I beg you, look for the words "social justice" or "economic justice" on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words.I'm not defending the statement. I'm not supporting the call to leave. But folks like Jim Wallis of the liberal Sojourners have called on Christians to boycott Beck, and I'm not going with Wallis, either. Then there was the ridiculous report from the local news. "Glenn Beck associates a just society with totalitarianism." Okay, now I think I have to say something.
First, Glenn Beck is a Mormon. In that sense, I don't classify him as a Christian. He is not speaking for Christianity. Oddly enough, though, we have a Mormon who is better able to identify a problem than a so-called Christian. The Sojourner crowd identify themselves as dedicated to "social justice", but it was Beck who identified this as "a perversion of the Gospel". Now we have something to discuss.
Lets look at the term that is causing the controversy: "social justice". Various sources provide various definitions. Just asking Google for a definition, I found a couple. One says, "the concept of a society that gives individuals and groups fair treatment and an equitable share of the benefits of society." Another is clearer: "The fair distribution of advantages, assets, and benefits among all members of a society." So while, at the face of it, the term seems a given (Wikipedia says, "Social justice is the concept in which a subjective notion of justice and/or equality is achieved in every aspect of society."), perhaps you can begin to see where Beck gets the idea that these are "code words". They are indeed code words. Back up. If I asked you for a word to match this definition -- "The fair distribution of advantages, assets, and benefits among all members of a society." -- what would your likely term be? I suspect it would closer to "socialism" than connecting it to justice of some kind. In other words, in a society built on capitalism, we would not define "equal distribution of assets" in terms of "justice".
In truth, then, while a lot of people mean a variety of things by the term "social justice", it turns out that Glenn Beck is more accurate than his detractors when he points at it as code and warns that it is closer to Communism than Christianity. More disturbing to me, of course, is that a Mormon who doesn't actually know the Gospel is more accurate than a so-called "Progressive Evangelical" like Jim Wallis when he points to the fact that the concept is a perversion of the the Gospel.
The Gospel is very simple. Paul said,
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve (1 Cor 15:1-5).Hmmm, I'm looking, I'm looking ... nope, not a single thing about redistribution of assets, feeding the poor, bringing down the rich. Not a hint at social justice. Not even a glimmer. You see, God is not in the business of making good people out of bad people, of fixing people or making life better. We are commanded to care for the poor, aid the sick, visit prisoners, and that sort of thing as a product of the Gospel, but those are products, not the Gospel. And somehow I'm not finding anything in the Bible at all about the government forcing redistribution of wealth on its people. That would simply violate any sense of biblical morality as a product of changed hearts. It is, in fact, what Jesus said. "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven" (Matt 6:1). When you do what is right because you have no choice and everyone knows about it, there is no reward. There is no reason.
Am I suggesting, as Mr. Beck does, that you bail out of your church if it leans toward "social justice". Not at all. For the reasonably rare genuine Christians who are still in churches of that type, perhaps there is still hope that you can be a light in the darkness that is that church. For the rest, well, if "social justice" is your gospel, then you've missed what Christianity really is. That is, if they're happy there, they're already outside of the Christian realm regardless of the name on the front of the building. What might be necessary, in fact, is that genuine Christians provide the genuine Gospel to these dead churches. Of course, most of them are so thoroughly inoculated against the truth that it is a losing proposition, but, on the other hand, it is God we are trusting, not our skills, rhetoric, or efforts, right? I hope so.
19 comments:
A response by conservative evangelical NT scholar Ben Witherington:
Indeed, there is in fact about as much in the Bible about doing justice as there is about love, and furthermore there is more in the Bible about helping the poor than there is about salvation itself! Imagine that. The Bible is not just about 'spiritual' matters. You seem to have the mistaken notion that 'social justice' is somehow a liberal commie agenda foisted on the Christian Church or on the Mormon Church by left-leaning liberals. Actually, the truth is it was set out as an obligation by God first for Israel and then for the Church. God, it is safe to say, is neither a left wing Democrat nor a right wing Republican, or even an Independent.
