is our responsibility to right this injustice." Some egalitarians want to provide equal opportunity for all to have access to things like healthcare, education, etc. Others want more. The point isn't the expression or the degree, it's the God-hating mentality that undergirds it.
The man that conceptualizes a "just system" where all get what they "deserve" in terms of "distribution" (whatever that looks like to him) must first deny the sovereign goodness of God in His distribution and accuse Him of evil. This requires an entitlement mentality that is not appropriate in creature-Creator relations. God doesn't owe any man any good thing—first by virtue of His prerogative as God, and second, by virtue of our debt as sinners.
Finally, pulling out Southern American slavery is a high-handed, "Look at the birdie!", non sequitur that doesn't have any bearing in this conversation. Oh yes, and then there's slavery—how can I argue with that, being a white male? I am totally silenced because my argument is one that "Antebellum slaveholders could have raised." Indeed, that's precisely where my argument falls to the ground.
To set up Joseph as though he'd permit this argument to justify a truly unjust system is what you would call a straw-man. And you introduced logical equivocation to pull it off. Notice how you shift the focus from God's distribution of circumstances to the treatment of individuals by others and blur your own line of retributive justice and distributive justice. This is an important distinction. Such sophisticated errors are difficult to take seriously.
Joseph's argument is no caricature. It's the straight dope. It gets at the heart of the whole "social justice" movement. God doesn't owe any man squat, and the sooner we get that into our heads, the sooner we'll begin to understand true works of compassion.
Jake, 1. You wrote: “First of
Jake,
1. You wrote: “First of all, there is no such thing as "distributive justice." You're introducing a rhetorical nuance into this conversation that does not exist in God's economy. The Bible never speaks of equity with respect to the distribution of God's gifts and mercies (including life circumstances, opportunities, etc.) in terms of "justice." God's gifts and mercies are only spoken of in terms of gifts and mercies. Framing God's gifts and mercies in terms of "justice" is an under-handed way of accusing God of being unjust in their distribution (which He is not) as opposed to being unfair (which He is). And on your part, it's a high-handed and patronizing way of trying to control this conversation.”
My response: I saw the term “egalitarian” and “justice” being used in a post that dealt, at least in part, with the distribution of benefits and burdens in society. And “egalitarianism” is the name of a major theory as to how such benefits and burdens should be distributed. And the issue as to how such benefits and burdens should be distributed is referred to as the issue of distributive justice. That’s why I used the term “distributive justice.” I don’t think my use of the term was high-handed, and I know I was neither patronizing Joseph nor trying to control the conversation.
2. You wrote: “Second of all, you mischaracterize Joseph as arguing that all egalitarians want total equity in the same way, and introduce nuances in the current healthcare debate to substantiate your point. This is more sleight of hand. Joseph's point does not hang on the nuances of how egalitarianism is expressed. It hangs on the underlying mentality: "God has unjustly restricted the opportunity of some to achieve happiness to which they are justly entitled by the laws of [me], and it is our responsibility to right this injustice." Some egalitarians want to provide equal opportunity for all to have access to things like healthcare, education, etc. Others want more. The point isn't the expression or the degree, it's the God-hating mentality that undergirds it.”
My response: I characterized Joseph this way because of what he wrote (“egalitarianism is giving every person the same thing, regardless of what he deserves”; “In our culture we care a lot about ‘fairness.’ If somebody has something you don’t, it doesn’t feel fair, does it? So to be fair, we have to give everybody the same thing. In other words, to us, fairness is being egalitarian.”). And I brought up differing egalitarian proposals regarding health care to (as you recognize) substantiate my point that egalitarianism isn’t what I took Joseph to be claiming it was in the statements quoted just above. Thus, the charge that I’ve used sleight of hand is just false. Now, you go on to raise an objection for egalitarians of all stripes, based on the general egalitarian mentality. Maybe your thought was that an egalitarian who tries to respond to biblical challenges to his view by claiming that he is a “moderate” egalitarian rather than a "radical" would just be using sleight of hand because the objection you raise applies to both equally. But that’s not what I was doing. Joseph’s post was about egalitarianism, and included (to my mind) a false characterization of it; I was trying to correct it.
