Social Justice

[SivartM]

Okay, I wasn't sure about that. My church doesn't do ingathering or talk about it except in the context of things Adventists used to do.

So, what are we going to do?

[olger]

Just recieved this from a friend.Warning: this is kind of long.

"If you just want a good recommendation of a very encouraging new Bible study program on justice, you can skip to the last paragraph. But for some history of the term "social justice" and how some evangelicals have interpreted it in a socialist fashion and others have argued the contrary, you might want to go ahead and read the whole thing.

A week or so ago I began reading Anthony Bradley's LIBERATING BLACK THEOLOGY (http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&am...sins=1433511479), which is a refutation of "Black Liberation Theology" but along the way makes some very telling points in critique of mainstream theology, including evangelical theology, for its failure to take adequately into account the historical background of African Americans that makes many standard ways of handling the Bible seem questionable or even outright vicious to them. Even though Bradley usually concludes that their own interpretation and application of Scripture on the contested points is mistaken, he also insightfully points out the mistakes others have made. (Bradley's African American, by the way.)

Now, about the meaning of "social justice." Terms arise in historical contexts, and this one has a particular history that we need to understand. It arose primarily among those who sought to promote two ideas in contrast to the previously dominant notion of justice. The previously dominant notion had been that justice is principally rendering to EACH his DUE. I emphasize those two words to highlight that the dominant notion tended to emphasize that justice applies primarily to individuals, not to groups, and that it requires rendering what is due, not some other standard. Proponents of social justice challenged both of these assumptions. They insisted that justice is more communitarian, more group oriented, than individualistic, and that the simple fact of being human entitles one to certain benefits--they need not be earned. Both sides actually affirm the principles of both sides, but the emphasis differs. The "social justice" side, though, added another idea to the mix: that what is "due" is equality--not only equality before the law (so that the same rules apply to all) but also equality of opportunity (which of course is impossible so long as people are differently gifted physically, mentally, circumstantially, and relationally--i.e., in the real world) and, in the thinking of many of them, equality of outcome, at least in the distribution of material benefits (money, food, clothing, shelter, transportation, education, health care, etc.). That understanding of "justice" has long roots in history, both secular and ecclesiastical, so that Thomas Molnar could write of it as UTOPIA: THE PERENNIAL HERESY (http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&am...sins=B000V9KMHG). The radical Anabaptists (but not all Anabaptists) promoted it, leading to violent revolutions associated with their branches of the Reformation. The most important modern proponent of the idea, though, was Karl Marx. Through that historical line the term "social justice" came to denote belief that wealth ought to be distributed, if not absolutely equally, at least to some approximation of equality, regardless of who produces it, and that group the evaluation of how equally it is distributed must be not only on the individual but also on the group basis.

In the 1960s and 1970s, some evangelicals--most notably Ronald J. Sider in his book RICH CHRISTIANS IN AN AGE OF HUNGER (first edition about 1976; now in about its sixth or seventh edition; http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&am...sins=0849945305) and Jim Wallis of the Sojourners community--began promoting "social justice" of an egalitarian sort: arguing that wide gaps between rich and poor are ipso facto injustice and that the Bible requires narrowing those gaps by taxing wealth away from some and giving it to others. They based their arguments on the sabbatical year and jubilee year debt relief laws (Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15), the apparent community of goods in the early church in Jerusalem (Acts 2 and 4), and Paul's statement that the aim of his collection of money for the saints in Jerusalem during famine was "that there may be equality" (2 Corinthians 8)

Various evangelical theologians, Bible scholars, and economists replied, successfully--in my judgment--refuting the arguments. Among those were Ronald Nash (POVERTY AND WEALTH: THE CHRISTIAN DEBATE OVER CAPITALISM, http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&am...sins=0891074023, and SOCIAL JUSTICE AND THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&am...sins=0788099167), David Chilton (PRODUCTIVE CHRISTIANS IN AN AGE OF GUILT MANIPULATORS, http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&am...sins=0930464044), and yours truly (PROSPERITY AND POVERTY: THE COMPASSIONATE USE OF RESOURCES IN A WORLD OF SCARCITY, http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&am...sins=1579108083).