In my own denomination, the United Methodist Church, our founder, John Wesley (a strong supporter of the British monarchy before the Revolutionary war and about as far from a communist, socialist, or Nazi as one could imagine) once said 'there is no spiritual Gospel without the social Gospel' (and vice versa). He was of course right. Even if you just read the Sermon on the Mount in Mt. 5-7 you would discover than concern for the poor and for social justice were an essential part of Jesus' message. You may remember that Jesus warned that 'inasmuch as you have not fed, clothed, and sheltered 'the least of these', you have not done it unto to Me.' I'm wondering if you have been listening to Jesus lately. Might I suggest that before you go pontificating on matters about which you are ill informed, that you do a little research first? I suggest you start by reading carefully my recent book Jesus and Money. You will discover that Jesus is peeved with some of the things you have been fulminating about and have unbiblical opinions on.
And here is Professor of Christian Ethics David Gushee:
To summarize: for Jesus, as for the Jewish prophets in whose line he came, social injustice consists of misuses of power to create distortions of human community in which greed, domination, violence, and exclusion come to dominate human life. Social justice consists of human acts to resist social injustice by repairing such distortions of human community. We work today for social justice when we seek to create religious and political communities characterized by more economic justice, less domination, less violence, and more inclusive community. When we do so, we can have every assurance that we are attempting to put into practice God's will and indeed God's passion for a world that he made for precisely such justice.
I have never before written about Glenn Beck, and this is not really a post about him. I think of Mr. Beck as a hugely skilled political entertainer whose meteoric rise reflects his own considerable skills and the equally considerable political polarization of a nation that I love.
He has made his rise on skillfully inflammatory rhetoric that has hooked the emotions of millions. But this time he hooked the Bible and the God of the Bible. He managed to do something few have been able to do -- speaking only of my own religious community, he has united Catholics and Protestants, evangelicals and mainliners, Christian progressives and moderates and conservatives. He has offended all Christians who know that our God is a God of justice, and that advancing justice is central to our mission as a people and to the kingdom of God for which we work and wait.
Beck is not "accurate at all" here and it puzzles me greatly how some folks can read the Gospel and totally miss Jesus…
Naum,
Just to let you know, Ben Witherington is not a "conservative evangelical" nor is the United Methodist Church a conservative church. As such, Ben is siding with the liberal view ... you know, just like Jim Wallis. In other words, the liberal side is agreeing with itself ... which is what one would expect.
Now, you've offered quotes from "authoritative sources" (my term, not yours), but did not respond to the Scripture I gave in which Paul outlines the Gospel. Nothing in it about "social justice".
Beyond that, please note that I am not suggesting that Christians -- genuine Christians -- don't care about justice, the poor, the sick, and so on. I am, in fact, affirming that genuine Christians will have those concerns as a product of a changed heart. And note that I specifically stated that I was not defending Glenn Beck.
But, please, I want to give you a chance to clarify. Is it your view that the biblical message, the biblical mandate, the aim of Christ and the Church is and ought to be the equal distribution of wealth and privilege? (When I look up the term "social justice" on the web as it is used today, this is the definition I find.) Is your contention that the only godly government is a socialist government? Is it your contention that Christians are sinning if they own more than others? I don't want to misunderstand your point.
All justice is "social justice".
And the justice of the Jesus Gospel is not as you frame: "equal distribution of wealth and privilege".
It's about feeding the hungry, healing the sick, attending to the incarcerated, helping the poor, etc.…
I find it extremely hypocritical for many American Christians that side with Beck and Albert Mohler and others of the same philosophical persuasion…
Just about all the tools and splendor enjoyed in modern society circa 2010 are the result of massively public expenditures — from the interstate highway system to the internet. Pharmaceutical research, weapons manufacturing (which I weep over the immense sums spent on mechanical agents of death and destruction), sports stadiums, etc.… — all on the public dime. The transistor, modem, electricity, etc.… — all accomplished by acts from the so-called "evil" institution of government that "thieves" our money via taxation and gives it too the undeserving "them".
The typical conservative American Christian thinks nothing of partaking in these fruits made possible by public subsidy.
Yet, will howl like a Rand-ian libertarian when government and public funds are used to address injustice.