3. You wrote: “The man that conceptualizes a "just system" where all get what they "deserve" in terms of "distribution" (whatever that looks like to him) must first deny the sovereign goodness of God in His distribution and accuse Him of evil. This requires an entitlement mentality that is not appropriate in creature-Creator relations. God doesn't owe any man any good thing—first by virtue of His prerogative as God, and second, by virtue of our debt as sinners.”
My response: Hopefully we can both agree that the antebellum south contained an unjust system (indeed, you seem to accept this later) and that God is sovereign and good. If so, then neither one of us ought to accept your first claim just above, namely that calling certain systems just and others unjust requires the denial of God’s sovereign goodness.
4. You wrote: “Finally, pulling out Southern American slavery is a high-handed, "Look at the birdie!", non sequitur that doesn't have any bearing in this conversation. Oh yes, and then there's slavery—how can I argue with that, being a white male? I am totally silenced because my argument is one that "Antebellum slaveholders could have raised." Indeed, that's precisely where my argument falls to the ground.
To set up Joseph as though he'd permit this argument to justify a truly unjust system is what you would call a straw-man. And you introduced logical equivocation to pull it off. Notice how you shift the focus from God's distribution of circumstances to the treatment of individuals by others and blur your own line of retributive justice and distributive justice. This is an important distinction. Such sophisticated errors are difficult to take seriously.”
My response: First, I don’t think Joseph would accept the slaveholder’s argument or endorse the antebellum-south-system as just. In fact, that’s why I brought this up: it’s an attempt to show that the line of reasoning Joseph defends is one that generalizes to such an extent that no system counts as unjust, which in turn suggests that his line of reasoning is defective.
Second, I don’t think I’m equivocating. As you know, a key concern for egalitarians (and others) is establishing one or another kind of health care system, which to a large degree amounts to changing the way that individuals treat each other. In other words, concerns about the justness of a health care system are in large part concerns about how individuals treat each other.
John, I want to apologize for
John,
I want to apologize for being harsh and to thank you for your charitable response to the points I made rather than to my tone. Please forgive me. I'll try to respond to you in what follows.
You wrote: "'[E]galitarianism' is the name of a major theory as to how such benefits and burdens should be distributed. And the issue as to how such benefits and burdens should be distributed is referred to as the issue of distributive justice."
It was your use of these terms in a technical sense that I interpreted as high-handed and patronizing. It was clear to me that Joseph wasn't using "egalitarian" in such a sense, and speaking as though he should have seemed intended to shame him for engaging in an argument without a proper understanding of the terminology involved. After all, you took pains to explain to him how to properly engage an opponent ("Better to articulate his view properly, list his reasons for that view, critique those reasons, and then defend a rival view, than to caricature his view and draw conclusions from that caricature.")
Also, the introduction of the term "distributive justice" seemed to further this agenda. Controlling the terminology of a debate is a tactic used to control debate—hence my conclusion.
But back to point: the use of the word "justice" is what Joseph is disputing in this post, and it makes no difference if it is preceded by "social" or "distributive." This has been explained, but I'll try another shot at it: the point of framing matters of the distribution of "social benefits and burdens" in terms of "justice" of any sort is to reenforce an egalitarian sense of entitlement that does not exist in God's economy. Injustice always requires two parties: an oppressor and a victim. When God's sovereign distribution is called into question and spoken of in terms of justice, God is framed as the oppressor who is denying men that to which they are justly entitled. It then becomes our responsibility to determine how God should have distributed His gifts and graces. But I won't belabor this point further.
You wrote: "Thus, the charge that I’ve used sleight of hand is just false."
Inasmuch as you were merely trying to correct what you perceived to be a false understanding of technical terminology on Joseph's part, you're absolutely right. This was a false charge and I apologize. As you probably understand, I interpreted you to be engaging Joseph's post on a technical level in order to escape the point he was making: The underlying mentality of egalitarianism is that God is unjust. You can see at least see why I would call this sleight of hand.