Suffice it to say that careful Biblical exegesis doesn't support the egalitarian interpretations of the passages those on the evangelical Left cited. The sabbatical year debt relief law required not the cancellation but the suspension of debt payments during the sabbatical year. The jubilee year law provided a structure whereby land (or even one's own indentured service) served as working collateral to ensure repayment of loans, and when the loans were repaid, the collateral was returned. The sharing in the Jerusalem church was voluntary, not compulsory (Acts 5:1-4). And the equality at which Paul aimed in the collection for the saints at Jerusalem was an equality in which the Gentiles who in their spiritual lack had received of the spiritual abundance emanating from the church in Jerusalem would from their material abundance provide relief for those in Jerusalem in their material lack (Paul expressing this in an ingenious way in 2 Corinthians 8: the Jerusalem saints' abundance of material need provided opportunity for the Corinthians saints to fill up their own lack, a lack, that is, of prior generous giving; but he expressed it more directly in Romans 15:27)--and again, all was voluntary (2 Corinthians 9:5-7), motivated not by justice but by grace and love (2 Corinthians 8:5-6, 9).

Well, that's a lot more than I intended to write, and I've not even gotten to the point I most wanted to make at the start. But here it is: The happy thing is that a number of leading conservative Christian social thinkers have teamed together to reassert the Biblical meaning of justice in society. See http://www.seeksocialjustice.com/. They've even produced a series of lesson plans to use for it in church Sunday schools and the like. Primary persons involved are Anthony Bradley (whose book I mentioned at the start of this note), Rudy Carrasco, Chuck Colson, Sean Litton, Al Mohler, Marvin Olasky, Star Parker, Jay Richards, and Robert Woodson. I highly recommend their study program."

E. Calvin Beisner

[Neil D]

Social Justice -- the 2 most dangerous words the SDA Church, any church, for that matter, can ever include in it's ministry.

Strongly advise leaving the church in which the minister/leaders, like our own General Conference Prez, are pushing SOCIAL JUSTICE!

Our family have quit attending the large church here... as the minister literally stood up at the pulpit & campaigned for Obama.

He actually supports Gamaliel group & Tides Foundation.

Marxism!

Ellen White vividly stressed against all ministers from putting their political views out in the open. Especially at church.

Everything that is occurring in our country, at this moment are exactly what she teaches to stand up against. She even states that we should go protest & vote on Sabbath if it's the only time available.

Pray for our church. We are under attact by the enemy from within -- more than I've ever witnessed in my 52 yrs.

And one thing nobody would ever label me... fanatic.

This is laughable ***IF*** people didn't actually believe it...It is a satire statement, but people actually believe this ...stuff...

The problem is that this speaks to character of the people. "Spreading the wealth by force" is code for "I earned my money and I will keep my money and I will decided where and when it goes out and to whom." It shows a direct lack of relationship and responsibility to one's own country. It fails to recognize that one is responsible to his country, and it fails recognize that we human beings are in this world together whether we agree with it or not. Quite simply, it is a very blatant form of selfishness.

[Neil D]

What! You don't think those words are the absolute truth, so help you God??

My-my....what are we going to do with you.

Well, I thought I would just create a bit of chaos, mischief, and confusion....So far, up to this point, none of the conservative crowd has responded...and so far, I have succeeded......

....so, when are you gonna jump in here and add your bit of gold dust [aka $0.02]......?

[phkrause]

"In the 1960s and 1970s, some evangelicals--most notably Ronald J. Sider in his book RICH CHRISTIANS IN AN AGE OF HUNGER (first edition about 1976; now in about its sixth or seventh edition; http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&am...sins=0849945305) and Jim Wallis of the Sojourners community--began promoting "social justice" of an egalitarian sort: arguing that wide gaps between rich and poor are ipso facto injustice and that the Bible requires narrowing those gaps by taxing wealth away from some and giving it to others. They based their arguments on the sabbatical year and jubilee year debt relief laws (Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15), the apparent community of goods in the early church in Jerusalem (Acts 2 and 4), and Paul's statement that the aim of his collection of money for the saints in Jerusalem during famine was "that there may be equality" (2 Corinthians 8)"

