After posting Part 1 of this series, I discovered that many people associate social justice with one political debate or personal issue. Social justice is a very broad topic, and it cannot be limited to health care or immigration, for example. This conversation definitely has a connection to those things, but my intention is not to try to answer specific questions through a general discussion of a movement... In other words, there is a problem assuming that because I oppose social justice that I must oppose everything that it supports. This is particularly problematic because the social justice movement is attempting to subsume so much of basic Christian behavior under its banner. It’s as if they think that they invented mercy, but here’s the problem: the social justice movement doesn’t know what mercy is.
So as I promised in my last post, this one will deal with some of the more obvious proofs that social justice is not doing what it claims.
1. Social justice doesn’t protect the weak.
The dead giveaway here is that the social justice movement doesn’t care about abortion. I take that back. It does care. The social justice movement actively promotes abortion. Social justice speaks of the need for “equal rights and access” to abortion, just as it speaks of the need for “equal rights and access” to “other kinds of healthcare”. The justice that God has commanded is to defend those who are weak, defenseless and defender-less. Isn’t this supposedly what the social justice movement is doing? Abortion is an actual injustice, not a perceived inequity. If social justice were doing what its name implied, it would be working to end abortion, instead of promoting it or at best, downplaying it.
2. Social justice prevents mercy and creates an entitlement mentality.
This happens by making everything an issue of basic rights and justice. Some things are issues of justice, but if everything is an issue of rights, then there is no room for mercy. If we raise the level of rights, the level of entitlement by definition must also rise. If it is a basic right for everybody to not be hungry, then if I am hungry and you have food, I can demand it. It is my right. And if you give me food, you haven’t had mercy on me. You have done what you were required to do. It isn’t voluntary. It isn’t charity or mercy. Today it is considered social justice to buy fair-trade coffee. Redefining so much as an issue of justice leaves no room for obedience to Jesus’ command to have mercy on the needy.
Come back next week for an explanation of why social justice isn’t loving.
Comments
I understand the spirit of
I understand the spirit of what you're trying to say regarding social justice, but the way you say it makes my logic gears in my head grind.
For example, you wrote, "[Y]ou haven't had mercy on me. You have done what were required to do. It isn't voluntary." But you quoted Micah earlier about mercy literally being required. You recalled that Jesus commands it. If an act can't be mercy because it's required, mercy can't be mercy. Again, I know what you mean, but your words aren't expressing it explicitly, I think. An act done out of fear of man can't be mercy, but surely feeding the hungry is required (by God) and can also be mercy.
Social justice is the world's attempt to approximate godly mercy and generosity, but the driving force is fear of man which subverts it completely. You can see this the best with its insatiable blood-lust in promoting abortion. I think that's a perfect point you made. I might be just being contrary for the sake of being contrary, but I'm hoping that I'm being more helpful than belligerent.
You bring up an excellent
You bring up an excellent point about being commanded to have mercy. In fact, I had been trying to puzzle that out in the back of my mind. You just helped me figure it out, I think. There are 2 things I would say about it.
First, there is a difference between being commanded and being forced. I don't think it is possible to say that it is mercy when we have been forced. Second, there is a difference between giving to somebody whom you owe vs giving to somebody in need. I don't think it can be called mercy to give what you owe to somebody.
I'm very curious what you would say to these points. Do they make sense? Do they answer your point?
Thanks for your criticism, it is helpful in purifying my thinking and writing on this. I believe you are right concerning what social justice actually is.
"There is a difference
"There is a difference between being commanded and being forced."
I think this distinction might be an artifact of our delusions about being self-determinant. For a military man under authority, what's the difference? We're either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. But, on the other hand, God loves a cheerful giver. I guess the way to resolve that tension is to recognize that being forced and being cheerful aren't mutually exclusive.
"There is a a difference between giving to somebody whom you owe vs giving to somebody in need."
Didn't you define (Biblical) justice as giving someone what he deserved? Is that the same as giving someone what he is owed? If the former is justice and the latter is mercy, I think we force an unnatural antagonism between justice and mercy. At first blush, we can see that these definitions don't involve God, so there must be something less than absolutely right about it.
We are under compulsion to show mercy because we are in a mercy debt. God showed us mercy and expects us to do the same in order to conform to his character. If we show mercy because we think we owe poor/African/Mexican/short people, we're just idiots. But we do owe Christ everything, so we're to show kindness. This mechanism of propagating mercy is an integral part of God's justice (like in Matthew 5:7, 18:21-35, 25:31-46). If social justice loses sight of the fact that we owe the debt to God and not to man, all the evils of hell break loose.