Incidentally, from my reading of Witherington (from his internet writings, books and scholarly output), he indeed is conservative evangelical and believe would describe himself as such. Methodist Church represents a fairly wide swath.
I can provide a number of other conservative evangelical sources on the matter, with more biblical training that you and me, if desired…
Some Biblical texts on charity — texts that show that the Bible mandated charity and didn't leave it up entirely to individuals to make the decision.
Again, just so we're clear, Naum, if you define "social justice" as "feeding the hungry, healing the sick, attending to the incarcerated, helping the poor" -- you know, the biblical mandate for Christians -- then you and I have no disagreement. I'm simply pointing out that you're defining the term in a different way than it is currently used. I didn't fabricate "equal distribution of wealth and privilege". That's the definition from here, here, here, and here (as a quick sampling). If you look at "social justice" programs at, say, ASU or U of A, they're talking about "the distribution of power, privilege, and oppression." The whole concept of "social justice" as the term is used today is not about "justice", but "equality" whereby all people have equal power, privilege, and resources.
Since you seem to like authoritative sources, here's the blog written today by the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
As a fan of Glenn Beck I have to say, as with anyone else really... If you have only heard 10 minutes of his rants, then you haven't heard enough to make a fair assessment.
I listen to alot of talk radio and news commentators and I have to say most people who say they don't like a particular commentator has actually never listened to them. Or they have only given them about 10 minutes to prove themselves.
Unfortunately, many who judge Christianity and look at Christians as intolerant, warmongers who hate... and many on the left describe Christians just like that... have invested very little time into learning the truth about Christians also..
Which is why I wasn't defending Glenn Beck. I'm not a fan. But, I'm also not a fan of "rants", which is why I haven't listened for more than 10 minutes. Do you think that I was unfair in my treatment of the statement?
I like Beck, but don't place him on any unique pedestal. He is what he is and that is simply a guy who had the good fortune to fall and rise in his personal life, which lead to conclusions about how to live his life from then on. He managed to parlay that into a broadcast career and for all that is still basically just "one of the guys", an "everyman" type. I find it unfortunate that he he's a Mormon, but better that than the drunken fool he used to be. He's now closer to God than he was, if only by degrees. Hopefully someday he'll get close enough for it to matter.
As to his show, a local radio station began to carry his radio show, but I don't have more than about 15 minutes to listen, if I feel like listening at all. But his Fox News show I've seen quite a bit and found it to be a great service to anyone who wants more than just a liberal slant, particularly regarding the current administration, but also regarding our culture and history in general. On all this he's pretty much self-taught, as he claims to read a lot these days, so he brings context.
He has brought to light much that never would have been without him and most of it, if not all, are things that are being brought to light far later than they should have, because no one in the mainstream media would take the time, being in the bag as they are for the current president.
The best part of it all is that he begs, on a regular basis, for those who criticize him to get in touch and prove him wrong. I have heard that this Jim Wallis character claims to have tried, but that doesn't mean a meeting between the two won't eventually happen.
Beck is not perfect. He admits this himself. But he does see what is happening and has a good nose for the nonsense of the political community.
He is also aware of the common usage of the term "social justice", a term which, when I hear it being used, I feel compelled to secure my wallet. Liberals of all sorts like to use this term to generate guilt feelings they can then exploit to serve their socialist agendas.
Christians are not immune from this ploy, with some being pressured by it, others taking part in applying the pressure. It can only loosely be justified by Scripture, but its true meaning is not Christian at all as it is most commonly used today.
1. I read the Mohler piece before I entered 1st comment here. It was predictable in tone and content. Yes, authoritative, but I don't give much cred to SB, given that they owe their existence to support of slavery, defended Jim Crow in modern times, and today advocate for torture and illegal, immoral invasions that are far from the model of Jesus, IMV. But that's fodder for another post ;)
2. Those are not NPOV definitions you are giving. They're loaded with inciting language. Once, you chided me for using the term "fundamentalist" here. Well, that's nothing compared to how priming those definitions were. Wikipedia (though certainly no infallible source either :)) has a decent article detailing the various threads of nebulous "social justice" — John Rawls "Theory of Justice" (which is an epic work, even if one does not agree totally with the philosophy), the Catholic Church, etc.… …they could have listed MLK and fight for civil rights and combatting poverty.