I agree that with this up to a point. I don't believe that the Bible/God is requiring the narrowing of the gap by taxing. But I do believe that the reason that God setup the Jubilee system was that the gap would not get out of hand. This is the reason we see this happening for the past 15-20 yrs and its just going to get greater and greater. At some point we will only have the extremely rich and the extremely poor. Not sure if the Bible mentions this or EGW. But kind of remember my pastor in NY, Dr. Hoffman saying this back in the late 50s and early 60s.

pk

[GreatLakesGramma]

The problem is that this speaks to character of the people. "Spreading the wealth by force" is code for "I earned my money and I will keep my money and I will decided where and when it goes out and to whom." It shows a direct lack of relationship and responsibility to one's own country. It fails to recognize that one is responsible to his country, and it fails recognize that we human beings are in this world together whether we agree with it or not. Quite simply, it is a very blatant form of selfishness.

The system of having the government take care of the citizenry actually constitutes an abdication of individual responsibility: (Let the government take care of everybody that has needs, then I won't have to concern myself with it.) I read, years ago, that charitable giving is much less in our day than it was in the days before the government set up social welfare programs.

Besides that, you must remember that by far the majority of American citizens are not Christians, and they couldn't care less for your opinion of their selfishness. They are working for the benefit of their own families, not yours or mine. When the government penalizes the most productive workers more and more, they aren't going to tell themselves, "it's my duty to keep working myself so hard that I never see my family, impair my health, and have no time for myself, so I can support the needy in this country." They're going to say "why the **** should I work so hard so the government can confiscate 75% of my income? I'll close my business and go to work for someone else, so I can work 40 hours a week instead of 80, get paid vacations, spend time with my family, and end up with almost as much net income as I have now." People are already doing that. A large number of wealthy are even leaving the country in disgust over being taxed so heavily here.

So long as the prevailing attitude was that it was shameful to take charity, one must do absolutely everything they possibly could to take care of their own family, and dependence on the government was the absolute last resort, it wasn't such a bad thing to have the government help those who really were in need. But since the prevailing attitude has changed to a sense of entitlement, it will be the downfall of this country. There are too many being dependent and not enough being responsible, for it to go on for much longer.

My mother remarked, when I told her of husband's job situation, that if we could hang on for 5 years, husband could retire on Social Security. We are NOT looking to do that. We don't expect Social Security to be solvent anymore by then. We are just planning on working 'til we drop.

[karl]

"Spreading the wealth by force" is code for "I earned my money and I will keep my money and I will decided where and when it goes out and to whom." Quite simply, it is a very blatant form of selfishness.

If you have read the ten commandments lately you can see that the prohibitions are not only against taking someone else's property or life, but against even wanting them.

Now the some come along and proclaim a person to be immoral, not for wanting or taking someone else's property or life, but for wanting to keep his own.

George Orwell would love this kind of a reversal.

Now, before you roast me, I understand that Christians are called to voluntarily lay down their lives. But please don't stretch that to try and make it OK for someone else to take their lives. Those are two entirely different things.

Apples and oranges.

[GreatLakesGramma]

What I would like to know is, what exactly is social justice as it relates to the church?

[Tallmark]

What about the blacks prejudice against whites (very widespread)? What about the women who abuse their husbands? If you want to tackle social issues, we have to tackle the ones that hurt or are uncomfortable to bring up. Are you willing to be called a racist or a sexist? I am. If we discuss part of the problem and not all of it, we get no where.

[there buster]

I try to avoid discussions of "social justice" because no one is willing to define it, and then stand behind the definition. A number of years ago I was going to write an article about "social justice," and so I sent inquiries to a number of individuals and institutions that claim to be very concerned with social justice. I simply asked them for a definition.

Even though I identified myself as a writer and described my purpose, from Sojourners, for exammple, I got the equivalent of "who wants to know." Nobody wanted to put forth a definition. When I reiterated my identity and purpose, one group gave me some verbiage about "a striving for . . ." with a set of nebulous and immeasurable goals. Given the confusion of their definition, it was clear they didn't know what they thought social justice was.

So I find no point in discussing something no one can define.