I'm sure there's more to say, but I don't have time to think of them right now. We'll have to continue the conversation.
Being commanded and being
Being commanded and being forced are indeed similar, but I'm not convinced that they are the same thing, and I don't think it is just our delusional society that creates the difference. But let me skip to the next part of your response.
You said, "Didn't you define (Biblical) justice as giving someone what he deserved? Is that the same as giving someone what he is owed? If the former is justice and the latter is mercy, I think we force an unnatural antagonism between justice and mercy."
Indeed, I believe justice is giving somebody what he deserves, which is the same thing as giving him what he is owed. I'm not saying one is justice and the other is mercy. *Both* of those things are justice. That's my whole point. If I *owe* you $50 and then you go broke and then I give you $50, have I had mercy on you? Not really. I've just given you what I owe you, or what you deserve.
God is just because He punishes sin, but he is merciful (primarily) by sending his Son to take the punishment for our sins. In a similar way, we are just when we give people the good or bad things that they deserve, but we are merciful when we give them good things that they don't deserve. That's my whole point. We can't stand before God and claim to have had mercy on the needy by saying "I gave every person what I owed them."
You're sort of getting at the same point when you say, "If we show mercy because we think we owe poor/African/Mexican/short people, we're just idiots." My claim is that is exactly what social justice is—thinking we are showing mercy by giving people what we owe them.
Do we have a mercy debt? Yes. Is it to them? No. That's why, as Christians, we can not only be just, but also merciful. We can look at somebody and say honestly, "They don't deserve this, but I'm going to have mercy on them for the 77th time." Why? Because we have been shown mercy.
On the other hand, as soon as the social justice movement realizes it is giving to people who don't deserve what they are getting, it must stop. By framing everything as a matter of justice, the social justice movement can't allow for mercy.
I wasn't clear. I was
I wasn't clear. I was referring to your sentence when saying "former" and "latter." There is an unnatural antagonism between "Giving what is deserved/owed" ("justice") and "Giving what is needed" (mercy). I think I'm on board with the characterization of mercy, but I'm less so with justice.
You said God is just for having distributed blessings unequally. In particular, God is not unjust (i.e. He is just) for making me rich, smart, healthy and beautiful and others less so. What does that have to do with being deserving? What makes this unequal distribution of talents just (i.e. fair) is the equally unequal distribution of responsibilities. "From everyone who has been given much, much will be required." Requiring mercy is God's justice, and mercy is administering that justice faithfully. There is no one without the other.
The highest form of justice
The highest form of justice is compassion. There are two kinds of wisdom, the wisdom of this world and the wisdom of God, likewise with justice.
Have you thought of how these words are linked - justice and justification?
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth so are my ways higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9. Spiritual perception only comes when we spend time with God.
I was taught that the responsibility of the government is equality, that the responsibility of the church is liberty, to liberate others, and the responsibility of business is fraternity, or brotherhood.
Without compassion there is no justice. The word that troubles me is the word "deserves." Discipline is not born of harsh reactions, it is born of love, the love of our Father, it always gives rise to constructive response, confession, repentance and obedience.
To offer justice we must extend the hand of compassion.
Dear JK and
Dear JK and anonymous,
Justice and Mercy are antithetical to each other apart from the cross of Jesus Christ. It is only because God punished his innocent Son in place of us that He can still be called Just while allowing us into Heaven. The fact that He sent his Son to die for some is his mercy. The fact that his Son *had* to die for some is his justice.
It is impossible for the world to be both just and merciful, because the world does not have the cross. Social justice is advocated by thousands upon thousands of people who claim no faith in Christ. Either the name is a lie (because they aren't being just) or what they are advocating is a lie (because they aren't having mercy).
For Christians to want to join the world in their crusade to take God off his throne and place us there as judges instead is absolutely inexcusable.
-Joseph
P.S. Anonymous, we request that you use some form of your real name while commenting on this blog. Thanks.
P.P.S. Discipline and punishment are not the same thing. God's wrath and punishment are what we deserve. His loving discipline of his sons is a gift given in his mercy.
"For God so loved the world
"For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life."
When Adam and Eve sinned they were cast out of the Garden of Eden and thus their sin passed onto mankind. Thousands of years passed and man could not provide for himself a solution. What do you think God should have done to break this chain of inslavement to sin? How do you see the prophecies of Old?