3. On MLK — when I think of social justice and Christians, he is definitely the model — nonviolent resistance, loving the enemy, addressing the systemic evil - True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
4. In that same vein, public education, health care, fair representation in the judicial system, anti-discrimination acts, etc.…
5. My point was, that all of us profit from a system and structure nearly ALL predicated on the public dime — the internet I compose this message, the electricity that powers the machine and lights the home, the roads we travel to and fro, the massive subsidies that grow cheap food, pharmaceutical research, etc.… …yet, the same Christian will eschew public support of anti-poverty programs?
6. All equal in wealth and income? No. Total egalitarianism? No. Nobody argues for that except a few marginalized radicals. But, equality of opportunity? Providing a social safety net for the "least of these"? Health care (which is the right to life IMV)? Yes, should be available to all, regardless of station in life. To hold to a philosophy otherwise doesn't seem very Jesus like to me.
Stan... No, not at all.
Naum ...
1. "I don't give much cred to SB" because in the past they've done bad things. You understand, I hope, that this is a classical logical fallacy that fails to address the arguments.
2. "Those are not NPOV definitions." They were the most common definitions I could find. They were not "right wing" or "conservative" sources, but a mix of everything. They were, in fact, the definitions of both ASU and UofA courses on the subject. I understand that wikipedia offers a lighter version and that some (you know, like you) mean other things by it than those definitions, but those definitions are much more standard definitions than you care to admit and they are the definitions that Beck was addressing. (By the way, your "few marginalized radicals" are growing in number and volume. They own the universities. The notion of equality has gone far beyond "equal opportunity" to "equal everything" in a much larger segment of American society than you seem to realize.)
But here's the primary problem. Jesus absolutely commanded Christians to be concerned about "social justice" (as you are defining it). But He commanded Christians to do it. Look around all you want. Point out anywhere in anything Jesus ever said that called for a political answer. Show me where Jesus, for instance, called on the Roman government to be more concerned about "social justice". Show me where Paul or Peter called on any government anywhere to be more concerned about helping the poor, feeding the hungry, or giving equal opportunity to all. One reference should suffice. Because, remember, the question is "What is the primary function of the church?" The primary function of the church is 1) to preach the Gospel and 2) equip the saints. Neither are a call for the government to change.
(Been infrequently lurking, Stan, but do know that your blog is appreciated even when it doesn't elicit comments.)
Naum:
I don't think it's hypocritical to support government spending for projects for the common good while opposing such spending for an individual's good: I don't think support for public infrastructure projects logically requires support for public welfare programs.
You disagree, but I note how you describe public welfare programs.
"The typical conservative American Christian thinks nothing of partaking in these fruits made possible by public subsidy.
"Yet, will howl like a Rand-ian libertarian when government and public funds are used to address injustice."
When you suggest that public welfare programs are a matter of addressing injustice, you lend significant credence to the definitions Stan cites for "social justice."
@Stan
1. SB bent is relevant, indeed, considering that (a) presently are still advocates for torture, for which world court and most all Christians abhor, (b) SB supported illegal, immoral invasion of country that posed no threat to U.S. based on fraudulent justification and did not even meet Augustinian "just war" and (c) Mr. Mohler himself defended dropping of Atomic bomb on innocent women and children in Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Realize I'm tempting discussion down a rathole, but it just puts into perspective how the SB has been historically on the wrong (or if you prefer, "wacky") side…
2. I believe you present a grossly distorted caricature of "social justice' defenders. Especially affixing labels and framing the argument as an absolutist axis which only exists in hypothetical realms of economics textbooks that whistle with anecdotes of mythical widgets. Social security, medicare, interstate highways, internet, space missions, food subsidies, etc.… all fall under the rubric of "socialism" too? Or are we advocating for a return to a new Gilded Age, ala a variant of neo-feudalism? Seriously. Again, all justice is "social justice" — to tie in pleas for economic justice with totalitarianism is to submit and swear fealty to corporate overlords (who profit immensely from "socialist" constructs and distribute the risk amongst the lower class rabble). Everything that goes against the teaching of Jesus, if we properly place his teaching in the context of 1st century Palestine.