[GreatLakesGramma]

So what is social justice in relation to the church? Does it mean the church gets politically active, lobbying to get laws changed? Or what?

[Bravus]

There seems to be this obsession in this thread with law and taxation and government, but that's not at all what I think of in terms of social justice - much more it's about individual charity and caring and support. The SDA church has a long history of medical missionary work, medical work, education, development and disaster relief work, and so on. It's a proud history and one that I believe needs to be maintained and expanded upon. And one which needs to have an appropriate care for helping those less fortunate: I know the excellent SDA school I went to would likely now be out of the financial reach, even sacrificially, of my factory-working parents without some fee relief measures.

How about we spend less energy on the politics of what government does or doesn't do, and more on what we as individuals and as a church can do?

[GreatLakesGramma]

But those are things the church has been doing all along, and they would more properly be termed social welfare. I still haven't got an answer to what "social justice" actually means in relation to the church. Does it mean the church should get involved in such issues as combating human trafficking? I'm all for that! What is the function of a church social justice department?

[bonnie]

I try to avoid discussions of "social justice" because no one is willing to define it, and then stand behind the definition. A number of years ago I was going to write an article about "social justice," and so I sent inquiries to a number of individuals and institutions that claim to be very concerned with social justice. I simply asked them for a definition.

Even though I identified myself as a writer and described my purpose, from Sojourners, for exammple, I got the equivalent of "who wants to know." Nobody wanted to put forth a definition. When I reiterated my identity and purpose, one group gave me some verbiage about "a striving for . . ." with a set of nebulous and immeasurable goals. Given the confusion of their definition, it was clear they didn't know what they thought social justice was.

So I find no point in discussing something no one can define.

Much of the time the phrase "social justice" is code word for equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity.

[Tom Wetmore]

This from the Sojourners blog is helpful:

What the Heck is ‘Social Justice’?

by Rose Marie Berger 03-24-2010

Today I was interviewed by a sociology student who wanted to know more about “social justice.” I was happy to talk to her. My Catholic tradition considers social justice as a central element of faith, public witness, and as integral to Catholic Social Teaching. In our conversation I drew on an article I’d written a few years back: “What the Heck is ‘Social Justice’?” (Sojourners, February 2007).

A starting question when talking about social justice is: What’s the difference between justice and charity?

Justice is the moral code that guides a fair and equitable society. When an individual acts on behalf of justice, he or she stands up for what is right. Charity is a basic sense of generosity and goodwill toward others, especially the suffering. Individual charity is when one responds to the more immediate needs of others — volunteering in a women’s shelter, for example. [see also An Active Faith by Yonce Shelton for more on charity and justice.]

The goal of social charity and social justice is furthering the common good. Social charity addresses the effects of social sin, while social justice addresses the causes of such sins. Brazilian Catholic Archbishop Hélder Câmara famously said, “When I feed the poor, they call me a saint; when I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.” His phrase indicates the societal pressure to separate charity and justice. The two cannot be separated. It would be like taking the heart out of a body — neither would live for long.

Social charity is sometimes called compassionate solidarity. A church’s decision to buy only fair trade coffee might be considered an act of social charity. It is a communal economic act that addresses the immediate needs of those who are oppressed by an unjust economic system. However, it doesn’t fundamentally change or challenge the unjust structure.

So just what is the definition of social justice?

The principle of social justice, according to Catholic social teaching, requires the individual Christian to act in an organized manner with others to hold social institutions accountable — whether government or private — to the common good. The “common good comprises the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily,” according to Pope Paul VI. However, social justice can become hollow if it is not constantly in touch with real people’s experiences.

How does one “do” social justice?

Social justice issues are determined by “discerning the signs of the times” (Matthew 16:3), a careful process of social analysis. First, we listen to and observe the experiences of those closest to the problem. Second, together with those closest to the problem, we look at the context. What’s the history and what are the root causes? Are there political and/or cultural forces at play? We take the expanded information (experience plus context) and examine it in light of biblical values and Christian teaching. What would Jesus do in a situation like this? Third, we ask: What action might successfully make this situation more just? Finally, we take the action and evaluate the results. The evaluation takes us back to step one.