It is true that discipline and punishment are not the same thing. Old time religion concentrated on us being unworthy, yet, "God is not willing that any should perish." The love of God is linked with discipline. What do you think about sacrificial giving ? Sometimes when a parent loves his child he will sacrifice his own wants and desires to provide for that child. Are we not his children, the children of faith? The children of God in the Old Testament looked forward to the coming of the Messiah and why?
Dear Tabitha, Thank you for
Dear Tabitha,
Thank you for your comment, but I'm not sure I understand it or how the questions you ask are related to the topic at hand.
Maybe you can explain your thinking a bit more?
Thanks,
-Joseph
I suppose I have not
I suppose I have not addressed the social justice issue head on, partly because I live in a different country and partly because the understanding varies. There are two approaches to salvation and how it is attained held by different churches here. One links it with social justice, and its understanding is how to bring justice into the world by addressing issues of the day and at present making a number of apologies to those who were mistreated in times past. This is a difficult subject, because the matter of personal salvation and what it constitutes brings about variy different views. Main line churches and evangelical churches can have very different views.
When I think of social justice, from the Christian perspective I think in terms of what James said, "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this; to visit the orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." James 1:27. This is the responsibility of the children of God, to take care of these concerns. We represent the government of God upon this planet, so we need to be clear as to where we place our allegiences and how we define what it means to be born again. The Scripture already says that the spirit of the anti christ is already in the world, so it is important to test the spirit. I John 4. Social justice in world does not include the message of God
and if I remember correctly from my time states side, there was the issue of seperation between church and state.
However, the sanctity of life is of extreme important. It flavors what we do and how we react. Life is Sacred, a gift of God. The world does not see that Life is Sacred and that it is a God given gift. As to my other points....
Biblically speaking there are three things to understand - there is the natural man, the carnal man and the spiritual man. In the world we have the natural man, and it seems that he lacks spiritual perception and has little knowledge of God period, although he might be able to handle the language frame, but information is not knowledge. The carnal seeks to stradle the fence and this means there are divided loyalies or insecurities in the faith do to whatever influenced ones life growing up. The spiritual man is the man that works from a foundation based in the filling of the Holy Spirit. This latter is definitely not part of the world, yet, it is involved in the world in the sense of extended missions into the world. For instance Robert Rakes (sp?) in church history saw that the children were forced to work to support their families and he saw that these children needed some form of education and out of that movement we have gained what is known as Sunday School, however, over time the world decided to introduce public forms of education and in taking it out of the hands of the church, well, children are not taught the faith, gain little understanding about how important it is to follow God, and their focus as to what is of eternal significance is not understood. This however, is not always the case, as God has all power.
We are in the world, but we are not of the world. We are the salt. One can not serve God and mammon. The choice for the Christian is to decide what is of utmost importance - for instance, how has God directed your life? Has He led you into the political realm of our earthly governments, to be a witness and prayer warrior or has He lead you somewhere else in this life of mission and purpose on earth.
How do the above questions relate to the topic? Well, they direct one to the statement re: the punishment of the Son of God. Here, there are also varing views. I do not see the crucifixion and what insued as punishment. In the Old Testament there were animal sacrifices which was an external form of declaring that the people were forgiven for their sins. Those animals, particularly lambs had to be clean without blemish and carried into time, Jesus became know as the "lamb that was slain." He was without blemish, He had not sinned. He came to give life and teach us how to live, He healed the sick, raised the dead and offered us redemption. He was the ultimate Lamb that was slain. (It is worth while to reflect on Isaiah 53.) The word justification means that He looks at us as having no sin. The jist is that He shed His blood and "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." We live in the world, but we are not of the world. In someways I see, this as sacrificial giving. God loved His Son, but there were a whole lot of people that needed saving and released from the bondage of sin. This does not mean we do not sin, but we are no longer under law, we have entered grace. This does not mean we are not tempted, we are, this does not mean we are no longer harassed by Satan and sin, but we have access to the Father, for overcoming power. There is spiritual warfare. It is important to know what the Son came to do as mentioned in Isaiah 61, - "to bring good tidings to the afflicted, he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted and to proclaim liberty to the captives and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor...." This is what He came to do and he fulfilled the law, but it is also what we must do for others. This is justice to bring the message of the love of God to a world caught in disillusioned dreams. I hope this is helpful.
Post new comment