You wrote: "Hopefully we can both agree that the antebellum south contained an unjust system (indeed, you seem to accept this later) and that God is sovereign and good. If so, then neither one of us ought to accept your first claim just above, namely that calling certain systems just and others unjust requires the denial of God’s sovereign goodness."
Agreed, the antebellum south contained an unjust system and God is both sovereign and good. However, I maintain my first claim. You've misunderstood because you're equating "distributive justice" with justice. This is where my accusation of equivocation comes from.
Let me be clear: I'm happy to call certain systems just and others unjust. You'll remember that I added this clause: "in terms of 'distribution.'" This is the key, and this is the point on which I stand. God's sovereign distribution of anything should not be spoken of in terms of justice.
Let me use your example to explain my position. Slavery in and of itself is not inherently immoral. It is sanctioned and regulated in God's word. Therefore, if I am born a slave, I am not wronged, though I may find my circumstances unfair. If I am born into an abusive system of slavery, I am wronged, not by God, but by the abusers. It is not slavery in itself that is inherently unjust, but its abusers. This does not deny that a system of slavery may be established and imposed that is inherently unjust. But like I said above, the nature of injustice is such that it always involves two parties—an oppressor and the oppressed. In the case of an unjust system, it is the imposer of the system that is the unjust oppressor.
Similarly, monarchies are not inherently immoral or evil. Civil governments are established by God. If I am born into a state of tyranny, the circumstances of my birth are not unjust. I am, however, unjustly used by the civil authorities God has established. This is not a matter of social or distributive justice, but civil justice.
In either position I may work to alleviate my circumstances, and others may be morally compelled (even required) to act on my behalf. But the nature of the evil does not lie in the the fact of my slavery or my citizenship, but in the wicked actions of my oppressors. This is not to say that systems cannot be inherently wicked or unjust, but that the nature of the injustice is civil not distributive.
But that's all for now...
Jake, I fell weird about
Jake,
I fell weird about saying this publicly, but I think I should, since you’re apology was public: Apology accepted. (Of course.)
As for your last set of comments, I’ll focus on what I take to be the most important parts:
1. You wrote: “[T]he point of framing matters of the distribution of "social benefits and burdens" in terms of "justice" of any sort is to reenforce an egalitarian sense of entitlement that does not exist in God's economy.”
In response: This is admittedly a minor point, but the truth is that libertarians couldn’t be more opposed to egalitarian sentiments, but they are still comfortable talking about distributive justice; the libertarian will argue that the kind of system the egalitarian is pushing for is itself unjust, as it involves redistributing benefits and burdens without proper consent. On to bigger things.
2. You wrote: “Injustice always requires two parties: an oppressor and a victim. When God's sovereign distribution is called into question and spoken of in terms of justice, God is framed as the oppressor who is denying men that to which they are justly entitled. It then becomes our responsibility to determine how God should have distributed His gifts and graces. But I won't belabor this point further.”
In response: I can’t speak for everyone who voices a substantive claim about the (alleged) distributive justness of this or that system. (From here on out I’ll let the “alleged” be implicit, so that on the one hand I’m not always saying “alleged” or allegedly,” but on the other, I won’t appear to be insisting that there is such a thing as distributive justice.) But I can say this: There are plenty of people who call a certain system unjust—distributively unjust—but don’t frame it in terms of God oppressing individuals. Nor, so far as I can tell, do their claims need to be seen as claims that entail that God is an oppressor. As Christians, we recognize that there can be evil, with God in control of the situation, yet without God being responsible for the evil in a way that makes him blameworthy. We all know this is true of more mundane cases: God is sovereign, and I was assaulted, but God is not guilty of assault or blameworthy for having ordained it. But I see no reason why the same can’t be true of distributively unjust systems: God is sovereign, system X is distributively unjust, but God is not guilty of injustice or blameworthy for having ordained it.