The theology of social justice cannot be separated from the full scope of Christian spiritual and moral development. But theology is always incarnated in the real lives and experiences of people. If it’s too abstract, then it becomes useless to the living breathing walk of faith that every Christian must make.

Rose Marie Berger, an associate editor at Sojourners, blogs at www.rosemarieberger.com. She’s the author of the forthcoming book Who Killed Donte Manning?: The Story of an American Neighborhood (Apprentice House, April 2010).

[GreatLakesGramma]

The principle of social justice, according to Catholic social teaching, requires the individual Christian to act in an organized manner with others to hold social institutions accountable — whether government or private — to the common good. The “common good comprises the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily,” according to Pope Paul VI. However, social justice can become hollow if it is not constantly in touch with real people’s experiences.

So then, social justice would involve being politically active?

[Tom Wetmore]

Not necessarily. I don't read that as essential or a necessary part of social justice. It may be a means to achieve results but not the only or even the best way.

[phkrause]

Not necessarily. I don't read that as essential or a necessary part of social justice. It may be a means to achieve results but not the only or even the best way.

I definitely agree with that. Keep politics out of it period.

pk

[doug yowell]

I try to avoid discussions of "social justice" because no one is willing to define it, and then stand behind the definition. A number of years ago I was going to write an article about "social justice," and so I sent inquiries to a number of individuals and institutions that claim to be very concerned with social justice. I simply asked them for a definition.

Even though I identified myself as a writer and described my purpose, from Sojourners, for exammple, I got the equivalent of "who wants to know." Nobody wanted to put forth a definition. When I reiterated my identity and purpose, one group gave me some verbiage about "a striving for . . ." with a set of nebulous and immeasurable goals. Given the confusion of their definition, it was clear they didn't know what they thought social justice was.

So I find no point in discussing something no one can define.

I tend to think that that's just the point. If no one can understand what you're getting at you'll be more easily able to get to it unhindered.Like a Whackama Joe. There seems to be an agenda somewhere but no one can quite find it."Does anyone really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?"

[doug yowell]

Not necessarily. I don't read that as essential or a necessary part of social justice. It may be a means to achieve results but not the only or even the best way.

So Tom, What specific examples of social justice could the SDA church be addressing that they are now ignoring? Are there any areas that we're doing well?

[Gerr]

I'll stick my neck out and say social justice is doing the right thing for all creatures capable of social interaction but specially for human beings.

[doug yowell]

I'll stick my neck out and say social justice is doing the right thing for all creatures capable of social interaction but specially for human beings.

So does that mean the spotted owl is out? (They're not very sociable) Can you give a specific example to illustrate? I appreciate the effort.

[Gerr]

Maybe not sociable with you but sociable with other owls. While man had been given dominion over this planet, cruelty to even lower creatures was not in God's plan, even less so in the neglect of the poor and less fortunate fellow human beings.

It pains me to see pigs & cattle confined in small enclosures in factory farms and never see daylight, deprived of anything that they should at least enjoy in the natural world before they are eaten. And to see people who cannot afford healthcare or just a step away from total disaster for lack of it, in this so-called rich Christian country is unconscionable.

[doug yowell]

Maybe not sociable with you but sociable with other owls. While man had been given dominion over this planet, cruelty to even lower creatures was not in God's plan, even less so in the neglect of the poor and less fortunate fellow human beings.

It pains me to see pigs & cattle confined in small enclosures in factory farms and never see daylight, deprived of anything that they should at least enjoy in the natural world before they are eaten. And to see people who cannot afford healthcare or just a step away from total disaster for lack of it, in this so-called rich Christian country is unconscionable.

So should the church (SDA) pool it's resources and provide health(care or insurance?)for all those who can't afford it?

[lazarus]

Here's a couple of things that we have done/are doing that fall into the category of working for social justice.

We hosted a gang awareness night for local parents.

Local school principals, county police gang unit was there, health and human services, states attorneys office. The night was about educating parents about local gangs and how parent scan spot the child's involvement with gangs etc.

We are hosting a 5 week parenting class of community parents. If the class is completed they get a free pc.