3 Jesus was indeed political. For the "social justice" he preached and modeled, he was crucified as a threat to the empire's power structure. Even more so than the the violent insurgents — one of which was set free instead of Jesus.
@Bubba
So, in other words, it's OK for publicly supported infrastructure and for those wherewith to add fortunes to their personal coffers but not to invest into individual human lives to grant life (be it food, shelter, medical), educate minds, provide economic opportunity, etc.…
Naum,
Allow me to introduce you to a concept of logic. In the world of logic, there are standard fallacies that are classical errors in reasoning. I won't bore you with the listings, but one of the most common, best known fallacies in logic is the ad hominem argument. In that argument, a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Now, I suppose, if we're going to be purely factual, we could clear you of this because you didn't actually attack Dr. Mohler. Still, you never addressed his arguments, but rejected him because of his association. Okay, so, good news! You get to know a second extremely common logical fallacy: Guilt by Association.
While I'm pretty sure Dr. Mohler doesn't advocate torture, you've dismissed him on the basis that a group that employs him holds views contrary to yours on the topics of the invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since I disagree with on those two topics as well, the only logical conclusion I can come to is that you would simply ignore what I have to say just as you ignore what anyone associated with the Southern Baptists have to say because we disagree with you on those issues. Look, just be consistent, okay?
As for your characterization of "distorted caricature", I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree. My first response to Beck's words was, "Don't be ridiculous! Social justice is a good thing." Then I looked it up. It wasn't a prejudice or distortion. It was the vast majority of perspectives on the topic. "Social justice" is the current phrase used by the proponents of socialism. I don't make that up. I didn't manufacture the massive number of hits on Google that defined it that way. Nor did I suggest in the least that societal infrastructure like highways falls under "socialism". Yours perhaps is a distorted caricature of what I said? And I'm still waiting for one, single, solitary reference that Jesus or the New Testament anywhere address demands on government. And, seriously, Jesus was killed for His threat to the empire's power structure? Seriously?
But remember, I'm one of those idiots (I think your term was "wacky") who thinks that we need to finish what we started in Iraq and that the military was right in dropping those weapons in WWII. So why would you even care what I think about the vast number of references that define "social justice" as "the equal distribution of goods" and so on?
Naum:
"So, in other words, it's OK for publicly supported infrastructure and for those wherewith to add fortunes to their personal coffers but not to invest into individual human lives to grant life (be it food, shelter, medical), educate minds, provide economic opportunity, etc.…"
It seems to me that infrastructure such as roads actually does help provide economic opportunity to all: that's the basis of using public funds for building and maintaining roads, that they do actually benefit the entire community and not just some.
I certainly wouldn't describe public welfare programs as "granting" life: it's bad enough to describe the relationship of the state and the citizen with the language of guardians and wards, we don't need to compare the state to God.
We can debate about the morality, the constitutionality, and the scope of social welfare programs, but my point is beside all that.
My point is simply that support for the public funding of infrastructure projects that benefit everyone DO NOT logically require support for public welfare programs that directly subsidize a few. There's nothing philosophically inconsistent in supporting public roads but not public food stamps.
The inconsistency you see could only be possible if ONLY the wealthy benefit from roads, but it's easy to see that even soup kitchens are stocked from foods transported on those very same roads.
And, on one other point, you can frame social welfare as an investment (though I think you do so implausibly, at least in terms of historical returns), or you can frame it is a matter of justice, but you probably shouldn't do both.
Myself, I believe welfare is a matter, not of investment and certainly not any sort of justice that earthly institutions can bring about, but of simple charity: charity that ought to be provided locally and privately whenever possible, to limit it to those most in need, because such charity is really a luxury for society, one that can easily be overindulged.
No, you confuse ad hominem with evaluation of actual record of performance. If an entity is on the wrong side more often than not, it's a good wager that it will be wrong on the next issue.
On Albert Mohler and torture — see his take here which indeed allots for support of torture, a belief in stark contrast to the gospel of Jesus.