Now, what I suspect is the case is that you know of lots of people who claim that God has treated them unjustly because he created them with certain disabilities or ordained their poverty, injury, or illness, where these people live in a society where such conditions are remediable yet they lack the resources to remedy them. Maybe you are objecting to the practice of alleging injustice in such cases. But I don’t yet see why the problem is the very concept of distributive justice itself (whether egalitarian, utilitarian, or libertarian) rather than the action of blaming God for the injustice. I think this is the key point at issue, and it will come up again below.
I won’t comment here on your claim about the number and nature of the parties essential to injustice. I think discussion of that claim (including discussion of whether and to what extent groups (families, institutions, nations, etc.) can count as oppressors and victims, what merits the status of oppression, and more) should be lengthy, face-to-face, and involve coffee, beer, or both (but not simultaneously), perhaps in the near future.
3. You wrote: “Let me be clear: I'm happy to call certain systems just and others unjust. You'll remember that I added this clause: "in terms of 'distribution.'" This is the key, and this is the point on which I stand. God's sovereign distribution of anything should not be spoken of in terms of justice.”
In response: See the previous comments about the distinction between calling something evil and blaming the sovereign God for that evil.
4. You wrote: "Let me use your example to explain my position. Slavery in and of itself is not inherently immoral. It is sanctioned and regulated in God's word. Therefore, if I am born a slave, I am not wronged, though I may find my circumstances unfair. If I am born into an abusive system of slavery, I am wronged, not by God, but by the abusers. It is not slavery in itself that is inherently unjust, but its abusers. This does not deny that a system of slavery may be established and imposed that is inherently unjust. But like I said above, the nature of injustice is such that it always involves two parties—an oppressor and the oppressed. In the case of an unjust system, it is the imposer of the system that is the unjust oppressor.”
In response: I agree with you that if you are born into abusive slavery, an unjust system, you are wronged, but not by God. In general, if you find yourself on the wrong side of an unjust system of any sort, you are wronged, but not by God. But as above, I think that believers in distributive justice can agree with us on this. At any rate, I haven’t yet seen a good reason to think that someone who claims that system X is distributively unjust must (explicitly or implicitly) attribute injustice or some other evil to God.
5. You wrote: “Similarly, monarchies are not inherently immoral or evil. Civil governments are established by God. If I am born into a state of tyranny, the circumstances of my birth are not unjust. I am, however, unjustly used by the civil authorities God has established. This is not a matter of social or distributive justice, but civil justice.
In either position I may work to alleviate my circumstances, and others may be morally compelled (even required) to act on my behalf. But the nature of the evil does not lie in the the fact of my slavery or my citizenship, but in the wicked actions of my oppressors. This is not to say that systems cannot be inherently wicked or unjust, but that the nature of the injustice is civil not distributive.”
In response: Here it looks like you want to show that an injustice in distributions is impossible in principle because true injustice always takes some other form. I don’t yet see how the argument is supposed to work. I will say this, though: If the ultimate goal in this last section is to demonstrate that the injustice of a system does not impugn the justness of the sovereign God, I agree. If this is your chief goal, then our key point of disagreement is the one I noted earlier, namely, that I fail to see why someone can’t believe that some systems have unjust distributions without thereby believing that God himself is evil.
John, I'll get around to
John,
I'll get around to replying eventually, I promise (I think). I just haven't had the time (or energy) over the past couple of days. And I've been secretly hoping that Joseph would advance the conversation in a new post. For the record, I think that you're basically right on our primary point of disagreement.
Also, I'd love to have a beer (or two) over the nature of injustice.
First of all, Jake, tone it
First of all, Jake, tone it down a bit. Your emotions are running high, but John is not on the attack. I am in pain, but I have not been injured by John. This is a very tense conversation for many of us for a variety or reasons. Let's try to keep it as friendly as possible. Your actual points are mostly excellent, and some of the same ones I intended to raise.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, John. I do believe that Jake has given some points that are worthy of answering, if you are willing. I am unable to answer thoroughly myself at this time. I will post what I had written as of yesterday.
