"Christians Should Be Ashamed To Use The Term Social Justice"

[B/W Photodude]

It seems that many in the SDA church are getting hooked into the social justice gospel. The article linked to will discuss the pitfalls of this philosophy.

Dr. Voddie Baucham "Christians Should Be Ashamed To Use The Term Social Justice"

What is the meaning of social justice?

Drawing from a general definition of social justice provided by the Oxford English Dictionary and commonly employed by leading schools of sociology, Baucham went on to discuss the meaning of the term.  He quoted scholar William H. Young, who describes social justice as “state redistribution of advantages and resources to disadvantaged groups to satisfy their rights to social and economic equality.”

In other words, social justice is redistributive justice — a material process of leveling the playing field for certain groups that are deemed “disadvantaged.”  It is essentially socialism and/or Marxism.

http://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2019/2/7/dr-voddie-bauchman-christians-should-be-ashamed-to-use-the-term-social-justice

More about Dr. Vodie Baucham:

https://voddiebaucham.org/about/

[Gregory Matthews]

The meaning of Social Justice, as given by the Fulcrum 7 article is limited.  Actually as used in society, it is expanded beyond what Fulcrum 7 has suggested.  The following comes from Wikipedia and includes some of the additional meanings of the term.

 

Quote

Social justice is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity, and social privileges. In Western as well as in older Asian cultures, the concept of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles and receive what was their due from society. In the current global grassroots movements for social justice, the emphasis has been on the breaking of barriers for social mobility, the creation of safety nets and economic justice.
Social justice assigns rights and duties in the institutions of society, which enables people to receive the basic benefits and burdens of cooperation. The relevant institutions often include taxation, social insurance, public health, public school, public services, labor law and regulation of markets, to ensure fair distribution of wealth, and equal opportunity.
Interpretations that relate justice to a reciprocal relationship to society are mediated by differences in cultural traditions, some of which emphasize the individual responsibility toward society and others the equilibrium between access to power and its responsible use. Hence, social justice is invoked today while reinterpreting historical figures such as Bartolomé de las Casas, in philosophical debates about differences among human beings, in efforts for gender, racial and social equality, for advocating justice for migrants, prisoners, the environment, and the physically and developmentally disabled.
While the concept of social justice can be traced through the theology of Augustine of Hippo and the philosophy of Thomas Paine, the term "social justice" became used explicitly from the 1840s. A Jesuit priest named Luigi Taparelli is typically credited with coining the term, and it spread during the revolutions of 1848 with the work of Antonio Rosmini-Serbati.  However, recent research has proved that the use of the expression "social justice" is older (even before the 19th century).^[17] In the late industrial revolution, progressive American legal scholars began to use the term more, particularly Louis Brandeis and Roscoe Pound. From the early 20th century it was also embedded in international law and institutions; the preamble to establish the International Labour Organization recalled that "universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice." In the later 20th century, social justice was made central to the philosophy of the social contract, primarily by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice (1971). In 1993, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action treats social justice as a purpose of human rights education.^[18][19]

Some authors such as Friedrich Hayek criticize the concept of social justice, arguing the lack of objective, accepted moral standard; and that while there is a legal definition of what is just and equitable "there is no test of what is socially unjust", and further that social justice is often used for the reallocation of resources based on an arbitrary standard which may in fact be inequitable or unjust.

 

•  

 

[B/W Photodude]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The meaning of Social Justice, as given by the Fulcrum 7 article is limited.  Actually as used in society, it is expanded beyond what Fulcrum 7 has suggested.  The following comes from Wikipedia and includes some of the additional meanings of the term.

 

Quote

 

Social justice is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity, and social privileges.

Social justice assigns rights and duties in the institutions of society, which enables people to receive the basic benefits and burdens of cooperation. The relevant institutions often include taxation, social insurance, public health, public school, public services, labor law and regulation of markets, to ensure fair distribution of wealth, and equal opportunity. 

Interpretations that relate justice to a reciprocal relationship to society are mediated by differences in cultural traditions, some of which emphasize the individual responsibility toward society and others the equilibrium between access to power and its responsible use.

"universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice."

...and further that social justice is often used for the reallocation of resources based on an arbitrary standard which may in fact be inequitable or unjust.

 

Well, you can put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig. All the points noted above, and as promoted by the social justice warriors of today, are also characteristics of past socialist/communists regimes and which led to massive upheavals in their societies and during the last century led to the slaughter of an estimated 100 million people in the various regimes that pretended to pursue these ideals.

To be very specific, social justice is not possible in this world and attempts to make it so result in very bad outcomes. Right or wrong, pursuing social justice is also wrong when forced on a people. You could also find very specific reasons in the Bible and in SOP of the dangers of this philosophy.

[Gregory Matthews]

One should often not characterize something by a few selected elements.

There may be elements of social justice, as proposed by some that are wrong.

There may also be elements of social justice, as proposed by some that are right.

One aspect of social justice is the idea that the public should receive the benefits to which they are entitled by law without discrimination.  That is one correct aspect.  

[Gregory Matthews]

But, as I stated, the article only dwelt with a limited view of what social justice actually is.

We should not throw out the baby with the dirty bath water.  Under social justice considerations, you will go to jail if you do.

 

 

 

[B/W Photodude]

7 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Hitler took it to a whole different level though. His populists front that he displayed was not social justice, as Gregory is trying to outline. That was a whole different thing.

Hitler was a mild one compared to Stalin and Mao. 100 million did not fall on Hitlers doorstep. Then look at Venezuela today. People are starving there and eating animals even out of the zoos.

And I reposted from Gregory's quote, you can almost see a progression from what seems ideal, to outright envy and use of government to accomplish those aims. While certain facets of social justice, may be ideal, I suspicion it will never stop there. You only need look at what the far leftists in US government are up to recognize it. The envy of Trump's wealth is amazing. However, as one said, I would rather see a billionaire become president than a president become a billionaire! There is a class of people who are out to control the world's population and social justice is one more way.

I am not saying that huge amounts of wealth is right, but certainly is envy of their wealth not right also. And using government to "fix" it is as wrong as fixing the world's problems by making everyone keep Sunday as sabbath.