Regarding the unconscionable slaughter of the innocent in the illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq (which in no way fits the tenets of Augustinian "just war") and as we have learned (from the mouths of Colin Powell, Powell's assistant Larry Wilkerson, administration insiders) and other prominent voices) based on fraudulent deception (for which many respectable legal voices (Vincent Bugliosi, for example) argue that Bush/Cheney should be prosecuted for war crimes) and the ghastly extermination of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (for which we executed Germans for the same offense on a much smaller scale) — wow, Christians defending such acts is a gross offense against Christ, as I see.
As far as social justice, the Gospel and government, I provided you to links where conservative evangelical bible scholars indeed weigh in the positive.
Furthermore, it's terribly hypocritical to have your existence and lifestyle supported on a system and structure that's almost completely predicated on public works (as I stated, just about all facets of life circa 2010 are the product of government, which in our national birth charter, is defined as "we the people"), yet show disdain for the "least of these" and relegate them to tidings of spare crumbs from charity that doesn't even take care of its own.
No, you don't understand ad hominem. This logical fallacy simply ignores the argument of another side because it doesn't like the other side. It says, "I'm not even going to address the actual argument because I don't like the person." That is not an actual response to an argument.
You've heard the old line, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day." Even if you don't like the Southern Baptists in general or Dr. Mohler in particular, it doesn't address the argument because even horrible people can be right on occasion. That is the error of ad hominem.
By the way, as Bubba has pointed out, public works and public dole are not the same thing. Infrastructure benefits all of society. Rich and poor get to use the roads that government built (as an example). But, as many have been asking lately, "Where's my bail out?" When the government takes money from everyone to help a select group, it isn't "public works". And that's leaving off entirely the question of "Is it really helping them to give them a handout?"
>By the way, as Bubba has pointed out, public works and public dole are not the same thing.
You're playing a game of semantics. And framing the argument to suit your particular perspective.
Let's examine one institution you would probably ascribe to "public works" — schools. Most think it profitable for society at large to educate its youth. (And some Northern European nations take that further and apply it to young adults in college, with not coincidentally, better metrics of quality of life marks…). A more educated citizenry equates to a greater nation, right? I realize a small minority might dispute that notion, but on the whole, it's accepted.
Now, "public dole" is just a loaded, derogatory term that doesn't really apply to the concept of "social justice", or what I believe is more aptly termed "biblical justice" or just justice (as secular folk would no doubt take issue with that adjective, and find more offensive than the unfounded "Stalinist/Hitler-esque" depiction of "social justice"), if you prefer. It's pretty clear, from the words of Jesus, that we are keepers of our brothers and sisters in Christ (even those that do not accept Christ as Lord).
Wait, you say, that just means us, the church, not to be relegated to the act of government. Well, that's only half right, because in a representative government (it is "we the people"), the government is us. And although we're vastly diverse (even amongst Christ followers), there are more common threads than uncommon elements in how we advance the kingdom (on earth as it is in heaven).
Especially in a 21st century world — where it takes less workers to accomplish equivalent and greater marks or productivity with each passing year, yet inequality is at marks unprecedented in modern times, hitherto seen only back in feudalism (or more recently, the Gilded Age).
No, I don't mean that we should strive for absolute egalitarianism where everyone must remain at the same economic station, hold the exact same lot of wealth and be paid exactly the same. That's a silly caricature, and a political goal only advocated by a very infinitesimal and misguided group. But excessive inequality has ghastly effects for civilization. This comment is long enough already, and it's not an economics debate, but just look at studies and works of economists (one in particular, Robert Frank, has written eloquently on the "arms race" it sets off and the detrimental state it incurs on our nation/world).
"That's a silly caricature, and a political goal only advocated by a very infinitesimal and misguided group."
Just FYI, you know, as an educational service from me to you, it isn't infinitesimal. Walk the halls of ASU or U of A and talk to the professors who are considering such topics and you'll find that it's their idea of a good idea and the idea they are edging their students toward. I think it may be smaller than I appear to be saying, but I'm certain it's much more prevalent than you realize.
Post a Comment