-Joseph
John, I think that the
John, I think that the biggest problem in how you understand what I've written is that you treat the terms "officially" instead of popularly. In other words, you talk about social justice as "distributive justice", when *most* people don't think that way. Similarly you treat the word "egalitarian" as if it were an technical philosophical position. Again, most people don't think that way. They don't necessarily even think of themselves as egalitarians. However, they do think of themselves as the final arbiter of what is fair. And ultimately, if anybody gets something that I don't, whether they were born with it or earned it, I don't think it's fair. The heart of the egalitarian mindset that people have absorbed is that "I'm the judge". It is not a strawman. It is the common man.
The egalitarian mindset is not biblical.
This is all the further I made it. I will try to answer more later this week.
I will just add right now that I do believe there is such a thing as systemic injustice. Maybe that will help in this conversation.
Joseph, What? You mean I
Joseph,
What? You mean I rushed to interpret something someone said in a highly technical philosophical sense, thereby causing problems for all involved? That doesn’t sound like me at all. YOU must be the one with the problem, buddy. :)
The problem with the "justice
The problem with the "justice = fairness = egalitarianism" is more with the second equal sign, not the first. If the argument is that "fairness isn't Biblical," this is all nonsense, isn't it? Of course fairness and equity is Biblical.
The conflict here is between God's righteousness/justice/fairness/equity against man's clouded sense of it all. The Bible weaves righteousness, justice, fairness, and equity together into a single fabric of holy living. To say it another way, the point isn't at the the grass isn't green. It's simply that man is blind and has a very poor idea of what "grass" or "green are.
Speaking of (non-)technical terms, what is "God's economy" and what decides which rhetorical nuances are or are not included?
Actually, no. The problem is
Actually, no. The problem is primarily with the first equal sign. "Fair" is a much more accurate synonym of "equal" than it is of "just". In fact, there are only a handful of cases where fairness is even mentioned in the Bible, but justice is commended and commanded all the time.
In fact, one of the only places where fairness is mentioned is Col 4:1, and it distinguishes between justice and fairness: "Masters, grant to your slaves justice and *fairness*, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven." (Note the irony here. One of the only places the Bible talks about fairness, it is talking about how to treat your slaves...) The only other place that word is used, it is translated "equality". 2 Corinthians 8:13-14 "For this is not for the ease of others and for your affliction, but by way of *equality*--at this present time your abundance being a supply for their need, so that their abundance also may become a supply for your need, that there may be *equality*."
Similarly, in the Old Testament, we have Leviticus 19:15 "You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly." This is speaking of treating people *equally* in a court of law. Again, fairness and justice are distinguished from each other.
These are some of the only places where the word "fair" is used to mean anything besides 'beautiful' in the NASB. Yet there are hundreds of occurrences of justice, unjust, injustice, just, etc. And it is a synonym with righteousness, not fairness.
Stay tuned for my next post, and hopefully some more response to John's objections.
I'll concede that "fair" and
I'll concede that "fair" and "just" are distinct words, used with different frequency in the Bible. But that's very far from conceding that they're antithetical. In fact, "fair" being used in juxtaposition with "just" is proof that they are positively related. Elsewhere in the NASB: "Then you will discern righteousness and justice And equity and every good course" (Proverbs 2:9, see also 1:3). The NIV renders "equity" here as "fair." Righteousness, justice and equity are distinct ideas, but obviously related in a good way--kind of like "grass" and "green."
John, it is clear to me that
John, it is clear to me that the heart of the social justice agenda is indeed egalitarianism of the exact stripe that I painted.
"Social justice means complete and genuine equality of all people. Not exactly stuff for Bartlett's, but there you go."
- Paul George, executive director Pennisula Peace and Justice Center
JK, fairness is definitely a positive thing if we understand it biblically. My contention is that we don't understand it biblically. Fairness in the Bible is *treating* people the same, no matter how much money they have, what position they hold, or how good looking they are. You don't let those things cause you to treat them better. This is completely different from *making* them the same, which is what we understand fairness to be in America today.
Please see my next post and continue the conversation. Sorry I couldn't answer more fully here.
Post new comment